Sid Walker

Yes, going after effective defence lawyers is becoming rather a habit, isn't it? There's Lynne Stewart, not to mention the defence lawyers in Germany who represent thought crime victims such as Zundel and Rudolf. Major Mori has been a breath of fresh air from the outset. He has been a remarkably effective public advocate for Hicks - all the more so because he's in the US military. I was suspicious when Mori was first appointed, but he has shown himself, over time, to be a decent and very outspoken advocate. Unless I've missed something 'major', Mori is a credit to the American legal profession.

A brief but useful summary of the current state of play in the strange case of the WTC-7 / BBC 'miracle' report... BBC Responds To WTC 7 Video By Calling It A Conspiracy Theory March 5th, 2007 — socalster Yep, the BBC has responded, and just as expected, their explanation doesn’t even begin to explain what happened on that day. First of all, let us not forget the most important bit of information that the BBC has given us. They have LOST the tapes! This is the key information that they want you to gloss over as you read their explanation. Let’s use logic to take out their explanation point by point…… BBC Says: “We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that the buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.” Logic Says: You received information from somewhere that WTC 7 had fallen otherwise you wouldn’t have reported it. You obviously believed that the information was reliable and from a very good source. BBC Says: ”In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or innacurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like ‘apparently’ or ‘it’s reported’ or ‘we’re hearing’ and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.” Logic Says: You didn’t source your report. You didn’t tell us where or how you received word of WTC 7 collapsing, and to check that report all you would have had to do was take a peek at the NY skyline to see if the building was still there. You’re claiming chaos was the result of untrue information, but it wasn’t untrue…It just hadn’t happened yet. You didn’t get it wrong, you got it right…Nearly 30 minutes too early! Are we to assume that was just “luck?” BBC Says: We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get a hold of it.” Logic Says: A major media like the BBC does not lose their tapes of one of the most eventful days in the history of the United States….And if someone reading this does have a tape of the BBC output, don’t send it to them, they’ll just “lose” it. You can read BBC’s explanation yourself here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007...conspiracy.html Take note of the comments that follow. Nobody is satisfied with the BBC response. Why? Because they didn’t answer any of the “unanswered questions.”

An update on the story of the BBCs (now admitted) reporting of the collapse of WTC-7 more than 20 minutes before the event actually took place. The BBC is now hunkered down, sticking to its story that this was merely a case of inaccurate reporting in the confusion of the occasion. It doubtless hopes the bemused public will lose interest in the story - especially if it remains out of the mainstream media. If anyone doubted that the western mass media serves as a biased trumpet for evil forces, it's failure to take up this story mut constitute the ultimate proof. Where are the reports about this remarkable story in The New Tork Times? The Washington Post? The Times... or The Guardian, for that matter? Prison Planet's latest summary is HERE I notice that, among the 40 or so comments, there's a post by that ole teeerroooowwweest OBL himself, who appears to have resurfaced to have a chuckle at the Beeb's expense. Meanwhile, a related storm has broken out at www.archive.org, where TV footage from 9/11 has been deleted over the last few days... Debate about this latest apparent attempt to stifle independent investigation is raging HERE More good questions... more feeble excuses. It might be worth downloading that webpage - just in case it disappears down the memory hole too!

The pathetic parade of US Presidential candidates pledging their unswerving loyalty to the Zionist agenda is now well underway. Barak Obama is the latest. He may feel that he has no choice if he wants to stand a chance of winning the nomination. It would be hard to find a clearer example of servility, bias and double-standards than Obama's display of obeisance to AIPAC. As well as adding his personal endorsement to the bullying of Iran - up to and including a US military attack - he apparently felt compelled to evince complete lack of concern for the plight of the Palestinians and their democratic rights. Prominet Dems such as Barak and Clinton thus present a Janus-like face to the peace movement. They are shocked and awed by the Iraq War, which they (are encouraged to) present as Bush's War. Yet they eshew anti-war rhetoric that might make a real difference NOW - instead giving the nod to another unprovoked attack on a major nation that's at the top of Israel's hitlist.

Well, the British Government may have been less than assiduous in pursuing the cases of British Guantanamo internees, Stephen. But at least Blair asked for their release. And it happened. Howard never made that simple request for Hicks' release. The Australian Government, until very recently, simply cut this guy loose. It has taken five years, but Australians are now waking up to the full horror of what's happened to one of their fellow citizens. ' The Oz Government, under public pressure, has started to make noises - but its 'solution' is for the US authorities to speed up a military tribunal process that most normal, informed people regard as abhorrent. The biggest problem, for the Howard Government, I repeat, seems to be that Hicks can't be charged under any Australian laws. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?

Thanks for the offer but as Andy points out it is not necessary yet. However, it might be needed if Les Albiston carries out his threat to sue the forum. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9029 Along with many other forum members, I really haven't wanted to get involved in a topic I know little about, but if Mr Albiston doesn't want an international campaign on his hands he'd be well advised not to sue this forum. Like most of the other forum members, I imagine, I'm more interested in catching bigger fish. But we do like posting to this forum - and would be 'disappointed' if it was thrown into turmoil for no good reason.

After five quiet years, the issue of David Hick's continuing imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay has started to heat up. It's a long story... The website Fair Go for David Hicks gives a lot of background. It would not be overstating the case to say this young Australian has been abandoned by the Australian Government, which until very recently made no murmurs at all about his plight - and has said the 'problem" with his repatriation to Austrlaia is that Hicks hasn't broken any Australian laws! David is now facing a US military tribunal and the prospect of a very long sentence for "giving material support to terrorism". I suspect his release - unlike the other former Australian inmate of Guantanamo and several British internees - is not favoured by the authorities on either side of the Pacific Ocean, because he has a great story to tell if he's ever released and his spirit, apparently, has not been broken. I understand that in 1999 the young adventurer / convert to Islam assisted the Moslem side in Kosovo. The USA helped sponsor and fund these forces, which were a thorn in the side of Serbia. When 9-11 came along, David Hicks was in Afghanistan. The rest, as they say, is history...

Good thread title, Myra. Films coming about poisoned former spy, It's tempting to hope one will do it right, but what are the odds? My answer is the chances approximate to zero. This is suspiciously like the roll out of the latest Hollywood genre - anti-Russian movies for a new generations of consumers.

Does anyone else know more about this interesting character, who carried out some crucial tasks for the Kennedy campaign and administration, was promoted by Johnson and also played a role involving Ted Kennedy in McGovern's '72 campaign manouverings. The NYT obituary is below. Myer Feldman, 92, Adviser to President Kennedy, Dies By DOUGLAS MARTIN Published: March 3, 2007 Myer Feldman, an aide to President John F. Kennedy who remained virtually unknown to the public while playing an integral role in planning his presidential campaign, White House press conferences and governmental policies, died Thursday in Bethesda, Md. He was 92. His son, James, announced the death. Mr. Feldman lived in Potomac, Md., and Miami. Mr. Feldman’s importance was suggested in The New York Times Magazine in an article in 1962 about the prestige of having a low license-plate number in the District of Columbia. His number, 116, was the lowest of any White House official’s. But an article in The New York Post in 1964 called Mr. Feldman “the White House’s anonymous man.” Mr. Feldman, a lawyer known as Mike, led a group assigned to find negative information about Kennedy’s Republican opponent in the 1960 presidential race, Richard M. Nixon. They compiled a mountain of potential embarrassments nicknamed the Nixopedia, Theodore C. Sorensen, a Kennedy adviser, wrote in his book, “Kennedy,” in 1965. Mr. Sorensen was Mr. Feldman’s direct superior at the White House, where Mr. Feldman held the title deputy special counsel. When Kennedy was preparing to counter critics of his Roman Catholicism in a crucial campaign speech in Houston, Mr. Feldman found Irish-sounding names of Texans who had died at the Alamo for Kennedy to use in the speech. More importantly, he helped prepare Kennedy for the televised debate with Nixon. Mr. Feldman was among a group who had breakfast with the president before news conferences. He was a behind-the-scenes liaison to Israel, a principal adviser on domestic policy and the channel for business requests, like tariffs and air routes. “If Mike ever turned dishonest, we could all go to jail,” Kennedy said, according to Mr. Sorensen. Mr. Feldman stayed on in the White House after Kennedy’s death to serve President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson promoted him to special counsel. In Johnson’s 1964 presidential race, Mr. Feldman reprised his dirty-tricks role by leading a secret campaign to demean Senator Barry M. Goldwater, Johnson’s opponent. Among other tactics, they fed hostile questions to reporters who were following Mr. Goldwater, Robert Dallek wrote in “Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times 1961-1973.” Myer Feldman was born on June 22, 1914, in Philadelphia. His father, a tailor, died in 1918 in the great influenza epidemic. He attended Girard College in Philadelphia, which was founded as a boarding school for fatherless boys ; he graduated at 16. He worked for a roofing company, then won a scholarship to the University of Pennsylvania. He went on to that university’s law school, where he was on the law review. He taught at the law school until joining the Army Air Forces in 1942. After the war, he worked for the Securities and Exchange Commission, rising to executive assistant to the chairman. He went on to work for the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, where he met Mr. Sorensen, who was then an aide to Kennedy, who was then a senator. Through Mr. Sorensen, he became a legislative assistant to Kennedy, who gleefully assigned the city boy to agricultural issues. “Mike, how are the crops?” Kennedy would ask, The Post reported. Mr. Feldman was sent to meet quietly with Israeli leaders, particularly David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir, about matters including arms sales, Palestinian refugees, and whether Israel was building a nuclear weapon. He remained a trusted liaison to the Kennedy family. In 1972, just after Senator George McGovern won the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. McGovern’s advisers wanted Senator Edward M. Kennedy to be his running mate, Time magazine reported. Mr. Feldman was dispatched to the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass. “Ted’s not going to do it,” he reported back. (Thomas F. Eagleton was chosen instead, but dropped out after disclosures of his psychiatric treatment. R. Sargent Shriver, a close friend of Mr. Feldman and the brother-in-law of Senator Kennedy, was then selected.) After Mr. Feldman left government service in 1965, he started a Washington law firm that grew to 100 attorneys; made many millions buying and selling radio stations; and helped finance the condominium boom in Washington in the 1970s. He participated in many more political campaigns, usually in the background, and his charitable work included being chairman of the executive committee of the Special Olympics. Mr. Feldman was a book review editor for the Saturday Review of Literature and helped produce six plays. In the Kennedy White House, where wit and intellect sometimes seemed a competitive sport, Mr. Feldman and Mr. Sorensen traded memos in rhyming couplets. Mr. Feldman and his first wife, Jackie Moskovitz, divorced in 1979. In addition to his son, James, of Washington, he is survived by his wife, Adrienne Arsht; his sister, Ethel Mufson, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; a daughter, Jane Feldman of Hermosa Beach, Calif.; and two grandchildren.

An observation from afar. By comparison with other world leaders, Tony Blair has run a strong line on climate change. This is to his credit and to the credit of the British Government. Whether the rhetoric has been turned into action within Britain is another matter - but at least he has been a positive voice for change on the 'world stage'. One might make a similar comment about Blair and the issue of African debt relief. I suspect that when the controllers of this pathetic character began to turn the screws and push him in directions he knew were very, very wrong, such as attacking Iraq, Blair was also told he could continue to push hard on other issues, notably climate change. This would have helped salve his conscience - and gien him a lifeline of hope that history will vindicate him. I expect that, in a few years time, Blair plans to be like a latter-day Al Gore, stomping the world stage and puffing himself up in support of good causes. That's if he doesn't take the Major alternative retirement path: fast bucks and a quiet life. It's a route I see was recently taken by ex-Tory leader Michael Howard, in a deal one might think was invented by "conspiracy theoriists" if it wasn't, apparently, true. As it appears the original aticle about Howard's 'diligence' is no longer visible online in the Independent's archives (fast loss, guys!), here's a copy for the record...

Interesting and sinister. My only question would be if Soviet agents did it, or asked their pals in US inteligence to do it as a favor for some favor in Russia for them....both countries are now run by / controlled by gangsters and nothing less than that. Peter The Soviet Union was disbanded circa 1990. If you know of Soviet agents, operating anywhere, I'm sure it would be of interest to the curent Russina Goverment. More seriously, you left out a third possibility, which seems to me rather more plausible. That is the possibility that this latest murder is a set-up, directed against Putin and the Russian leadership, by forces in the west that are less than enthusiastic about his independent, pro-Russia, anti-plutocratic polices. I see the 'soft' side of that set-up almost daily on satellite TV, with the usual suspects (Fox, CNN, BBC) gradually cranking up anti-Putin rherotic. The 'hard' side may well consist of false flag atrocities, which are grist to the media mill (they give the pre-spun media chatterers something nasty to chatter about).. Only a few days ago, the Russian Foreign Minister called on Israel to sign up to the Non Proliferation Treaty - something apparently too risque for any 'electable' western political leader at this time. In fact, one has to go back to JFK to find a US President who had the topic of Israeli nukes firmly in his sights. The well-publicised killings of Putin's critics seem rather too "pat" to me. They are murders of people who recently made very quotable quotes warning against Putin. In the western mass mediq, these quotes have been given great prominence, along with the story of their mysterious murder. The obvious conclusion is that Putin's agents are killing dissidents. You throw in another possibility, that Putin somehow gets western agents to do his dirty work. But one wonders what advantage Putin might gain from these murders - given the enormous publicity they are attracting in the west? The people murdered were relatively unknown to westerners before their death. I'd be inclined to look below the surface for an explanation, rather than accept pre-packaged spin from western media sources that have a lousy repuation for honesty on assassinations, false flag operations and suchlike.

Voltaire's comment is fresh today as 240 years ago: Aghanistan, Camp X-Ray, Iraq, Palestine, the Lebanon...

Just checking here, is this the same BBC that has lost years worth of "Doctor Who"? Is it impossible for the footage to have been misplaced? Why would anyone in their right mind give a script out that a building has collapsed that intends to do it purposely and secretly? Does that really make any sense? Any sense at all? Wouldn't it just be easier to let the news agencies find out on their own and report it? Isn't it just way more likely that the BBC either got bad info or misinterpreted the reports that said it looked like it would collapse? I would have thought that precognition is more in the line of "miracles" than "bad info". As to the scripting of 9-11, I suggest you pass on your suggestions to the organizers of this rather obvious false flag operation.

A day old but spot on, IMO (emphases added) The 911 Script and the Age of Terror Wednesday February 28th, 2007 I must admit that I have been deeply shocked by a story that appeared today on my website, to the effect that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 23 minutes before it actually took place. Previously, the BBC claimed that it had lost all of its 9/11 coverage, but this video has now surfaced. I watched it myself, and sat there with my blood literally running cold as I saw their reporter saying that Building 7 had collapsed while it was still visible behind her, perfectly intact. Now, why wasn't this just a simple mistake? CNN was reporting rumors that Building 7 might be about to collapse an hour before it happened. But the BBC reporter is clearly seen reading from a teleprompter. Obviously, she was reading something written on it, and not making up what would have then seemed to be a wild tale. In other words, she was reading a script, and that script had been put up on her teleprompter early. Not only that, she was sitting in front of a live image of the still-intact Building 7. Somebody wrote that script and did so while Building 7 was still standing. How could they know that it would collapse, even if it was unstable, even if there was a fire in the cellars? No, the author of the script did not think the building had collapsed. He knew that it would, and the statement was read early as a miscue. If the BBC had not lost the video of that entire day, it would be easier to believe that this was some sort of a mistake. But the idea that an organization like the BBC, which prides itself on the record it keeps, would lose an entire day of some of the most historic footage it has ever shot is just very difficult to believe. It seems more likely that there was something on that footage that they wanted to bury. As, indeed, there was. I have long since abandoned the US media as a lost cause. Thank God we have the internet, because the American press are just a bunch of whores, frankly. I spent 45 minutes yesterday with CNN Headline News today, looking for news of Iran. 31 of those minutes were spent on Anna Nicole Smith, and the rest was fluff. Pravda did better during the height of the Soviet Union. At least it didn’t insult the intelligence of its readers, but only bored them with its obvious lies. The American media goes it one better, by ignoring the real news and running the silly stuff. And the papers that should be doing better, such as the New York Times, have been singing the "no conspiracy here" song since the days of the Kennedy assassination. Because of what appears to be an almost surrealistic belief that people cannot do bad things in concert, they missed Watergate. And they are missing 9/11 as well. They all are, and, in the end, they will be abandoned by the public because their silence and refusal to investigate are, in effect, lies spoken without words on behalf of what is coming to seem a devastating and widespread conspiracy against the lives of thousands of people, against western civilization and against human freedom at the deepest level. At present, virtually every street in Britain is watched by video, and there is a bill on its way into parliament that will ban public photography. Can you imagine, not being able to take a picture outdoors? What madness is this, what evil insanity? But it's real, and it doesn't end in Britain. Last October, without debate and in the dead of the night, the president was given the power by language buried in the budget bill to use the military as a police force within the United States, and to nationalize the National Guard without consulting governors. In other words, the Posse Cometatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807 were usurped without a single word of debate and without the least whisper from the American press. To its credit, the New York Times did pick up on this story recently, reporting the event on February 19, many months after it happened. But why wait? These two acts are cornerstones of American freedom, but they have gone the way of habeas corpus, sacrificed to what now appears to be a self-generated war on terror, the purpose of which could not be more clear: it is not to protect us, it is to take away our freedom and turn this country into a dictatorship, and its little sisters the United Kingdom and Australia into the bargain. And the scale of the thing is terrifying. If the BBC was reading a script, as it must have been, then they were all reading scripts, and not one reporter has come forward, not one editor, and there is not a breath of suggestion in the 9/11 Commission report that any such thing might have been happening. And yet, one cannot forget that there was substantial trading in puts on the stock of insurance companies and airlines prior to 9/11, and that some of this trading was traced to individuals who had been associated with the CIA, as Jim Marrs reports in the Terror Conspiracy. One also cannot forget that Condoleezza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission that the National Security Council was blindsided by the attack, even as the 11 memos warning of it that the FAA sent to her while she was its chairman were classified until after the last presidential election. How long can this go on? How much more can we stand? I find it utterly fantastic that conservatives are not outraged about the usurpation of Posse Cometatus and the Insurrection Act, and the attack on habeas corpus, not to mention the wholesale use of torture and atrocity as a matter of national policy. The Bush presidency is a burnt-out rump, it would seem, reduced to this odd recent practice of sending its officials into harm’s way in the apparent hope that any misfortune befalling them will gain it some sympathy, even as the president prepares for the future by buying a large estate in Paraguay. (However, he might have done a little more research about that country before he bought, given that the Colorado Party, which has been in power since it was set up by Nazi sympathizers and German immigrants in 1947, is now facing a serious threat from Msgr. Fernando Lugo Méndez, a populist bishop who is likely to win the next general election.) And then there is the terrifying prospect that another 9/11 will take place, but this time one so terrible that we will all desperately cleave to authority in the hope of preserving our lives, no matter who we think might be responsible. Anything less than a nuclear attack on one or more American cities would drive Bush from office, because it would reveal his entire anti-terrorism apparatus for the gimcrack sham that it is. And when I say sham, I mean sham. Right now, they are just getting around to installing equipment that would detect nuclear weapons being brought, for example, into the Port of Los Angeles—equipment that should and could have been in place every American port six months after 9/11. So it's perfectly possible that nuclear weapons are already in our cities, and have been there for years. As the Bush presidency winds down, the only real question is, will they be used to bring the American people to heel, or will he choose the Paraguay option? I used to believe that the Administration let 9/11 happen so that it could have an excuse to attack Iraq and destroy our freedoms. Condoleeza Rice ignored the FAA warnings because she knew that an attack would transform an unpopular president into a beloved leader—which it did...for a time. Given this latest piece of news, I think that anybody who seriously thinks that the whole event wasn't carefully planned and fed to us as a scripted "news event" needs to have their head examined. It was planned, period. Otherwise this reporter wouldn’t have been announcing one of the disasters before it happened. It's inescapable. This gets me to a subject I have been visiting for years, the Valerie Plame affair. As I write this, a Washington jury is deciding the fate of Administration scapegoat Lewis Libby. If he is convicted, it will be for lying to a grand jury and to the FBI, not for the real crime, which was revealing the agent in the first place. And, presumably, that will be an end to the matter. But, hold on, it might be something similar to Condi Rice’s ignoring those FAA memos. How, you may ask? This is how: Valerie Plame was a non-official cover, which is a CIA officer working abroad outside of the diplomatic context. She was an "energy consultant" for a front company called Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was allegedly involved in, among other places, Iran. Shortly after she was 'outed,' there were brief stories here and there in the media to the effect that US intelligence in Iran had been compromised. Of course, the moment the Iranians discovered that the Brewster Jennings employees in that country were actually US agents, they would all have been rounded up. Given the extraordinary fact that 9/11 now appears almost certainly to have been pre-scripted and therefore planned, dare we ask the question: was Valerie Plame's name revealed IN ORDER TO destroy our intelligence apparatus in Iran? This would put out our intelligence eyes in a very crucial respect. It would make it impossible for us to find the vents and air intakes of buried Iranian nuclear facilities, meaning that we cannot send conventional bunker buster bombs down those points of access. As Iran has buried and hardened its crucial facilities against any conventional attack except one that uses those weak points, we have been left helpless. There is only one type of weapon available to us that will certainly disrupt the centrifuges crucial to the manufacture of U-235. They must be shaken so hard that they break, and right now the only weapon in any western arsenal that will guarantee this without causing massive collateral damage is a neutron bomb. So, if somebody has been spoiling for a nuclear war--dare I say in hopes of inducing the Rapture--then the destruction of US intelligence capabilities in Iran would be the best possible way to gain that result. And the leaking of Valerie Plame's name might have been what would get that job done. Too conspiratorial, Mr. Reporter? Time to snort derision at the internet nut? YOU do your homework--but of course you won't, because you report to an editor who is telling you to turn up your nose, and if you fight back, you'll lose your job. And as for that editor--who calls the shots in his life? Well, that's easy, because we're now down to about twenty high-level managers across the whole American press! The outrageous flaunting of the Sherman Anti-Trust act over the past few years has enabled this situation to be engineered. So, do we have a free media? Of course not. And will they continue to march to the tune of higher powers? Certainly they will. And the situation is dangerous right now. It is very dangerous. A few days ago the president of Iran announced that his country would not stop its nuclear weapons program. Middle Eastern elements threatened devastating retaliation if Iran is attacked. If it is attacked, and the attack is nuclear, then I fear that we can expect a nuclear attack in the United States, from a bomb or bombs that have been put in place, or allowed to be put in place, by our nation's enemies, who, I believe, are shockingly close to home. If you want to know what will happen after that—well, I suggest you read the script.

Is this good enough or is this also part of the conspiracy Sid? http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/b...sage041029.html Ah, Bin Laden's pre-election special? It makes interesting viewing in historical perspective. No, I don't think that's a credible "confession". I am not alone, either. Check out THIS or THIS.

Peter Have you read earlier material posted about 9/11 to this forum? I ask, because you seem to re-introduce the same red herrings, despite their being previously answered. No one that I know in their right minds thinks "the government" (which Government?") orchestrated 9/11. The government ain't that smart... and its processes are largely open and very leaky. Elements within government at various levels, on the other hand, must have been involved if, as I and millions of others believe, the 9/11 attacks were Zionist false flag operations. You and millions of others think it was a Zionist false flag operation? Please show me a reference to that piece of information. I have read maybe a couple of two x two off articles mentioning somehting like that... So you are seriously conteneding the Israelis or their US Zionist handlers orchestrated 9/11... Like I said ... The moon will be blood red this saturday ... The apocalypse is nigh.. I don't mean to be rude, Peter, but I decline the opportunity for further "9/11 for beginners" debate with someone who is so gleefully unfamiliar with the most basic relevant reading material. I suggest you re-read some of the threads on this forum, starting with this one.

I didn't ask "what does this have to do with Iran" I asked "What does the so-called 'Al-queda' have to do with Iran?" The connection you have re-iterated is so tenuous it is laughable. This might not matter so much if it was not part of the case being made by war monguers in Washington and Tel Aviv for launching an unprovoked nuclear attack on a nation of some 70 million people. No laughing matter, really.

Peter Have you read earlier material posted about 9/11 to this forum? I ask, because you seem to re-introduce the same red herrings, despite their being previously answered. No one that I know in their right minds thinks "the government" (which Government?") orchestrated 9/11. The government ain't that smart... and its processes are largely open and very leaky. Elements within government at various levels, on the other hand, must have been involved if, as I and millions of others believe, the 9/11 attacks were Zionist false flag operations.

Thanks, Peter. If it's all the same to you, I don't think I can stomach re-reading Monbiot's evasive drivel about 9-11 once again - not until he deigns to answer my questions posted on this forum, at any rate. You can rest assured I am familiar with it. I notice your critical faculties are in full gear on the Alexander Litvinenko thread, where you opine Putin is to blame and Russia is slipping back into a police state. Yet in the case of the 9-11 vids, any apology for the official line seems good enough. No wonder you stick up for Mr Porter of BBC News. You share his world view! I hadn't realised your comment about the lunar eclipse was "harmless tongue in cheek criticism". Nor can I understand it, even now you have pointed the apparent joke. Just as we appear to have different world views, we also find quite different things amusing. Apparently, Maybe my sense of humor is a little warped. I'll go along with that. Anyway, I believe that the BBC's jouornalistic integrity was exposed to be weak when they were caught taping a newsclip of the WTC 7 collapse before the fact. I don't believe the collapse was in doubt at that point but the typical reporter's gambit is to "scoop" his rivals and any tactic short of actually producing the event is used. I think they knew #7 was going to be "Pulled" and scooped everybody as is their wont. So what? If someone knew the building was going to be "helped" to collapse to ensure the safety of surroundng bldgs. etc. what does that signify? A tempest in a teapot. So Peter In your latest theory, you accept that WTC-7 was 'pulled' (demolished deliberately). But you don't think that's a big deal. No matter that two ifficial inquiries have overlooked the topic. "So what?" is your latest tack. May I ask, Peter, how long you think it takes to rig a 47-storey building for demolition so it collapses as perfectly as ?Do you think the explosives were set on the afternoon of 9/11? (I suggest a moment's reflection would tell you that's impossible) Or do you think the building was pre-rigged with explosives? If so, when and on whose authority? Do you now claim it's normal for large tower blocks in NYC to be pre-rigged with explosives?

Don't know anything about the USS Liberty? Then I suggest you do some reading. You could do worse than start HERE There also a reasonable summary HERE Regarding 'Al-queda', where to start? I think I'll simply ask a question. Whether or not one believes this alleged organisation actually exists, and whether or not one accepts that some folk now identified as 'Al-queda' worked closely with western intelligence agencies before the latter unilaterally changed a shadowy ally into an archetypal arch-enemy... please answer me this. What does the so-called 'Al-queda' have to do with Iran? Please give a reference to your claim that Bin Laden took credit for the 9/11 attacks. HERE is an interview where he explicitly denies involvement:

Thanks, Peter. If it's all the same to you, I don't think I can stomach re-reading Monbiot's evasive drivel about 9-11 once again - not until he deigns to answer my questions posted on this forum, at any rate. You can rest assured I am familiar with it. I notice your critical faculties are in full gear on the Alexander Litvinenko thread, where you opine Putin is to blame and Russia is slipping back into a police state. Yet in the case of the 9-11 vids, any apology for the official line seems good enough. No wonder you stick up for Mr Porter of BBC News. You share his world view! I hadn't realised your comment about the lunar eclipse was "harmless tongue in cheek criticism". Nor can I understand it, even now you have pointed the apparent joke. Just as we appear to have different world views, we also find quite different things amusing.

I just read up on the US Constitution; To fund groups which have, on their agenda, the US targeted as an enemy, is a clear violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution. To give aid to the enemy consitutes treason in the war on terror, don't ya know! (I accidently tagged the wrong quote in they prior post) But who takes any notice of the Constitution anymore, Peter? It's just there for old times sake! After all, on the basis you have cited, all US aid to Israel has been illicit since the early 1950s (Lavon affair) - and unquestionably illicit since the deliberate Israeli bombing attack on the USS Liberty in 1967.

Well, Peter, you do take all this in a good-humoured way, don't you? It is a joking matter, isn't it? Some 3,000 people were murdered on the day; the ensuing wars have costs hundreds of thousand of lives; our civil libeties are in shreds; now the neocons openly plan nuclear war. Amusing? One is reminded of the dancing Israelis who also had a sense of humour not shared by most of us. However, the good humour of long-suffering BBC viewers is wearing thin. Here is a third and final batch of comments to the BBC article Part of the conspiracy? (2) _____________________

Below are a few more comments to Porter's latest 'rebuttal' (Part of the conspiracy? (2)) I repeat them here because IMO they are worth reading - and the BBC clearly has problems archiving its own material. If anyone wishes to see the collapse of WTC-7, it's _____________________________

Well thanks for your further contribution, Kevin. The BBC's Richard Porter has a more comprehensive rebuttal entiteld Part of the conspiracy? (2) Well, it turns out there is NO STORY here. Everything has a quite innocent explanation. How do I know? Because Mr Porter says so. He concludes: Nothing to see here! Move along folks! Thanks heavens the BBC can sort out the wheat from the chaff! Otherwise, life might get confusing! The comments to Porter's latest, however, suggest the BBC is not able to convince its general audience quite so easily. Some of these comments are rather well-informed. A common theme is that people demand to know the original source of this WTC-7 collapse story. It's a detail to this 'non-story' that Porter seems very disinclined to reveal. What a shame. If only it was a real story, we might have real journalists at the BBC follow it up. As it is, the mass media makes the 'news' and the public must rely on its own journalism to make sense out of it. Perhaps we should receive a licence fee and the BBC staff should pay it?