Peter McKenna

On a slightly, but perhaps in some way connected, I'd like to add as an Environmental Scientist, it has long been known that contrails add to the 'cloud' cover that reflects solar radiation. An interesting experiment was done in the few days after 9/11 when most planes were grounded. The entire USA experienced about a statistically significant average 1-2 degree increase in temperature those days.

Just out of curiosity, what did the sky look like on 11/22/63?

On Friday morning I received a phone call from Judith’s doctor that she had suffered a serious heart attack and that we had to get to hospital straight away. When Louise (my daughter) and I arrived we were not allowed to see my wife. Instead we were ushered to a side-room where we were told what had happened. Apparently, that morning her blood test showed that she had very high levels of potassium in her blood. This resulted in her heart beat slowing down. They quickly attempted to put her on dialysis. However, while they were doing this her heart stopped and the doctor carried out heart resuscitation and attached her to a mechanical resuscitator (an electric unit designed to breathe for the patient). Dialysis had reduced the potassium levels but the doctor was not convinced that she would be able to breathe alone. Nor did he know what impact the heart stopping had on her brain. The situation was further complicated by the fact that Judith had made a living will instructing her doctors not to resuscitate her. The doctor explained that he had done this instinctively because he felt there was a chance of saving her life.

I was then asked what I wanted the doctors to do next. I explained that they reason Judith had made a living will was because she feared being kept alive on a life-support machine after suffering brain damage as a result of a heart attack. The doctor was pessimistic about the damage caused to her brain and heart and suggested that he turned off the mechanical resuscitator. If he was wrong, Judith’s heart would take over and she would breathe on her own.

Louise and I were allowed to stand by the bed when they turned off the mechanical resuscitator. Much to everyone surprise, she carried on breathing. The optimism was short-lived when the doctor carried out a few tests that suggested that she was in some sort of coma.

That afternoon she began to show signs of life. By early evening we were able to converse with Judith. The senior doctor that runs the kidney unit was amazed by what had happened and even went as far as to describe it as a “miracle”. Judith had lost her short-term memory and had no recollection of Friday at all. We have been told that this is not uncommon in someone who has undergone such trauma.

By Sunday most of her short-term memory had returned. The main concern is that she is having trouble moving her legs. We are hoping this is a temporary problem. Of course still has the major problem of her kidneys not working. As a result, without constant dialysis, she will continue to have problems with potassium in the blood and other issues usually dealt with by functioning kidneys.

Judith appears to be in better shape than she was before her heart attack. On Thursday she was very depressed about her state of health and was saying that she did not want to go on. That she just wanted to sleep forever. Now she is much more positive and is showing much more interest in life.

At the same time as Judith’s heart stopped working my computer system crashed. What is more, my back-up external drive system also failed. Computer experts are currently trying to recover all my data. Let us hope they are as good as Judith’s doctors.

I'm glad to hear of Judith's optimistic respite. I'd guess that surely puts things into perspective.

Three years ago my Mom was taken off of artificial respiration and passed away. That same day my brother committed suicide due to severe depression.

My family's and my best wishes going forward for you and yours. I Hope that Judith is as happy and comfortable as is possible under the circumstances.

The McKenna family

I have only seen skywriting once while in Panama City FL. They were spelling out "Will you marry me?" I think it is becoming a much rarer event to see as it is expensive to hire somebody for the purpose and airspace is becoming more and more restricted. Interesting to see.

Now that's terrorism.

'You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the new world order ... bought and paid for." "Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and special branch recruit agents?" "Shill, traitor, sleeper", "leftwing gatekeeper", "accessory after the fact", "political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all".

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the United States government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my leftwing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I've blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.

I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents.

I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a longstanding plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the twin towers with explosives without attracting attention and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes and induce them all to have kept their mouths shut, for ever.

In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.

Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.

The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights.

Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on the Guardian Comment is Free website, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious. The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467. On the same day the Guardian published my article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain's biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE Systems. It drew 60 responses. The members of the 9/11 cult weren't interested. If they had been, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its horde of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don't exist, they can't fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.

Many of those who posted responses on Comment is Free contend that Loose Change (which was neatly demolished in the BBC's film The Conspiracy Files on Sunday night) is a poor representation of the conspiracists' case. They urge us instead to visit websites like 911truth.org, physics911.net and 911scholars.org, and to read articles by the theology professor David Ray Griffin and the physicist Steven E Jones.

Concerned that I might have missed something, I have now done all those things, and have come across exactly the same concatenation of ill-attested nonsense as I saw in Loose Change. In all these cases you will find wild supposition raised to the status of incontrovertible fact, rumour and confusion transformed into evidence, selective editing, the citation of fake experts, the dismissal of real ones. Doubtless I will now be told that these are not the true believers: I will need to dive into another vat of tripe to get to the heart of the conspiracy.

The 9/11 truthers remind me of nothing so much as the climate change deniers, cherry-picking their evidence, seizing any excuse for ignoring the arguments of their opponents. Witness the respondents to my Loose Change column who maintain that the magazine Popular Mechanics, which has ripped the demolition theories apart, is a government front. They know this because one of its editors, Benjamin Chertoff, is the brother/nephew/first cousin of the US homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff. (They are, as far as Benjamin can discover, unrelated, but what does he know?)

Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements. If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom. But as a controlled asset of the new world order, I would say that, wouldn't I? It's all part of the plot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2017006,00.html

George,

Subsequent to the third edition of Loose Change and your James Whale interview, a couple of questions....

Whale inferred that Tim Sparks has been made wealthy. Is that from the Loose Change franchise (if you know)?

As you seem to be an advocate of real truth as opposed to the manufactured "truth" some subscribe to for their own agenda, has the 9/11 "truth" movement been a windfall for some in terms of capitalizing on publications, internet advertising, and/or paid speaking engagements?

Sorry to pose this to you, I am not implying anything with respect to you, but as you're a journalist, and you may have some insight here. I have asked a few about this and have never really received a tangible answer. I do have a problem when people capitalize on the gross misfortune of others, except where it is done to survive while dedicating their time to altruistic efforts. Some so-called "truthers" do seem to be eeking out a meager living only to support their research (not that I agree with them, but I don't think they're scamming the public to get rich, playing on the public outrage and carnage of 9/11), someone like maybe, Fetzer.

If some out there are pandering to the public's outrage and capitalizing off the dead while making themselves wealthy in the bargain, I'd sure like to see those exposed.

Any comments? You see I wonder about the "noble" intentions of many of these people. I have read that there are likely over a million people dabbling in the "truth" movement now. Seems like a cult.

Thanks in advance....

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some sort of urban pacification strategy which employed gas, but I am showing my paranoia. Likely the CT concerning "chemtrails" is only that, a theory. But, I also find the philosophy of questioning the weird contrail patterns to be a healthy form of paranoia; as it is only paranoia if it isn't true, and sooner or later it will be.

Oh, by all means question; just also listen to the replies.. as you are doing.

Yep, I would say that somewhere there are plans for urban pacification using airborne delivered gas (or more properly, aerosol) - makes sense if that is what you are going to do.

To me, a weakness in the current claims of "chemtrails" is there happening at high altitude on days where they can clearly be seen. Think of two different scenarios:

1. CHEMTRAILS TO INTRODUCE PATHOGEN / MIND CONTROL / ETC. If this were the case, it would be a covert operation. Why do it where it can clearly be seen? Wouldn't it be better done on cloudy days, where the dispersal could be hidden? The higher the altitude, the longer the various wind currents can affect the final touchdown zone of any aerosol dispersed. Why not use lower altitude? Because airliners are being used, and they have to follow normal paths and everything must seem normal? Is aerosol being dispersed from an airliner normal? The systems involved would be discovered eventually; there are far too many people who have access to the airframe and systems for engineering / airworthiness purposes for it to be kept a secret.

Yes, if this were the case then Jack has it bass ackwards. Atomized aerosols need not be visible (in fact a covert aerosol dump would most likely be designed to be invisible), if pathogens or some kind of pablum were used. Jack's theory that "chemtrails" remain visible for hours and contrails disappear in seconds doesn't make any sense.

2. CHEMTRAILS FOR WEATHER CONTROL / REDUCING GLOBAL WARMING. If this were being done to stop global warming, wouldn't you want to advertise the fact? Counter negative publicity from Kyoto, etc?

I'm not familiar with the science of weather control. Sounds a little bit apocalyptic. I've heard of cloud seeding. Chemical changes that would affect global warming would likely have to be introduced above the stratosphere, wouldn't it?

Peter, Charles:

A good site from the UK from a researcher who studies contrails:

http://hazelrigg.es.lancs.ac.uk/amy/Home.htm

Another excellent site to read is:

http://contrailscience.com/

Be sure to read the sections on the history of 'chemtrails' and chemical analysis of same.

Thank you Evan. Good sites with sound scientific information.

I will stand corrected (slightly) in that I said that "It is incorrect to assume that contrails will disappear in minutes. This could occur but would be atypical." From the studies done it appears that on average, the population of non-persistent contrails (contrails which last < 5 minutes), is anywhere between 5% and 25% of the total contrail population, which is a greater frequency than I had supposed (based on the heat input required to change water/moisture to water vapor/gas). This maybe due, at least in part, to the effect of wind shear. The non persistent contrails are atypical, but occur at a greater frequency than I had assumed.

If I am reading this information correctly the aluminum and barium levels are equivalent to normal background levels as well (at least within the sample population).

Didn't see much concerning pathogens, except; a salient point in addressing pathogens would be the statement that due to the extreme unpredictability of the dispersement whatever harm would be done the populace could also affect the conspirator(s).

I will try to keep an open mind on this subject due to the past occurrence of atmospheric experiments and the tendencies of past "less-than-scrupulous" military-governmental types to deal in WMD including aerosols (the Russian theatre attack comes to mind).

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some sort of urban pacification strategy which employed gas, but I am showing my paranoia. Likely the CT concerning "chemtrails" is only that, a theory. But, I also find the philosophy of questioning the weird contrail patterns to be a healthy form of paranoia; as it is only paranoia if it isn't true, and sooner or later it will be.

My interest in Chemtrails does not extend into studies of the composition of the

sprayed materials. I do not know, and don't know how to find out. My interest

is determining government participation, purpose, secrecy and coverup. If this

were to be revealed, then the composition of the spray would be known. I would

like for the public to be aware of these strange events, and know that they are

NOT contrails, which evaporate within minutes; chemtrails persist and spread

for hours. Photos show that the planes used are air force tankers, not passenger

jets.

Jack

It is a proven fact that contrails can and do persist given the right conditions so it is wrong to say that they evaporate withing minutes. Depending on the conditions, contrails can evaporate quickly or persist, covering all times in between. Even if it were true that only these mythical "chemtrails" were the onnes persisting, then where is the dividing line? If it dissipates quickly within minutes then it is a contrail, what about if it takes 20 minutes? What about 30, what about 60, 2hours, 3 hours, etc? The science behind it perfectly explains the differences. I've seen studies where they observed contrails lasting all times short and long with no clear dividing line.

There are plenty of photos showing regular commercial jets leaving persistent contrails too. Further, the program flight explorer that I mentioned previously can tell you what many of the flights you see in the air are in near real time. There is also a problem of scale with assuming it is government tankers. The Air Force has what seems like a lot of tankers but many of them are suffering from periodic maintenance issues as most of the fleet was built in the 60's. At any given time, 1/3 to 1/2 the available tankers are deployed and helping with OIF and OEF. Millions of pounds of fuel are delivered by air through these tankers every day. Back home at least 1/3 of the jets are being repaired or overhauled. This leaves 1/3 to 1/6 the total left and they are kept busy providing training to pilots in the states. Pilots need to air refueling practice every month to keep current and more often if they expect to keep their skills up. You would hardly expect a pilot to refuel by air for the first time while deployed in a war zone. To spread "chemtrails" on the scale suggested by some just in the US not to mention worldwide would require hundreds if not thousands more planes that just don't exist in the miltary tanker fleet.

The return of contrails from ice/moisture (the visible cloudlike trails are actually either water mist or ice) to a gas (water vapor) would require the addition of the latent heat of vaporization. The latent heat would exceed 1000 btu/lb of water. Significant visible formations of contrails therefore will not typically disppear in minutes as there is insufficient heat available to cause the phase change. In fact ice crystals will seed additional sublimation/formation of moisture.

It is incorrect to assume that contrails will disappear in minutes. This could occur but would be atypical.

My house is situated between three of the world's largest airfields. I see dozens of flights

daily. I see many CONTRAILS. They disappear within thirty seconds. I see many CHEMTRAILS.

They do not disappear at all, but spread out to form large cirrus cloud cover. I DO NOT ASSUME

THAT CONTRAILS DISAPPEAR WITHIN SECONDS. I OBSERVE IT FREQUENTLY. I have seen

chemtrails and contails in the sky at the same time. I speak from observation, not theorizing

Jack

I didn't say that contrails cannot disappear within minutes (as you identified previously; not in seconds), but that this is atypical due to the physics involved. To categorically state that you observe contrails which disappear in seconds and chemtrails which do not disapear at all (and imply that you subsequently observe the difference between the two) is not a sound conclusion. I have read no scientific rationale for this. For any addition/change to the atmosphere which is sufficiently bouyant to remain aloft (without descending quickly) implies that it is not a release intended for the population below, as it would be extremely diluted if and when it finally did descend (due to the time element) and the results would be unpredictable. Therefore I challange the hypothesis that you can differentiate bewteen chemtrails and contrails based on your stated observations.

I offered NO HYPOTHESIS. I offered my FREQUENT OBSERVATIONS OF CONTRAILS DISAPPEARING

WITHIN SECONDS, USUALLY LESS THAN TWENTY SECONDS. Therefore you are challenging my veracity.

I believe that this is against forum rules.

By disappearing I mean the trails do not persist in the sky after the passage of the plane; they can be

seen evaporating as the plane traverses the sky, and usually are no more than two plane lengths long.

CHEMTRAILS, however, can last for hours, depending on winds aloft.

Jack

First of all if you wish to posture yourself as a dissenter to the mainstream and/or official views of issues and events it is extremely bad form to complain of those who dissent against your view of events. Dissent almost by definition is a challenge to the veracity of those whom are being dissented against, and yes, I am challenging your veracity. Get over it and get on to defending your views, something you seem to be prone to avoid.

You take on the mantle of a contrarian, a role which I believe to be essential in our society. People should question everything and challenge all which may be challenged (within certain limits, there are other priorities in life). So don’t act all offended Jack, you put yourself in this position, and you relish it.

I find your impromptu running for moderation at the first sign of a challenge to your so called veracity to be childish and an insult to great dissenters of history. You want to be a dissenter? Then stand up for yourself.

Now the challenge I make is in that you can differentiate, purely by observation, between contrails and chemtrails when observing these trails. In reading the information you tagged and linked to your posts, there is no conclusive evidence that chemical releases are occurring via the aircraft. There is circumstantial evidence, and suspicious (some very suspicious) accounts of materials being found and observed seemingly constituent of these “Chemtrails”.

But even conceding that “Chemtrails” do exist, there is no evidence allowing for the visual identification and differentiation of “Chemtrails” from contrails, and you have offered no criteria or qualification to justify that you have the ability to visually differentiate between the two.

So I just don’t believe it. Prove it. If you take this is a de facto insult, too bad. If that is the case you have no business assuming the role of a dissenter.

Now are you going to defend this challenge or what?

My interest in Chemtrails does not extend into studies of the composition of the

sprayed materials. I do not know, and don't know how to find out. My interest

is determining government participation, purpose, secrecy and coverup. If this

were to be revealed, then the composition of the spray would be known. I would

like for the public to be aware of these strange events, and know that they are

NOT contrails, which evaporate within minutes; chemtrails persist and spread

for hours. Photos show that the planes used are air force tankers, not passenger

jets.

Jack

It is a proven fact that contrails can and do persist given the right conditions so it is wrong to say that they evaporate withing minutes. Depending on the conditions, contrails can evaporate quickly or persist, covering all times in between. Even if it were true that only these mythical "chemtrails" were the onnes persisting, then where is the dividing line? If it dissipates quickly within minutes then it is a contrail, what about if it takes 20 minutes? What about 30, what about 60, 2hours, 3 hours, etc? The science behind it perfectly explains the differences. I've seen studies where they observed contrails lasting all times short and long with no clear dividing line.

There are plenty of photos showing regular commercial jets leaving persistent contrails too. Further, the program flight explorer that I mentioned previously can tell you what many of the flights you see in the air are in near real time. There is also a problem of scale with assuming it is government tankers. The Air Force has what seems like a lot of tankers but many of them are suffering from periodic maintenance issues as most of the fleet was built in the 60's. At any given time, 1/3 to 1/2 the available tankers are deployed and helping with OIF and OEF. Millions of pounds of fuel are delivered by air through these tankers every day. Back home at least 1/3 of the jets are being repaired or overhauled. This leaves 1/3 to 1/6 the total left and they are kept busy providing training to pilots in the states. Pilots need to air refueling practice every month to keep current and more often if they expect to keep their skills up. You would hardly expect a pilot to refuel by air for the first time while deployed in a war zone. To spread "chemtrails" on the scale suggested by some just in the US not to mention worldwide would require hundreds if not thousands more planes that just don't exist in the miltary tanker fleet.

The return of contrails from ice/moisture (the visible cloudlike trails are actually either water mist or ice) to a gas (water vapor) would require the addition of the latent heat of vaporization. The latent heat would exceed 1000 btu/lb of water. Significant visible formations of contrails therefore will not typically disppear in minutes as there is insufficient heat available to cause the phase change. In fact ice crystals will seed additional sublimation/formation of moisture.

It is incorrect to assume that contrails will disappear in minutes. This could occur but would be atypical.

My house is situated between three of the world's largest airfields. I see dozens of flights

daily. I see many CONTRAILS. They disappear within thirty seconds. I see many CHEMTRAILS.

They do not disappear at all, but spread out to form large cirrus cloud cover. I DO NOT ASSUME

THAT CONTRAILS DISAPPEAR WITHIN SECONDS. I OBSERVE IT FREQUENTLY. I have seen

chemtrails and contails in the sky at the same time. I speak from observation, not theorizing

Jack

I didn't say that contrails cannot disappear within minutes (as you identified previously; not in seconds), but that this is atypical due to the physics involved. To categorically state that you observe contrails which disappear in seconds and chemtrails which do not disapear at all (and imply that you subsequently observe the difference between the two) is not a sound conclusion. I have read no scientific rationale for this. For any addition/change to the atmosphere which is sufficiently bouyant to remain aloft (without descending quickly) implies that it is not a release intended for the population below, as it would be extremely diluted if and when it finally did descend (due to the time element) and the results would be unpredictable. Therefore I challange the hypothesis that you can differentiate bewteen chemtrails and contrails based on your stated observations.

Again, thank you.

I hope I'm not be. laboring the point, but the cloud-forming trails of the past few years seem to be a new phenomenon.

Could advances in jet engine design and/or fuel refinement contribute to what we're seeing?

I dont know the answer to that. When it comes to the patterns which have been photographed, the answer would be no. The patterns themselves seem pretty weird.

I would think that the more fuel efficient engine designs would cut back on any kind of trails, owing to the engine exhaust pollutants in creation of core particles for ice crystal formation.

It is incorrect to assume that contrails will disappear in minutes. This could occur but would be atypical.

Thanks, Peter.

I'm most curious about the spread of the so-called chemtrails. I have observed them occluding significant portions (in this layman's terms, at least 50%) of the visible sky.

"Visible," that is, from the outskirts of a mid-size American city -- as opposed to, say, open prairie in Kansas.

I seems that the trails propagate and thicken rather than spread themselves ever thinner.

Can you account for this?

Thanks in advance.

Once formed contrails are quite similar to cirrus clouds. I assume that upper level winds spread the formations (I'm not a meteorologist but this is a logical assumption). saturated air (air that is at or near its saturation limit, the maximum water vapor content at the partial pressure of the water vapor) will give up the latent heat of vaporization to the cold air/ice crystals, changing the ice to moisture (liquid) and condensing the water vapor from a gaseous state to liquid. This process will continue as long as a sufficient cold air source is present (upper level trough-jet stream provides an ideal source of cold air for this purpose, the "seeding" via ice crystals provides both an attractive element [surface tension as well as charged particles, pollutants provide ideal core particles, hence engine exhaust contrails] for this process to manifest, similar to the proliferation of clouds). Condensation creates low pressure or vacuum, drawing in more cold air and water vapor causing a self generating precipitant.

That is my understanding. This process is the same as that which proliferates clouds (and ultimately precipitation), but on a smaller scale. I'm only an amateur meteorologist, however (although my work involves some amount of this), so you might try a better source for confirmation.

My interest in Chemtrails does not extend into studies of the composition of the

sprayed materials. I do not know, and don't know how to find out. My interest

is determining government participation, purpose, secrecy and coverup. If this

were to be revealed, then the composition of the spray would be known. I would

like for the public to be aware of these strange events, and know that they are

NOT contrails, which evaporate within minutes; chemtrails persist and spread

for hours. Photos show that the planes used are air force tankers, not passenger

jets.

Jack

It is a proven fact that contrails can and do persist given the right conditions so it is wrong to say that they evaporate withing minutes. Depending on the conditions, contrails can evaporate quickly or persist, covering all times in between. Even if it were true that only these mythical "chemtrails" were the onnes persisting, then where is the dividing line? If it dissipates quickly within minutes then it is a contrail, what about if it takes 20 minutes? What about 30, what about 60, 2hours, 3 hours, etc? The science behind it perfectly explains the differences. I've seen studies where they observed contrails lasting all times short and long with no clear dividing line.

There are plenty of photos showing regular commercial jets leaving persistent contrails too. Further, the program flight explorer that I mentioned previously can tell you what many of the flights you see in the air are in near real time. There is also a problem of scale with assuming it is government tankers. The Air Force has what seems like a lot of tankers but many of them are suffering from periodic maintenance issues as most of the fleet was built in the 60's. At any given time, 1/3 to 1/2 the available tankers are deployed and helping with OIF and OEF. Millions of pounds of fuel are delivered by air through these tankers every day. Back home at least 1/3 of the jets are being repaired or overhauled. This leaves 1/3 to 1/6 the total left and they are kept busy providing training to pilots in the states. Pilots need to air refueling practice every month to keep current and more often if they expect to keep their skills up. You would hardly expect a pilot to refuel by air for the first time while deployed in a war zone. To spread "chemtrails" on the scale suggested by some just in the US not to mention worldwide would require hundreds if not thousands more planes that just don't exist in the miltary tanker fleet.

The return of contrails from ice/moisture (the visible cloudlike trails are actually either water mist or ice) to a gas (water vapor) would require the addition of the latent heat of vaporization. The latent heat would exceed 1000 btu/lb of water. Significant visible formations of contrails therefore will not typically disppear in minutes as there is insufficient heat available to cause the phase change. In fact ice crystals will seed additional sublimation/formation of moisture.

It is incorrect to assume that contrails will disappear in minutes. This could occur but would be atypical.

Click on this for a listing of chemtrail sites and photos:

http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html

For the theories concerning "Chemtrails" to be correct, the substance(s) would eventually reach ground level. Why hasn't (or have they?) anyone sampled the air before and after the spray would have settled out to ground level to see what the substance(s) is?

It is not "theories" that these events occur. Click on the websites. Read. Yes, the substances

have been collected and tested. Various things like aluminum and barium fibres. Read.

Look at CHEMTRAILS OVER LOUISVILLE, which has typical photos.

Jack

I have read and scanned many of the articles on the page you linked. I also did a web search on chemtrails and have read and scanned several articles on the web.

Several articles posit the spraying of microscopic pathogens such as strep and pseudemonous. So far, from what I’ve read, the only circumstances that suggest these pathogens to have been released purposefully. are the presence of pathogens isolated in visible sublimates/stains discovered following the observation of what appeared to be chemtrails. These pathogens are naturally occurring, however, and the observations, while suggesting conspiracy, do not constitute empirical proof. The photos of rashes and descriptions of illnesses experienced are fairly severe.

When I lived in the Fort Worth area in the late 1980’s I experienced severe sinus ailments (collapsed sinuses which, if you have experienced it, is agonizing), but this was diagnosed as an allergic reaction to a dried airborne cedar fungus, which was prevalent in the area.

The articles identifying trace aluminum and barium do not compare these samples in a controlled manner, although it seems clear, from the observer’s notes that the materials followed observation of what are described as “chemtrails”.

Aluminum hydroxide has been used extensively in weather experiments for cloud seeding and precipitation. Other than medical applications I am not familiar with uses of barium, therefore theorizing the use in communications experiments or applications, or some other, low frequency type radiation emission experiments, is possible, I suppose.

As much information is posted on the web concerning this subject, there may be something to it, but for me to read all of the subject matter concerning “chemtrails” would take several weeks, at least. Therefore I likely will not read the bulk of it.

I would like to read of a sampling performed in a controlled situation using a base or control sample group, and a review by a qualified allergist. I may be able to perform chemical analyses for elemental metals, likely aluminum, maybe barium, I’ll see.

The web page “Aerosol Operation” has some interesting information. I’m not buying into it, yet, but it seems worth checking out. Since you seem to know about it you might post a brief explanation (or link to one you have previously posted).

That's the thing I stated very early in one of the 'chemtrail' threads; we can't actually positively deny it. The balance of probability will weigh very heavily in favour of a mundane, explainable occurrence... but unless you can take a sample of the vapour behind the aircraft you cannot say it is does not contain any unusual chemicals.

Still, I am not aware of anyone who has ever sampled and analysed one of these 'chemtrails'.

What are "Chemtrails" and why are they a political conspiracy?

Why are they prevalent over Fort Worth?

I think I understand the theory behind contrails. Per Wikipedia: "Contrails or vapor trails are condensation trails and artificial cirrus clouds made by the exhaust of aircraft engines or wingtip vortices which precipitate a stream of tiny ice crystals in moist, frigid upper air."

Can't say I've ever heard of "chemtrails" though.

Click on this for a listing of chemtrail sites and photos:

http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html

For the theories concerning "Chemtrails" to be correct, the substance(s) would eventually reach ground level. Why hasn't (or have they?) anyone sampled the air before and after the spray would have settled out to ground level to see what the substance(s) is?

That's the thing I stated very early in one of the 'chemtrail' threads; we can't actually positively deny it. The balance of probability will weigh very heavily in favour of a mundane, explainable occurrence... but unless you can take a sample of the vapour behind the aircraft you cannot say it is does not contain any unusual chemicals.

Still, I am not aware of anyone who has ever sampled and analysed one of these 'chemtrails'.

What are "Chemtrails" and why are they a political conspiracy?

Why are they prevalent over Fort Worth?

I think I understand the theory behind contrails. Per Wikipedia: "Contrails or vapor trails are condensation trails and artificial cirrus clouds made by the exhaust of aircraft engines or wingtip vortices which precipitate a stream of tiny ice crystals in moist, frigid upper air."

Can't say I've ever heard of "chemtrails" though.

It's a very interesting topic.

The premise of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" is quite valid.... but we must also consider the premise of "We have always done it that way here". That premise abhors change and / or improvement.

So what is the best compromise between the two?

Amazingly what is passing off as conservative government, these days, is the diametric opposite of what a conservative philosophy used to be in the not too distant past.

Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, both self styled conservatives, have spoken out in favor of a Presidential line item veto. A line item veto, if you haven’t heard of it, would give the President the power to editorialize the legislature brought before him. Line item veto would allow him to erase lines, sections, or whole chapters of bills, allowing the bill to be passed in its altered state rather than be vetoed.

The line item veto would allow the changing of bills substantially, giving the President nominal legislative power.

George Will, a conservative voice, and who is often poignant in his opinions, offers the following:

“After a century of the growth of presidential power and after eight years of especially aggressive assertions of presidential prerogatives, it would be unseemly to intensify this tendency with a line-item veto. Conservatives used to be the designated worriers about the evolution of the presidency into the engine of grandiose government. They should visit the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives building on Constitution Avenue. There the Constitution is displayed under four large glass plates. Almost half of the glass is required to cover just Article One. That concerns the legislative branch, which is the government’s “first branch” for a reason.”

The current administration has shifted the balance of power in Washington towards the executive dramatically. I don’t think that the executive branch has ever held such a political advantage (judicial nominations sympathetic to the executive, bills giving the executive broad and vaguely defined powers via Patriot Act, etc. etc.).

This concentration of such power in one branch of the US government used to be the antithesis of a conservative philosophy in government. Granting the executive the line item veto is definitely not the direction we should take if we wish to maintain a balanced government.

Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he were aware of the current state of affairs.

Anyway, my definition of conservative is far different from the current offerings that the Republican Party is trying to pass off as conservative. I would like to see the government steer towards what the framers of the constitution considered to be States’ rights, along the lines of James Madison’s or Thomas Jefferson’s ideas of a “Constitutional Government”.

The war on drugs has been a disaster in the US. Our prisons are filled with the greatest number of prisoners per capita in US history (largely due to federal law and sentencing requirements), The Criminal justice system is overloaded to the point of being hamstrung, and the US prison system has been declared to be unacceptable with respect to human rights abuses by (the UN?).

There seems to be a greater and greater call for the 'war on drugs' to be abandoned. Treat drug use as a disease, not a crime. I'm interested in how other countries have dealt with the problem? I understand the Netherlands have gone down the decriminalisation road - how has that turned out? So far, it seems we are badly losing the war on drugs.

US gun laws might be an example of ineffective gun control if some states ban the sale of handguns and some states allow unrestricted handgun handgun sales, gunrunning across state lines becomes a criminal enterprise.

For one or two European countries to decriminalize or liberalize laws for the "lesser" types/quantities of drugs would likely invite some amount of criminal enterprise for criminals operating/dealing in harsher countries using the liberal spots as bases for operation (just my opinion).

The war on drugs has been a disaster in the US. Our prisons are filled with the greatest number of prisoners per capita in US history (largely due to federal law and sentencing requirements), The Criminal justice system is overloaded to the point of being hamstrung, and the US prison system has been declared to be unacceptable with respect to human rights abuses by (the UN?).

There seems to be a greater and greater call for the 'war on drugs' to be abandoned. Treat drug use as a disease, not a crime. I'm interested in how other countries have dealt with the problem? I understand the Netherlands have gone down the decriminalisation road - how has that turned out? So far, it seems we are badly losing the war on drugs.

I don't know much about the Netherlands success against the criminal element, having to a large degree decriminalized drugs, but places like Amsterdam are portrayed as having a large criminal element in proximity due to the clearinghouse effect that exists because of their liberal criminal laws relating to drugs. That is only my impression from television and the media. If only one or two European countries decrimnalize drugs, then IMO they would be a logical base of operation for criminals operating/dealing in other countires.

Countries which are large or isolated would seem to benefit to a much larger degree. Again that is only my opinion.

I seek something in the moderately paranoid range(US); if not on House a book with a lot of good stuff on him would be good also. It would be good if the book mentioned something besides the Federal Reserve Bank, although I suspect it will have to be an ingredient, and am far from allergic.

I would suggest reading any books documenting the birth of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The problem with conservatives is that they like to live in the past. Kenneth Clark, who held right-wing opinions, admitted that: "To do as our fathers did is not to do as our fathers did."

It’s difficult to see a clear outline of many policy differences between the Conservatives and liberals anymore.

In the USA the underlying platform for Conservatives used to be less central Government (or just less government). By contrast Liberals were thought to advocate a greater role for government in peoples' lives (i.e. people couldn't think for themselves and certainly couldn't care for themselves).

Since then (this paradigm I believe ended at least a decade ago) both groups seem to be shifting towards a larger role in central government (esp. in such matters as the Patriot Act, War Powers, and Emergency management, etc. (Hurricane Katrina notwithstanding).

Although there are some services and entitlements that should be provided for and regulated by central government, this would be an ideal time for a paradigm shift for the Democratic Party in the US (that is a smaller less expensive and less intrusive Federal Government).

The war on drugs has been a disaster in the US. Our prisons are filled with the greatest number of prisoners per capita in US history (largely due to federal law and sentencing requirements), The Criminal justice system is overloaded to the point of being hamstrung, and the US prison system has been declared to be unacceptable with respect to human rights abuses by (the UN?).

Most reasons for conservative points of view on my part (in the past), have vanished and I see the once conservative Republican Party as staunch advocates of Big Government, massive spending, execution of foreign policy through force, impotent foreign policy with respect to autocratic and expanding militaristic powers in the world.

As for the Bush administration---Amnesty International’s yearly report condemning the United States conduct in the war on terror. “I have a copy of Amnesty International’s report here, which includes a section on the United States,” he said. “The organization has concluded that the United States IS NOW THE PRINCIPLE VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS WORLDWIDE.” (Vladimir Putin).

Russia is organizing in the same mold as pre perestroika. China is fast becoming probably the largest and maybe deadliest military force on earth.

The US is so wrapped up in the Mideast, we would have trouble handling a military issue in someplace like the Mideast or Africa, let alone an additional one or two ocean war. I say this not to advocate war or war mongering, but in the spirit of deterrence and non-involvement unless a direct threat to the US is present.

The Democrats have an opportunity in the USA to become the champions of downsizing a big Federal Government, and to begin extricating the US of involvement in all of the roles which we handle so poorly due to the fast changing world and our difficulty in changing with it. Domestically, for subjects like education, we need the help of the Federal Government, but not their heavy handed administration. And so on it goes. We are too large a country to model ourselves after say Finland or even Canada (which has a far too burdensome Central Government anyway).

There has always been a very large group in the US opposed to big Government. The next major political party to tap into that sentiment will do well by it. Prior to the New Deal, the Democrats were anti big Government, when that changed to a Republican hail and cry, many democrats changed sides (Ronald Reagan talked about this when he ran for President in his first election, talking down big government, and that he was a Democrat and jumped ship when the GOP grabbed the anti big Government mantle). Maybe it’s time for the Dems to take up the battle against big government.

Or was Blunt getting information from an unwise Crabb, who might have believed that Blunt could be trusted?

I read a book (I forget which) that said that Victor Rothschild was the fifth man. I was unconvinced by it, but I admit my knowledge of these affairs is only superficial.

I might be incorrect, but I think it might be unfair to say that Wright "...claimed that Roger Hollis, Michael Hanley and Graham Mitchell were spies...". IIRC, he said that based on the various allegations and known "true bills", those three were the only ones who fitted all the circumstances. He later ruled out Hanley and Mitchell because of their surveillance / interrogations, but didn't clear Hollis.

It seems that following Maclean's and then Burgess' disappearance and defection in 1951/1952, Phiby came under scrutiny and subsequently the "Secret Trial" was held of Philby in 1952 (I had to look up the dates form Wikipedia, although I recollect Philby's timeline from his book "My Silent War"). At that time Anthony Blunt, although not under overt suspicion as the fourth man (he didn't confess until 1964), was rendered impotent with respect to continuing espionage activities (Michael Straight's book "After Long Silence").

By 1956, at the time of Crabbe's disappearance, of the "Cambridge Four" only Blunt remained in England, and as Purveyor of the Queen's art collection, it seems he had moved away from espionage (likely he had been under suspicion before this, but there was pressure to avoid a scandal, and it was too soon to investigate Blunt's connection to the others in the "Cambridge Four").

Per a BBC.CO.UK interview of Crabbe's diving partner Sidney Knowles:

" .....In 1955 Sydney accompanied Crabb on a secret mission to spy on the Russian warship Sverdlov on

its visit to Portsmouth.

He was also mixing with a pro-Soviet group of people - and they dragged Sydney along to parties attended by the likes of double agent Anthony Blunt (Crabbe and Blunt were known to be friends).

"It's either suicide or bloody Russia," Crabb told Sidney.

Afraid Crabb was thinking of defecting, Sydney alerted MI5.

He also refused to dive with Crabb on a second Russian ship, the Ordzhonokidze - which had also come into Portsmouth Harbour.

But he believes Crabb didn't dive alone on his last fatal mission:

Sorry for any reiteration, ... but given that the body found likely wasn't Crabbe's, penetration of the British security services by the KGB in the 1950's, even following the dissolution of the Cambridge ring, Crabbe's friendship with Anthony Blunt, and the likely presence of a "Fifth Man" the arrangement of his defection would seem fairly academic.

Establishing Crabbe's murder (that is murdering him), going to the trouble of a decapitation, the confusion identifying the body, and Eden's statement that further investigation "would not be in the public's interest", seems a strange and hamfisted attempt to overcome the facts with perception. Could this indicate Crabbe was captured by the KGB? (although this seems unlikely).

... CIA agent Matthew Smith spent a considerable time with Crabbe. In reality, this was a CIA rather than MI6 operation.

Bob Edwards, MP, & Kenneth Dunne. A Study of a Master Spy (London: Housmans, second edition, May 1961), p.63:

"At all events, it has been definitely stated that a certain 'quiet American' persuaded Captain Lionel Crabb to undertake his unfortunate enterprise with a promise of 5,000 pounds. The 'quiet American' – his alias was 'Matthew Smith' – thought that five thousand pounds would be enough to compensate for any discomfort Crabb might experience underwater. He paid his money. Britain paid too – in public embarrassment."

Was it Adenauer or Erhard who groaned, upon being introduced to yet another CIA man bearing the wearingly familiar alias, "Not another Smith!"?

Now was it Nicholas Elliot or "Mathew Smith" who ordered Crabb into the water?

I don't believe anyone in MI5 or any Englishman would take orders from an American no matter how much was paid out.

You can't blame the CIA for everything.

BK

In "Spycatcher" Peter Wright claimed the existnce of a "Fifth Man" in the Cambridge ring. He goes on to say that he suspected the mole to be very high up in MI-6. Don't know if a fifth man was ever uncovered.

They [Mossad] must of had knowledge of what was happening.

Why ask that as though it is such an unusual question? Mossad is sophisticated and tough. They move faster than we do. They don't discount information as we do. They also are comfortable using unorthodox means to acquire information, such as the back door in Promis. Why underestimate them and pretend they did not?

From several books I had read many years ago (sorry for the lack of citing, but it would take me at least a week of rereading to find the pertinent sections) the Israelis have it all over the US with respect to Human Intelligence. We had pretty well abandoned Human intel in favor of Communications and Electronics Intelligence back in the 1960s. By comparison, Mossad had built up their human intelligence resources to one of the world’s best (maybe the world’s best; read of the six day war, or the capture of Eichmann). The only rival human intelligence during the cold war was the Soviets who had well over a million illegals. A few books I had read were about Russian defections to Israel, and subsequent debriefings where great intelligence was garnered, better than the US would get from the same sources (sometimes debriefings would follow political agendas rather than logical ones).

A lot of human intelligence isn’t black or white (not absolute), and much if it can be uncorroborated (“Curveball”, the German source on the Iraq WMD would be an example, as his intelligence statements wasn’t corroborated, and shouldn’t have been accepted, but since they supported a political agenda, were cherry picked).

My recollection is that the Israelis have pretty much always shared intelligence with the US. Reports of debriefings by Mossad included complaints of information overload, just too much raw information that would require vetting by the receiving agency, and which could be extremely time consuming considering the loss of expertise in Hum-Intel. Much of the intelligence may have been ignored as a result.

I would tend to agree with Pamela. The Israelis had (and still have) a tremendous amount of very good human intelligence (e.g. sources), and likely would have known something was afoot, even if the precise details weren’t known. I remember reading more than one complaint of the US intelligence suffering from “information overload” (just too much data) when debriefing Mossad counterparts, and turning a deaf ear to the Mossad, in lieu of receiving important intelligence. I apologize for the lack of cites. If Bill Kelly reads this he might lend some insight.

There is another major problem with the termite hypothesis. One of its early proponents was Dr. D.P.Grimmer a physicist who calculated that 0.439 m3 of termite would be required to cut the largest columns . The cube root of 0.439 = 0.76, thus if all the thermite was stored in a central cube shaped reservoir its internal dimensions would be 76 cm (30 inches) per side.

http://www.physics911.ca/Grimmer:_Possible...Thermite_in_WTC

Reviewing the pictures of the cut columns and beams (cut on the bias) the cuts were ovbiously made using flame or carbon arc gouge methods. These methods employ forced gas clearing of the slag to allow the efficient cutting of the member.

Exothermic methods employing thermite or thermate would leave a very rough and slag laden cut, neither very straight nor clean.

I would also dispute any theory which includes exothermic material flow to the outside of the building. The heat contained in a pool of such material, after cutting a beam would prevent it from being directed to the exterior of the building.

The reason I would doubt if exothermics would be useful in CD are precisely these reasons, the material does not clear the cut efficiently and would tend to pool at inopportune locations.

Also, the building architects have stated that the WTC 1 and 2 were "designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner". This theory is based on the load bearing capability of the building with one wall and adjoining corners removed. It has been stated that the strength of the remaining structure would be sufficient for "live loads".

I have some experience (i.e. review of design) with building design for extreme dynamic loading due to forces such as jetliner impact. There has been controversy even when a structure with four foot thick concerete walls using number 18 rebar (reinforcing steel), densely woven, interior and exterior, is hypothesized to undergo a jetliner collision and (structurally) which is much stronger than the WTC structures (by several orders of magnitude). Anyone who pronounces the WTC 1 and 2 towers capable of withstanding such loading is fantasizing. In fact without dynamic modeling, the dynamic loading of a jetliner impact and subsequent building behavior cannot be determined. That is why the NIST report has substance.

I guess that suggests the directed energy weapon hypothesis, which is so ludicrous, I can't begin to address. But it is imaginative.

I guess this is the thread to report this interesting information.

I occasionally exchange emails with David Percy...especially

when I do new Apollo studies.

This week the email has been heavier than usual...and a very

odd thing has happened.

Any message with an image attached has been held up approximately

48 hours before eventual delivery. Not deleted, so far as I know,

although he has as yet to reply to my last message, sent earlier

today.

I suspect the images are being INTERCEPTED and examined by

the spooks so they will have plenty of time to compose replies

for their several stooges assigned to harass me here, so that

immediate responses can be ready as soon as Bernice posts

images for me.

Jack

Jack

Yer jokin' aren't yer?

Dave

Absolutely not joking. Emails between Percy and me have taken 48 hours

this week IF THEY CONTAIN IMAGES. A technical problem? Hasn't happened

previously.

And as Duane wrote, this week I wanted to email him as I sometimes

have done...AND HIS OLD EMAILS AND HIS EMAIL ADDRESS HAD

DISAPPEARED FROM MY ADDRESS BOOK. Annoying, yes. Coincidence...?

Jack

I'm not questioning the fact that you may be experiencing some technical problems with your email (heck, I do from time to time). I'm questioning you suspecting people on this forum of being involved (presumably me as well as I've composed several replies to your studies, including 2 or 3 in recent days).

Sorry Jack, I didn't need anyone to intercept them, I just used good old-fashioned analysis. If you think my responses are wrong, show me where, rather than side-tracking the issue with veiled accusations of skullduggery.

How about a response to the missing tyre track thread for starters?

Likely a web bot attack on a major server.

Companies like Yahoo, Google, Excite, etc. use massive Servers to handle the tremendous flux of mail they handle. Sometimes these companies come under a web bot attack, a method of attack where one or more hackers send out 'orders' to ther hacker community to attack some such company, or service, Government, etc. They then have programs which are launched and which can co-opt thousands, even milions, of unsuspecting computers, which, in turn write several emails each, to the traget, to flood the company's servers with large, AI generated emails. The object is to overload the server for said company with so many emails, that they can't handle the traffic, and are effectively shut down. The hackers may also be testing their latest hack designs on the commercial email servers.

Since emails that contain images are typically many times the size of standard emails, the server's protective buffers store these large files until the traffic becomes manageable. That's the clue that strongly suggests a web bot attack.

For any skeptics out there, read Wired magazine's (I believe its in the August Issue) article describing how some Russian Nationalists launched a Web Bot attack on Estonia when they were removing a WWII statue commemorating Stalin or some such, from WWII. They shut down (and I mean shut down) Estonia's electronic infrastructure.

This is a major national security concern for any country that depends heavily on cyber communications in their security infrastructure.

I seriously doubt that any third party would intercept photos of supposed Apollo hoax claims, and hold them up, out of the cyber-traffic, while they are inspected. Even if some third party wanted to inspect them, they could set up an automatic intercept of any emails with tagline 'apollo hoax', Jack White', or etc., copy the message for later inspection, and not slow the message down for even a micro second.

Intercepting and holding Apollo Hoax emails and images for 48 hours? Not credible.

Edited to correct spelling and grammatical errors, PM 9/17/07 10:32 CST

"...uses established engineering models..."

"Dr Seffen, a Senior Lecturer in the Structures Group in the Department of Engineering..."

"Dr Seffen's new analysis, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics..."

That's no good, Len; you know that. A qualified person publishing in a peer-reviewed journal of the subject being discussed? Rubbish.

You need unqualified people giving scientifically unsound theories being reviewed by people are likewise unqualified to assess the work. Maybe a philosopher talking about engineering in a sociology magazine. Now THAT'S evidence!

The images and evaluatons I have read of the twin tower (WTC 1 and 2) collapses seem to be analyzed and explained in succinct, rational, well suported, and believable doumentation. I have read the NIST report, and some trade peices from the ASCE, as well as mainstream articles. The pieces are well cited in the public domain and threads on this forum.

The collapse of WTC 7, however, is a different story. Not only do the images of the collapse of WTC 7 invite criticism of the theory that the WTC 7 collapse was the result of anciliary damage from the WTC 1 and 2 collisions, also, there are strong indications and peer opinion (from some demolition experts) that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

I am not typically a purveyor of conspiracy theory, but I must admit that the WTC 7 collapse looks (to use a highly technical term;) 'Fishy'.

This POV has been attacked by certain (un-named, but with the initials JW) Conspircay Theorists, due to the 'All of Nothing' philosophy, and subsequent out of hand rejection of my POV since I do not subscribe to most of the 'Truther's' POV on 9/11.

However if I was a conspiracy theorist, I would concentrate on WTC 7 to the exclusion of most everything else. Once this is explained, either 1, some amount of conspiracy has been established, or, and more likely, 2, the nagging questions many have concerning this anomaly will be answered, tying up, what for me is a big loose end.

I do not subscribe to the 'All or nothing' POV and resent any condescension for suspicion of a mere few parts of the mainstream 'official' account. I do not understand why the CT'ers do not employ a systematic approach and address these less prococative issues. That would seem to provide a sound base form which to extrapolate further theory.

TJust 'IMHO' a more logical way to proceed, if I was a 'Truther'. I f someone has a alternate (reasonable) explanation for the behavior of WTC 7m I would be very interested in reading it.