Sid Walker

A footnote to my previous post, just to make my position clear... Q: Do I claim Perry - or Aarons & Loftus - to be credible sources? A: Their connections are interesting and they are certainly well-connected in Zionist circles. That doesn't make what they say true or false. Their output must be sifted and evaluated like all other secondary sources. I think it likely contains both wheat and chaff. There's a recent parallel. In the 1990s, more and more astonishing information came out about the Israeli nuclear program of the 50s and 60s. Characters who had been central players in the drama, such as Shimon Peres, were clearly involved in the release of this info - even though it breached official Israeli policy by discussing the Israeli WMD program, still officially denied even then. What was going on? Among the various motivations for finally telling the truth (however partial and distorted) may be good old fashioned vanity. I suspect Peres, for instance, wanted the world to know what a crucial role he'd played in his nation's affairs. What's a good scam worth if - in the end - you can't even brag about it to your mates? A servicable arrangement for Peres was to brag to his mates, but be sure he picked those mates with great care, so they'd observe necessary discretion as required and - of course - put a favourable spin on affairs from his perspective. Even after a key historical player is deceased, there are often family interests that seek to establish, uphold or defend their reputations.

Interesting post Norman. As part of better defining our terms (and using better-defined terms), may I suggest we DON'T get snagged in THIS discussion by that tired old 'DENIAL' fallacy. You wote: "Three of my best friends deny evolution" Well, perhaps so. But I don't. And it's not a position I''d argue. The vast fossil record seems to me comprehensive and compelling evidence that there has been change over time in organic life forms on this planet. The issue is how we account for these changes. Darwinists propose the twin 'forces' of random mutation and natural selection have sufficient potency to account for all the observed changes, including very substantial macro-evolutionary leaps. They also typically have a quite geocentric view of organic life - and have been resistant to the notion that organic life that is similar to organic life on earth permeates the universe and did not necessarily originate on earth. I don't believe the major problems of macro-evolution have ever really been 'solved'. Perhaps that's the nature of the beast. It may not be possible to demonstrate how a giant evolutionary 'leap' occured long in the past. However, those who say Darwinism is a 'proven fact' are, IMO, greatly overstaing the case. To describe doubts that Darwinism is a correct and full description of the process of evolution as a tendency to 'deny evolution' is not helpful, IMO. It reflects a misuse (not for the first time in public debate!) of the concept of 'denial'.

- duplicate post -

I think the idea that Victor Rothschild was part of a Soviet Jewish conspiracy is laughable. Rothschild was a member of the famous banking dynasty, was born in 1910. A talented scientist, Rothschild joined MI5 during the Second World War. This included working with Arthur Koestler to produce anti-Nazi propaganda. In 1940 Rothschild suggested that Anthony Blunt should be invited to join the secret service. He also rented a house to his friend Guy Burgess. After the liberation of France Rothschild worked with Dick White, Kim Philby and Malcolm Muggeridge at the MI6 offices established at the Rothschild family mansion in Paris. It is clear that Rothschild was an anti-fascist in the 1930s and 1940s. So was virtually everyone who had half a brain. After the war he did nothing to help the Soviets. His big buddy was Peter Wright, a fanatical anti-communist. In 1961 Rothschild passed on information to Arthur Martin that Kim Philby had tried to recruit Flora Solomon, as a spy in 1937. Rothschild also worked closely with Peter Wright and is believed to have supplied him with information that suggested that Roger Hollis was a Soviet spy. Edward Heath was a great admirer of Rothschild and in 1970 he appointed him head of the government's Central Policy Review Staff. It was later claimed that Rothschild persuaded Heath to appoint Michael Hanley as Director General of MI5 in 1972. Later Margaret Thatcher appointed Rothschild as her unofficial security adviser. Remember, Thatcher would have seen Rothschild's file. (It was Thatcher who exposed Blunt). Victor Rothschild died in 1990. Four years later, Roland Perry, published The Fifth Man, where he unconvincingly claimed Rothschild was one of the Cambridge Spy Ring (Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross). However, I am convinced that the real 5th man was Guy Liddell. In November 1979, Goronwy Rees, gave a deathbed confession that he had been a Soviet spy. He also claimed that Liddell was also a traitor and had been part of the Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean and Anthony Blunt spy ring. I see no reason why he should lie about this. Rothschild also identified Philby as a spy in 1961. Philby only fled to the Soviet Union in January, 1963. John If the sentence of yours that I bolded was presented as a summary of the case I made previously, then I must have communicated very poorly. If, on the other hand, it's a summary of Perry's claim in The Fifth Man, then it's not really accurate; Perry claimed Rothschild was a Soviet agent, although much of his book does seem to dwell on favours Rothschild performed for the Zionist cause. No, my claim was that Rothschild was most likely a triple agent: 1/ Overtly a British spook (or, in later life, 'ex'-spook) 2/ Secretly part of the Soviet spook network operating within Britain and the USA, able to control the flow of events for the rest of the network, to a limited extent - and never 'outed' while alive. 3/ A (the?) leading Zionist of his time, midwife to the State of Israel. His power would have been such that neither side of the cold war (east or east) would well positioned to expose him. In the west, he had superior networks and power to any of his potential enemies. On the Soviet side, I suspect, very knew about him; he would have been the equivalent for Stalin of Winston Churchill's Enigma (of which apparently Foriegn Secretary Anthony Eden was told precisely zero at the time it mattered most). Even later on after Stalin's death, the Soviet top leadership probably had too much to gain by keeping him 'in the club', too much to lose by turning against him. His spying for Britain, of course, was done in plain sight. Remarkably, that also appears to have been the case in relation to his spying for Israel. No-one in Britain seems to have questioned the approriateness of his evident use of information gleaned from British 'intelligence' to support the Zionist cause - even after 1948 when Israel became a separate country. Yet at the time of its inception official Israeli and British policy were poles apart. Before 1948 Rothschild was coy about his support for Israel. He postured as an agnostic on the issue. But when the chips were down, in 1948, he came out as a full blown story of the Zionist State. His speech in the House of Lords is interesting, inter alia, because it foreshadows the essential elements of the mainstream Zionist narrative ever since. Nations such as Britain, America and Russia demonstated, in the 20th century, their complete inability to run a tight intelligence ship. Each of them, we now know, had 'intelligence agencies' deeply penetrated by other intelligence agencies. Like the boy who plays with matches, these nations ended up getting more than they had bargained for. None of them have ever really had 'control' over their own secret services, yet these networks of spooks have gradually grown and accreted more power. The entire system of competing national 'intelligence agencies' - rather like the complimentary 'drug wars' that came somewhat later - were really an invitation to the most powerful clandestine networks on the planet to get involved, get mega-rich and hide criminal activity behind an inpenetrable shield of 'national security'. As the Allies were the 'winners' of the Second World War, the major spook networks in the west are thoroughly infiltrated by and subservient to Zionists. IMO, that was so in 1948 - and remains the case today. Had the Axis been victorious in WW2, perhaps we would be making the same complaint today about the Yakuza? Incidentally, Aarons and Loftus wrote about the USSR's rather out-of-character decision (later reversed) to support the Zionist State in the UN vote that gave it initial legitimacy. They claimed the crucial leverage over Stalin related to secrets over the nuclear program. The flow of leaked info to Russia - most if not all, I suspect, leaked by genuine, commited communists irrespectaive of their ethnic background - was eventually switched off - after the USSR and its satellites had cast their crucial votes supporting the establishment of Israel. Pressure was also applied via Zionist networks on the Dominions, such as Australia. In 1948, it was rare indeed for Australia to oppose Britain on a matter of international affairs. Yet that's precisely what the Zionist lobby achieved in 1948. The British Labour Government of the late 40s, that you so admire, I believe was admirable for another reason - a reason rarely mentiuoned today. It stuck, with some tenacity, to the even-handed position of HMG on the future of Palestine - a position that was (if one reads the whole text) actually enshrined in the original Balfour Dclaration of 1917 - then affirmed by the late 1930s Peel Commission and re-confirmed in early 1939 by an overwhelming House of Commons vote. The Atlee Government did this, despite extreme Zionist pressure including very unpleasant terrorism. It is one of the episodes in Britain's colonial past that could justifiably be the source of some pride - even if it ended in failure because of Zionist thuggery, bribery and what I like to call ethnic dirtying (forced removal en masse of one's fellow human beings from land in which they are resident).

Even if Darwinism (or 'neo-Darwinism) were to be incorrect in whole or in part, would that be sufficient evidence for a 'conspiracy' in the usual sense of the term? Was Newtonian physics a conspiracy? Did Einstein et al "unmask" Newton's perfidious inability to understand the universe as fully as they were able, at a later time in history? I think we need a little more clarity in our terms. Len, I suspect, introduced the thread only to be mischeivous. The idea of a genuine debate on this rather interesting topic - a topic far less open and shut than I imagined before reading Michael Denton, Fred Hoyle and others - probably never occured to him. When it comes to making mischief, Len has 'form', in the precise sense that term is used on The Bill. But hey, what would class be like without the really naughty boys?

I didn't bring up the topic of what happened in Germany. Read the thread carefully and you'll see I was responsing to a comparison made explicitly by an other participant. I did point out - in the context of previous discussion on this thread about large scale atrocities (aka holocausts) - that the alleged Japanese holocaust is not the 'equivalent' of the alleged German holocaust - not in terms of contemporary discourse. The two events are treated in a distinctly different way. I also expressed scepticism about allegations of Russia's alleged holocaust. I don't believe Solzhenitsyn's high estimates were accurate - not within an order of magnitude. Happily, making such a statement does not run foul of the criminal law in any known jurisdiction - and in fairness to the grand old anti-Communist warrior himself, I doubt Solzhenitsyn would have wanted it any other way.

Do you have an opinion - tentative or otherwise - about the question you have posed, Peter? Who, in your view, was in control of the Secret Service detail at the time of the assassination?

All concerned are to be congratulated and thanked in advance, IMO John for finding a panel of helpers. The Gang of Five for their substantial voluntary commitment. Roll on the New Cultural Revolution: a global forum in which Poms, Yanks and everyone else disport with dignity, decency and even a modicum of honesty, just like the delightful human beings we really are, deep inside

They all knew it was going to happen, so why be surprised? They all sat there waiting for the dunce to get done his story telling time in Florida, and let them know what would be the most public pronouncement/action for them all and when. Just my opinion FWIW. thanks-smitty If they weren't already on the morning speaking list for CNN by then, nothing much to do than watch the show on TV.

Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com warns the The Israelis want another go - and that this could be the trigger for a broader assault on Iran. Here are the opening paragraphs:

So how come we're able to discuss 'it' openly and without threat of legal sanction? The Nazi Holocaust can be discussed on this forum and in most countries with out sanction. There doesn’t seem to be a movement (outside of Japan at least) to deny the Japanese Holocaust, to the contrary there seem to be several scholars dedicated to shed light on it. Some of the laws that outlaw Holocaust denial apply to any denial of genocide or “hate speech” thus denying the Japanese Holocaust could also be punished. There are no laws prohibiting discussion of the Holocaust only laws (wrong as they may be) forbidding denying or minimizing it. This is not the place, Len, to discuss what you describe as the 'Holocaust' in detail - or to discuss what you describe as 'Holocaust Denial'. Suffice it to say that in Japan, there is debate about the events of the Second World War and the true extent of Japanese atrocities. This debate is of sufficient international inteest to be reported HERE recently - although it may not be the topic of choice in Murdoch papers. A comparison of laws that attempt to regulate discussion about alleged mass killings in the mid 20th century by the Germans on the one hand - and the Japanese on the other - is instructuve. There is a clear difference. IMO, Len, you practise blatant sophistry when you say "There are no laws prohibiting discussion of the Holocaust only laws (wrong as they may be) forbidding denying or minimizing it." A key issue in both debates, of course, is the extent of the massacres. How can one openly discuss a historical topic if the very scale of the event is "out of bounds" in the discussion? In an earlier post, Stirling made the following claim, referring to alleged mass killings: I wonder what evidence there is for saying this in the case of the Soviet Union, Sterling? My impression is quite the opposite - and that release of data from the Soviet archives since the 1990s has not supported the horrifically high estimates for "victims of Stalinism" popularized in earlier decades by Solzhenitsyn and the western Cold War propaganda machine. One might take the view that the Russians have manicured their own archives to sanitize their history. Perhaps so. Yet they did - under Gorbachev - have the decency to accept responsibility for the Katyn massacre.

Hi Terry Brisbane's innocence? That rich. When visiting Brisbane, ask a local why 'Boundary St' and 'Vulture St' - two of the oldest major streets in the city - were given their names. Unless I have been grossly misinformed, this was not a city conceived in innocence, even by Anglo-American standards.

So how come we're able to discuss 'it' openly and without threat of legal sanction?

Well, Cliff, he looked fairly dead to me. You might want to get a second opinion. Ashton I have to agree with Ashton on this. The mugs who shot him really blew it. 43 years is a short time in politics.

Hysteria at Herzliya is Pat Buchanan's take in antiwar.com Here it is::

If there are any grounds for optimism it is that successful war making is rarely done in 'plain sight'. On this occasion, an attack on Iran so brazenly and noisily advocated by the Zionist lobby - in Israel, the USA, Australia and elsewhere - would be perceived, even by Joe Blow in the street, as an attack orchestrated and pursued by the Zionist lobby. There are severe dangers to the Zionist movement in carrying out such a open strategy of warmaking, given the probable horrific long-term consequences of an assault on Iran. I trust their more experienced strategists realise this? Starting such a war in the spotlight - as opposed to in the shadows - signals supreme self-confidence that may prove to be dangerous recklessness, betokening the end of what I increasingly view as an inter-generational criminal enterprise. ____________________ On a less serious note, Paul Craig Roberts argues the rest of the world should Dump the Dollar! A good read. I especially like his references to Putin's under-reported recent speech.

I was involuntarily absent from the forum while this thread developed. Consequently I read through it all in one go, yesterday afternoon my time. As the rest of my comments shall be flippant, I'll start by saying that my appreciation for John and this forum only grow with time. IMO, it is primarily John's commitment to free and fair speech about important topics that make this forum a special place. I'm sure he has the overwhelming appreciation of forum participants at a difficult time. Now for the rest... The forum reminds me of my schooldays. Teacher comes into class and tells class it has been behaving very badly and there have been complaints. We are all invited to discuss our behaviour, while teacher marks homework and occasionally interjects. The ensuing squabbles, of course, proves that teacher is correct. Some of the cheekiest members of class delight in helping him make his point, again and again and again. Meanwhile there are several subplots, some off-topic bickering, occasional flirting and further interjections by an apparently exasperated teacher. Many kids just stare out of the window. Paper aeroplanes are exchanged. There are a few rude noises and a couple of smelly farts. Yet in the end, an outside observer can perceive the underlying rationality in the strategy employed by John Simkin – an avowed anti-nationalist and anti-imperialist - who subverts the dominant paradigm in plain sight while the rest of us aren't even noticing. This thread has succeeded where successive generations of peace movements on both sides of the puddle have failed. It has split the 'Atlantic Alliance' - causing resumption of the mutual distrust and acrimony between Britain and America that was the natural state of affairs before the loathsome Winston Churchill wheedled his way into Downing Street. Brits accuse Americans of being crass, boorish yobbos. Americans accuse Brits of being slimy, lying hypocrites. Both are essentially correct. As a self-hating English-speaking Australian with strong anti-American tendencies, I find this very encouraging. There may yet be a way we can rid ourselves of the American bases and spy facilities that make a mockery of our own 'independence'. I shall ask Her Majesty the Queen, through His Excellency the Governor General in Canberra, to order the arrest of our quisling Prime Minister and directly instruct occupying Yanks to b+++++ off and return Pine Gap to its original inhabitants. It would be fun to watch Brits and Americans duke it out, assaulting each other with their vile armaments on their own home turf while giving the Iraqis, Afghanis and Germans a well-deserved rest from their evil doing. I’ve aleady picked my side in World War Five. I stand 100% behind the Aboriginals and shall be happy slinging spears at both these uncivilized self-styled 'races'. The sooner they both 'race' off to Mars, the better for the rest of us. It will take a few million years for the pre-1788 biodiversity of the Australian continent to recover. The priceless cultural heritage of hundreds of language groups and many millennia of practical experience has been eradicated for ever. Nevertheless, taking a very long-term view, Australia may eventually recover from Anglo-Saxon invaders and their so-called ‘civilization’. Looking on the bright side, as far as I'm aware, these paragons of virtue have yet to spray depleted uranium around this land. One of the benefits of staying inside the protection racket?

I think Roland Perry's The Fifth Man, summarized HERE, deserves a mention I'd be interested in comments, critiques... anything really except for ouright abuse I notice that John Simkin briefly mentions Perry's book HERE - only to dismiss it as 'unconvincing'. I'd be interested to know his reasoning. My impression - based, unfortunately, only on the summary of Perry's book - is that Perry makes a reasonable case that Victor Rothchild was closely involved with some of the better known and now 'outed' Soviet spies such as Philby and Blunt. However, Perry's overt conclusion - that Rothschild was a Soviet mole - seems uncovincing to me. According to excerpts from Perry's own book, it seems more likely to me that Rothschild was a 'triple agent' with ultimate loyalty to the Zionist cause. Try this, for example: Here's another: Of interest also are references to Angleton in The Fifth Man. Perry claims Angleton perceived Rothschild as a rival. More likely, I would have thought, in the light of what we now know about Angleton and his strong ties to Israel, that they colluded. Thus it is, IMO, possible to trace deep level Zionist penetration of the British Secret Services dating back to at least World War Two - and the simulataneous infiltration of American 'intelligence services' from their very inception. Characters like Rothschild and Angleton played both 'sides' of the Cold War for suckers.

Thanks for your detailed maths, Len, on the relative kinetic energies of the plane that hit the Empire States v the planes that hit the twin towers. Rather beside the point, however. I never claimed these events were comparable. I note your explanation for the hots spots. Or rather your statement that they can be easily explained. Ron's query, Len, was contained in his last post on this thread. Do you have difficulty reading? Or do you just enjoy seeing if I'll agree to work as your unpaid personal secretary? As for the crash of a floating Israeli WMD cache in residential Amerstam, it looks to me the building is still upright on both sides of the crash. Such a commonplace spectacle does not fall into the category of "shock and awe". It looks like a normal plane crash (notwithstanding its very abnormal cargo). Incidentally, I bet few folk these days remember that crash of an Israeli plane in Amsterdam. Anyne care to predict how memorable it would be, on the other hand, if an IRANIAN plane crashed into residential towerblocks in a western city, spewing traces of illegally transported WMDs? Media bias? Surely not!

So, once I fully understand the official account of WTC 1, 2 & 7's construction, and the official account of what happened on the day of 9-11, it'll all become clear. And what do these official "inquiries" have to say, for example, about WTC-7? Hmmm. not fully understood at this time (or words to that effect, if I recall correctly). In other words, trust us! Yet millions don't... and we're growing in number very day. Sid- Before you jump horses, lets forget WTC-7 for the moment and first focus on the Towers. Do you understand that the Towers were NOT of “concrete towerblock” construction as you implied earlier? Do you have any evidence that the “official” version – the most comprehensive being the NIST Study and Report – cannot be possible? Do you fully understand the respective rolls that the explosives and gravity play in a CD? (This is very important because it explains why the NIST explanation of the Towers’ collapse might look like a CD) You also posted a link to an article discussing the accident involving an Israeli cargo jet into an Amsterdam apartment complex. What exactly was the point you were trying to make? How in the world could you think it had any relevance to what happened on 9-11? I ask because the accident involves a building complex 11+/- stories tall, constructed in a completely different manner than the Towers, and where the building completely collapsed where it was struck by the aircraft. Now –About WTC-7 – The investigation is on-going – it never has had the priority in the investigation as has the Towers, because no one should be surprised that a building with almost ½ of one of its sides destroyed, and significant fires allowed to burn for several hours with no fire suppression, would collapse. As the CT’s always say, “Isn’t it obvious?” From the NIST World Trade Center site. Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About the NIST Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster A draft report is due out early this year and I will be reading it to see if it makes sense to me. I’m sure Jack and other CT's have already concluded it's wrong - how about you? Did I say 'concrete towerblock', Steve? You don't provide a reference - but it's possible I did. If so, I retract the phrase. I usually uswe the term 'steel-framed towerblock'. Do you object to that? You ask: Do you have any evidence that the “official” version – the most comprehensive being the NIST Study and Report – cannot be possible? For me, this is like an experience in a Kafka novel where the subject is asked the same questions all over again after 20 interrogations. I think that the official versions of the THREE WTC collapses are not plausible in the least. I've tried to explain why, not going into every detail but addressing major problems with the official story. Ron also provided an excellent query (unanswered, as far as I'm aware). I threw in a couple more: lingering hot spots at ground zero and fires that lasted for months. I do not propose to become an expert in the nuances of this aspect of 9-11 (one false flag event out of many, IMO) - any more than it appears you and your team intend to address the strongest points of the case against the official version of events. You apparently find all the official reports most pursuasive and very plausible, Steve. That's your prerogative. We may just have to differ on this. I was struck by the qualitative difference between the response of FEMA to a real disaster (Hurricane Katrina) as opposed FEMA's response to 9-11, which I, at any rate, believe was a staged disaster. In the case of 9-11, FEMA was so well prepared it actually had a team in place in NYC the day before. Whatever other stories came out of the 9-11 mediafest, FEMA inefficiency was not one of them, as I recall. FEMA seemed to know what to do with eerie precision - right down to controlling the flow of information from the disaster areas from the first few hours. By contrast, in the case of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA's pathetic reponse was an international scandal, it's inadequacies the butt of jokes around the planet. Holding the beliefs I do about 9-11, the fact that the official reports back up the official story is more than a tautology - it requires explanation. Folk, such as I, who believe 9-11 was a conspiracy not masterminded in the mountains of Afghanistan will - when the time comes - have hard questions to ask of all those who backed up the official account with deliberate lies. I trust that's understood now. In the first few years after 9-11, academics who spoke out against the official story did their careers no favours. A small number have lent their names and credibility to backing up the official story. If, over time, they are shown to be liars who could not possibly have been making an innocent mistake, people will certainly look into who these authors are and their probable motivations. As that time, they may some to share the view of my father that "honesty is the best policy". As to the crash of a near Schipol, did the 'steel framed tower block' really collapse? On the photo I linked to, the impacted section is severely damaged, but the bulk of the towers have clearly survived - as one would expect of a building resting on a large steel matrix. So... I posted that reference as an example of a building that did NOT collapse after impact by a large aircraft - just as the Empire States building in the 40s did not collapse when hit. You wrote: "the building (in Amsterdam) completely collapsed where it was struck by the aircraft" Did it, Steve? It doesn't look like that to me (but I wasn't there, thanks God - so I missed out on a free spray with Israeli WMDs as well as a very nasty bang). I agree the buildings in Amsterdam are morphologically different from the much taller WTC towers. There may have been major architectural and structual differences. So what? Every building on earth is unique. But only THREE buildings have ever colapsed, in entirety, without a single column standing, at near free fall velocity - allegedly as a consequence of fuel fires. Those three buildings all came down on the same day in the same city - on the day that "changed everything". If you don't believe that requires explanation, then so be it.

I'm lazy. I'd like to read your summary

I'll second that. We also need adequate, science-based, peer-reviewed explanations for hot spots at ground zero weeks afterwards - and for "the longest-burning structural fire in history".

Beware 'Tricky Headlines' and other spin promoted by folk who (i) either truly believe in a 'neo-liberal' economic agenda (complimented by a neo-con military agenda) or (ii) have become unwitting dupes of these oppressive agendas.

So, once I fully understand the official account of WTC 1, 2 & 7's construction, and the official account of what happened on the day of 9-11, it'll all become clear. And what do these official "inquiries" have to say, for example, about WTC-7? Hmmm. not fully understood at this time (or words to that effect, if I recall correctly). In other words, trust us! Yet millions don't... and we're growing in number very day.

How about this crash, Len?