Steven Phillips

what I have a problem with Dave is that during all the so called `moon landings`the astronauts were hit several times by high energy particles (re: the flashes in eyes)but the cameras managed to evade being hit even on the more exposed lunar surface where we know high energy interactions take place. Now that I just dont get.

Also - new techniques have been developed that enable scientists to test the interaction of various types of ionising radiation on human flesh, as opposed to a blanket figure in rads. I think that is what part of the proposed British lunar trip (Moonraker) will do - use new techniques to analyse lunar radiation more accurately than they could in the 1960's. Dave! I wonder weather these `new techniques` will also analyse the effects of radiation on kodak film after all nasa claims the film they used is impervious to a range of different radiations and a very wide range of temperature variation.

Thanx for keeping us updated on this case Sid, as with all these `terror scares`braught to us courtesy of the intelligence services & media; when they are scrutinised carfully there is no substance and no foundation other than assertion and hype. The only evidence you need is to point to the track record, there is precedent here and the `mo` is always the same: anounce the case with an explosion of hype and fanfair and then quietly forget when nothing sticks with an explosion of silence; this is just another hoax in a long list of terror hoaxes like the `bombing of Old Trafford`hoax, the `ricin`hoax, the `bombers from the kebab shop`hoax, and many more yet to come no doubt. A friend of mine has a nice analogy that sums it up..............................: its like when Ronnie Knight or Kenneth Noy get taken to court on some minor charge or other, they`re escorted to court in a motorcade of wailing sirens and then surrounded by armed police in the dock all to create an illusion of guilt, even where non exists.

John, I think truthful objectivity should be applied to all subjects equally, its extremely important that scolarship have the freedom to investigate historical events and draw conclusions from the evidence they uncover. People who want to clarify history by going back over events to see if maybe a different interpretation holds should be able to do so without being villified or labeled or mollested by the powers that be for trespassing on their statements of historical fact. History by definition is revision and as more understanding accrues and more evidence comes to light historians are duty bound to fill in those pieces of the jigsaw and this is true of the most taboo subjects as well as the most popular. The freedom to challenge historical assertion is one of the most basic freedoms alongside freedom of speech.

Steven...the plane yous show is the United Airlines plane from the second hit, if I recall right. The AA plane Flight 11, was first to hit and was not clearly photographed. Though both were Boeings, the underside configuration was different. Jack Its all so confusing Jack, I mean the second plane to hit the towers, I cant tell one from the other.

I think this site explains it quite well: http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html Evan! I dont think that link explains anything; it tries to make it all sound so plausible but fails misserably; where it says that the head on view shows no pod, what has actually happened is that the view is casting too much shadow to make out anything really, but he has pointed out a bulge that clearly must be the pod when juxtaposed with the other views; pointing an arrow at it and calling it `end of fuselage`doesnt make it not a pod. When John Gotti went to court during his criminal career he had a very good lawyer who convinced the dury that he was somebody`s missunderstood favourite uncle and wasnt really the nasty murdering criminal that he actually was. Time and time again John Gotti was painted lilly white by his layer and the dury sucked it up. And thats exactly what is going on here with the 911 evidence, some cleaver lawyers are trying to convince the heard that what we are seeing is not really what we are seeing: theres no pod because because the guys who did the 911 white-wash have got a picture of a plane in there files with no pod..........but the picture is temporarily mislaid at the moment, but it does exist because the guys at nist say so, but we cant see it.......because its mislaid..........in a file........somwhere.......out there.

This is a picture of the plane that hit ww2, the red arrows show the length of the engine mounting fin and the black shows the distance between the fuselage and engine: as you can see from this photo the plane appears to have 2 left handed engines attached. Is this normal practice at AA? There is also a bulge on the fuselage.....could this be a missile pop as others believe?

As already pointed out* the impact the towers were meant to survive was much weaker than the ones that occurred on 9/11 and things don’t always work as planned. Do you think the Titanic and the terminal at DeGaulle were sabotaged as well? Yeah right, then how do you account for the collapse of building 7 that sustained no impact? So you don’t think 4000 ton floors crashing on to each other would make loud noises resembling explosions? No I think they would make loud rumbling and crashing sounds; I think explosives would make a sound resembling explosions. Not “every bit of concrete” was pulverized I’m not even sure most of it was. - Even Hoffman admits much of the concrete would be pulverized by the force of the collapse. Each tower was about 1366 feet (416 meters) tall, and 500,000 tons. I’d like to see your calculations with references as to the KE released by the collapses then the KE needed to pulverize the concrete. What nonsense! not all the concrete was pulverised, just most of it and collapsing buildings do not turn into pyroclastic flows. Thats a bit rich asking me to prove my argument with mathematics. In all the earth quakes of recent years show me one building that collapsed in the manner that these buildings collapsed, I know you cant show me a building of steel and high grade concrete that gets pulverised by collapsing. I can show you a building that collapses in an almost identical manner. Is it your theory that explosives were placed on every floor in “every nook and cranny”? That seems like far more than necessary. In normal controlled demo explosives are only placed in a few select locations on a few select floors. Power downs, evacuations, relocations, Sundays, empty floors and drills were all happening in the months leading up to 911, besides workmen could access the areas where the trusses were without raising suspicion. Explosives dont neccessarily have to be placed on every floor so long as the right type of explosives is used and some investigaters believe that thermate was used in this case and when you look at who owned the building and who was in charge of security, it wouldnt be difficult to plan this demolition so long as you got rid of the bomb sniffing dogs for when you planted the really big stuff in the sky lobbies.

As already pointed out* the impact the towers were meant to survive was much weaker than the ones that occurred on 9/11 and things don’t always work as planned. Do you think the Titanic and the terminal at DeGaulle were sabotaged as well? Yeah right, then how do you account for the collapse of building 7 that sustained no impact? So you don’t think 4000 ton floors crashing on to each other would make loud noises resembling explosions? No I think they would make loud rumbling and crashing sounds; I think explosives would make a sound resembling explosions. Not “every bit of concrete” was pulverized I’m not even sure most of it was. - Even Hoffman admits much of the concrete would be pulverized by the force of the collapse. Each tower was about 1366 feet (416 meters) tall, and 500,000 tons. I’d like to see your calculations with references as to the KE released by the collapses then the KE needed to pulverize the concrete. What nonsense! not all the concrete was pulverised, just most of it and collapsing buildings do not turn into pyroclastic flows. Thats a bit rich asking me to prove my argument with mathematics. In all the earth quakes of recent years show me one building that collapsed in the manner that these buildings collapsed, I know you cant show me a building of steel and high grade concrete that gets pulverised by collapsing. I can show you a building that collapses in an almost identical manner. Is it your theory that explosives were placed on every floor in “every nook and cranny”? That seems like far more than necessary. In normal controlled demo explosives are only placed in a few select locations on a few select floors. Power downs, evacuations, relocations, Sundays, empty floors and drills were all happening in the months leading up to 911, besides workmen could access the areas where the trusses were without raising suspicion. Explosives dont neccessarily have to be placed on every floor so long as the right type of explosives is used and some investigaters believe that thermate was used in this case and when you look at who owned the building and who was in charge of security, it wouldnt be difficult to plan this demolition so long as you got rid of the bomb sniffing dogs for when you planted the really big stuff in the sky lobbies.

The arms `industry`is like the car industry: you have the big dealerships selling the latest models to drop of the production line and politicians breaking the law to do fleet deals with the scum of the earth occasionally offering their rear ends in gratification whilst proffessing that it was all in aid of jobs. Then you have the used car market that has a knock on effect where shady `intelligence`services supply the next Savimbi or KLA with the means to murder and wreak havoc in places where independent thaught might become a problem. The used arms market is by far bigger than the new and only thrives because there is war and `unrest`or `rogue states`usually in the third world or mid east, and has massive potential for criminal enterprise facilitated by intelligence services using front groups. This used arms market is usually supported by drugs. At every place in the world where there has been a political problem, there has been an opportunity to sell used arms in massive quantities and the only way the groups requiring the arms can pay is by supplying heroin or cocain. Two examples are Nicaragua and Afganistan in the 1980`s where the groups involved supplied(flooded would be a better word)the western world with the largest quantities of heroin and cocain in history. Right at the heart of all this was the American and British governments creating a situation where the people of the target country are murdered and raped and the people of the home country are poisoned and violated. This problem has been growing until today. The last expedition to Afganistan has resulted in the largest increase in drug production that country has seen: and this while democracy has been installed there. The problem wont go away until we start to regulate the arms industry with serious intent prosecuting people who are involved nomatter who they are; if intelligence agencies can create and protect criminals and politicians can plausibly deny themselves innocent then we are nothing more than a gangster state. A good place to start would be to start prosecuting bankers for laundering the proceeds of this evil.

Your posts are always well researched John and very illuminating. The behaviour of the Blair crowd has been very suspicious over Iraq and Afganistan, Blair was verging on the psycotic over wmd and he came across as disingenuous over the whole affair. I thaught I could see right through him therefor parliament would but they voted for that war and because of it the price of food has gone up in the last few years as well as energy. I often wonder how we ever got to the state where the criminals are running things like this and believe me Blair is just another criminal prostituting himself to the arms and drugs bazzar. Speaking of which Afganistan is having another bumper crop this year.

These buildings were built on the same principles as pagodas with a strong central core, they had to withstand occilations caused by high winds, so are you saying it was the kinetic energy of the impact that braught these buildings down? The steel frame was designed to absorb an impact, the central core was designed to absorb occilations like a giant shock absorber, so it certainly wasnt the impact that braught these buildings down. If you check my link previously you can hear the explosions bringing that building down, as the camera points up you can hear bang, bang, bang,roar, bang..........explosives, thats the only possible way to explain how every bit of concrete was pulverized into powder.

Sorry that last one was the wrong link..............................................................here`s the right one..................................... http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.ph...&PAGE_id=63

No explosions at the world trade centre, whats this then scotch mist?................................................................................ ....... http://letsrollforums.com/phpwebsite/index...w&ANN_id=26

any and all stories of Hijackers still being alive came out soon after 911 before the FBI release their final and official list. After that the stories stopped. This points to the stories being mistaken identity with people with similar names. Another thing to think about is why would Saudi Arabia admit that 15 of the hijackers were their citizens if they were in fact alive? http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html This was not mistaken identity because some of these guys saw their pictures on the news. The seismic data only appears to show explosions when viewed in a highly compressed format. When looked at in a closer scale, seismic experts agree there is nothing suspicious Actually when the seismagraphs are lined up with footage of the buildings collapsing: they are very suspicious.. If the towers fell at freefall speeds, then why is there debris falling off the towers that fall faster than the collapsing building and outpace the collapse? The buildings are falling at free-fall speed, they have been timed; the hight of the towers is known and the rate of speed an object falls at in air towards earth is known, so for instance a house brick would take 9. something seconds to hit the floor from the top of the tower, tower 2 fell in ten seconds. The reason why some debris were falling faster than the free fall buildings is obvious and its the same reason why massive steel beams were impaled in builings across the street: because they were being propelled by a force, ie explosives.

Lez robertson says the building was designed to withstand the impact of a large airoplane so I dont see what difference it makes what speed it was going, 20 to 30 mph doesnt make that much difference and a lot of the energy was absorbed by the plane. How do you know how fast those planes were going? where is your evidence? Besides the second plane hit the building right on one side, it nearly missed, and in no way did it impact the central 47 column steel core; some of it exploded out the adjoining corner side. Ten minutes later people were waving and shouting at that hole, one person has been videod lying down and looking over the precipice. The siezmic data shows explosions and buildings only come down in freefall when explosives are used. Why did they not reconstruct and investigate, which is the usual practice in these disasters? Why did they seal off ground zero with high security clearance? Why did the dispose of the evidence ? What have they got to hide? After a number of the alleged perpetrators that were displayed on tv let it be known that they were alive and well, why did the government not revise its theory, why did they keep quiet about it? Could it be that the pancake arab theory is bull shass.

I think Jack claims make sense when using a camera with a flash or outdoor midday pictures and I think thats the point here: the shadows are long like the sun is low in the sky (or in the case of the pics, the spot light) but since the moon doesnt rotate to give a sunrise sunset the face of the moon should be in permanent midday with some variation due to the rocking motion of the moons phases , I dont know what the position of the moon was in relation to the sun when these pics were taken but I know that all the shadows on the moon are long when they should be much shorter. If the shadows were long on all the moon missions that means that all the missions landed during the same lunar phase and quite close to the terminater, if not there is no other explanation for it: the shots are fake. I can see exactly the point Jack was making here, why cant you?

http://freepressinternational.com/911-mysteries Have a look at this link about the collaps of the three towers the facts presented are undeniable and when juxtaposed with the conspiracy theory about 19 arabs and pancakes it becomes obvious which version of events is correct.

You might also ask yourself why if the towers were demoed why out of tens of thousands of people who were there between the time of the impacts and collapses only 4 have said publicly that they thought after 9/11 that bombs had been set of.Note of the four made any such allegations till long after the fact. The most famous of them William Rodriguez was interviewed on 9/11 by CNN and he said nothing about feeling an explosion from below I find that hard to believe that only 4 people have said they heard bombs going off, I have heard more people than that refere to explosions in some of the documentaries ive watched even the official news reels report eye witnesses reporting secondary explosions in the building. Molten metal in the ruins tells your common sense that explosives were used, angled shearing on some of the steel beams demonstrate explosives were used, the fact that great steel beams were shot hundreds of feet across the streets in all directions to impale themselves like giant arrows into nieghbouring building is evident that explosives were used.

Good link Jack, by now I should think that most free thinking open minded people wouldve realised that the towers were braught down by explosives and if a green grocer would have noticed those flashes and pops the fact that theyre not explosives experts doesnt weaken their evidence one tot. Some of your critics Jack, are so used to circumlocuting around the minutia they seem to be blissfully unaware of the main point of your link; pyrotechnics were explosives last time I checked so a pyrotechnics expert is an explosives expert but some of your critics would have us believe you are calling a make up artist an explosives expert, of course all of this is irrelevant to the point you were making; I suspect your detracters are simply fluffing with you to instill you with that `is it all worth it` feeling. Keep up the good work Jack, its not your job to inform the ignorant and educate the gullible but at least some of us out here apreciate what you have to say.

Yes bigot was originally used to describe people who held stubborn religeous beliefs but has more recently been used to describe people with right wing views on race and multiculturalism and people who hold intolerable fixed beliefs like the nasa defenders who to and fro referencing their shuttle spotters almanacs.

Also- Would someone please provide the definition of computer chip as referenced in Duane's quote. I think you know what Duane meant when he said computor chips hadnt been invented in the 60`s ; I know he meant processors as do you, what you are classifying as a chip was little more than a glorified transistor.

The domino theory was the result of US policy planning rational and was a very logical theory as it pertained to post war economic area planning. Before the second world war the US realised it was going to be the most powerful country in the world since all other imperial countries would be exhausted and in need of reconstruction; so they set about planning the post war reconstruction under US "leadership". Dismantling closed economic systems (empires) was a primary objective,; no economic system from which the US was not a major player would be permitted. The main thrust of the `decolonisation` was to place certain areas (those rich in resources) into the hands of regional managers or clients dependent on the US; the millitaries in these areas would be independant of the regimes but dependant on the US for training and equipment (millitary aid in other words), then whenever the managers became unmanagerable, the generals would step in. The USSR played this game to a far lesser and somwhat contextually different degree. In the wake of the ww2 some of these countries had national aspirations whos objectives were to freely trade with whomever they wanted on an equal footing and bring the living standards of their countrymen up to an acceptable level. This was contrary to US policy and could not be allowed to thrive hence the domino theory. It had nothing to do with communism (whatever that is) and everything to do with an objective psycological state called nationalism. If a nationalist regime could rebuild a society and raise the living standards of its citizens, then this would demonstrate to other x colonial regimes that it was an achievable objective thus putting their resources out of US hands and into their own. Of course the US was mostly concerned about areas that are rich in resources like all the countries around the equatorial belt these are the richest most important countries in ground wealth and thats why today; thanks to US policy; the poorest people in the world live in the richest. Because the demonstration effect was a powerful motivater, the US couldnt allow it to take place in any country no matter how small and insignificant. I could go on but I think ive given you the gist of the real domono theory here.

The United States routinely votes against peace and human rights resolutions in the UN general assembly and it routinely vetoes peace and human rights resolutions in the UN security council. Check the history of the UN and it can be seen that the US stands alone as the biggest obsticle to security, peace, and human rights with the highest total vetoes and votes against these very important issues.

John? Your tireless dedication to this forum is ceaseless; another good posting. From the humble bigginings of the war propaganda bureau where people volunteered their services and the public didnt learn about for over 20 years, to todays pregnant media system where the mainstream press cant wait to prostitute themselves whenever the government has a line to sell; and its there for all the public to see, should they care to open their eyes and look.