Peter McKenna

Thanks Sid, I will peruse the referenced site. I am always very short on time, hence the request. But, reviewing video records of the collapse of WTC 7, the symmetry of the collapse, the lack of localized visble damage precluding a complete collapse, and the descent, seeming simply too symetrical, and without a sense of a localized 'cause and effect' sequence subsequently leading to its collapse, IMO makes this a compelling starting point. Likewise, the arrest of Zaccaharius Moussoui, and the lack of investigation into (with hindsight) obvious subsequent connections to publicized sequence of events and persons identified as the hijackers. Lack of any video evidence of the pentagon crash. These are some of the incidents which I find suspicious and which should bear tighter scrutiny. Also likewise, some POVs which may be just what they seem (or not, but arguably may be far too distracting to start with), can be parked for later review, rather than become too wrapped around the axle (for now). With my limited available time, this would seem a logical way (for me) to research this topic. I sense that this would benefit a large portion of people, like me, who are skeptical of aspects, but keep getting into diamterically opposing views on certain aspects, which ultimately detracts from making any progress. Thanks Peter

Evan Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with? Sid, Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective. I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation). By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation. There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties. barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun. I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain. Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media). I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork. I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you? Thank you, Peter McKenna Peter...you simply are not up to speed regarding the IMPOSSIBLE COLLAPSES OF WTC 1 and 2. Go to http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html and read the studies of Dr. Judy Wood, professor of engineering, regarding the SIMPLE ELEMENTARY PHYSICS of an object in FREE FALL which can be calculated by any physics student. She calculates the time it would take a billiard ball to fall from the tops of the buildings vs the time it took the buildings themselves to fall. BOTH THE TOWERS as well as BUILDING 7 FELL WITHOUT RESISTANCE, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. Steel and concrete below the areas of impact and fire PROHIBIT the entire buildings from falling at free fall speed. Jack Jack, I do not wish to rehash the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. I have read the reports from various academic and engineering organizations, which explain the WTC 1 and 2 collapse to my satisfaction (at this time anyway). I have other suspicions which I would like to see explored, and which others may agree also appear suspicious. Whether or not the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is either suspicious to you or you have convinced yourself that the 'official' (i.e. the explanation provided by bona fide engineering associations) portraying these events have been fictionalized is irrelevant to my request. I am simply trying to come up with some aspects of 9/11 that are suspicious to many to establish some common ground from which I and others may begin some of our own research and evaluation. Bldg. 7 I believe is one such aspect. There are others. I felt Sid could step back from the all or nothing POV and help come up with a set of aspects of 9/11 that more mainstream skeptics might agree with are worth further insight. Whether or not you feel some other aspects have been spun or fictionalized (that are not suspect to the majority on this site) will only detract. If you feel strongly that WTC 1 and 2 should be re-examined, perhaps it would benefit this task to first establish some common ground for others who do not feel this way. A case should be built from the bottom up, and from more obvious suspicions to those less obvious. If one establishes reasonable confidence in the fact that WTC 7 was 'Pulled' in a controlled demolition, then one might find material for a case in point concerning WTC 1 and 2. Either way it doesn't do much good to insist on focusing on WTC 1 and 2, at this time. Peter, I find your reply disingenious at best. You insist on a 'BONAFIDE ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION" doing calculations. Why? Why won't a BONAFIDE PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING do? After all, these calculations can be done by any PHYSICS STUDENT aware of the laws of gravity. Dr. Woods' studies can be understood easily by anyone of average intelligence. A falling body accelerates at 32 feet per second per second regardless of the person or group doing the study. Or do you disagree? Did you take time to read her studies, or did you find them inconvenient to your preconceived beliefs? How about actually commenting on her studies, and then refuting them if you can. No need to consult an engineering "association". Common sense is good enough. Jack Jack, Arguing over Judy Wood's input to 9/11 is totally off the point. Not only is it counterproductive to building a consensus about any pertinent matters that might be of further interest to the run of the mill, I think her theories are a few cards shy of a full deck (e.g as the theory about the WTC being attacked by star wars particle beams, http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html). Jack, you continue to waste time and energy inserting your opinion where it adds the least value. Please read my request. I do not wish to argue over WTC 1 and 2 in this context. If you wish to, please find a willing participant. I'm sure that you can find one somewhere (maybe not). Peter

Peter I wonder if Mark is going to now claim that you are an “aggressive, impatient” “knucklehead” motivated by “hubris” because you bumped this thread a minute after your previous post. No I imagine he’ll rationalize a difference between our ‘bumps’. LOL Len Len, I don't know what that castigation was all about. It seemed almost tongue in cheek. Mark probably had a laugh over that. At least I hope that was his intent (vs. implying hidden agenda over bumping). Peter

Duplicate post. Edited to remove repeated content.

Evan Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with? Sid, Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective. I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation). By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation. There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties. barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun. I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain. Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media). I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork. I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you? Thank you, Peter McKenna Peter...you simply are not up to speed regarding the IMPOSSIBLE COLLAPSES OF WTC 1 and 2. Go to http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html and read the studies of Dr. Judy Wood, professor of engineering, regarding the SIMPLE ELEMENTARY PHYSICS of an object in FREE FALL which can be calculated by any physics student. She calculates the time it would take a billiard ball to fall from the tops of the buildings vs the time it took the buildings themselves to fall. BOTH THE TOWERS as well as BUILDING 7 FELL WITHOUT RESISTANCE, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. Steel and concrete below the areas of impact and fire PROHIBIT the entire buildings from falling at free fall speed. Jack Jack, I do not wish to rehash the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. I have read the reports from various academic and engineering organizations, which explain the WTC 1 and 2 collapse to my satisfaction (at this time anyway). I have other suspicions which I would like to see explored, and which others may agree also appear suspicious. Whether or not the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is either suspicious to you or you have convinced yourself that the 'official' (i.e. the explanation provided by bona fide engineering associations) portraying these events have been fictionalized is irrelevant to my request. I am simply trying to come up with some aspects of 9/11 that are suspicious to many to establish some common ground from which I and others may begin some of our own research and evaluation. Bldg. 7 I believe is one such aspect. There are others. I felt Sid could step back from the all or nothing POV and help come up with a set of aspects of 9/11 that more mainstream skeptics might agree with are worth further insight. Whether or not you feel some other aspects have been spun or fictionalized (that are not suspect to the majority on this site) will only detract. If you feel strongly that WTC 1 and 2 should be re-examined, perhaps it would benefit this task to first establish some common ground for others who do not feel this way. A case should be built from the bottom up, and from more obvious suspicions to those less obvious. If one establishes reasonable confidence in the fact that WTC 7 was 'Pulled' in a controlled demolition, then one might find material for a case in point concerning WTC 1 and 2. Either way it doesn't do much good to insist on focusing on WTC 1 and 2, at this time.

Part 13 Hopefully I have proved that peace negotiations between the British and Hitler were going on between 1940 and 1941. In fact, historians no longer reject the claim that these negotiations took place. However, some argue that Churchill was unaware of these talks. Could this be true? For example, the key figure in these talks is Sir Samuel Hoare. Supporters of Churchill point out that as soon as he gained office he removed Hoare from the cabinet. It is often argued that Churchill purged the government of appeasers and add that Lord Halifax also lost his job as foreign secretary in May 1940. They usually ignore the fact that Churchill brought in arch-appeaser Lord Beaverbrook into the cabinet at the same time. Officially, he was Minister without Portfolio, in reality he was deputy prime minister. Churchill also brought in Archibald Sinclair as Minister of Air. Sinclair, who had served under Churchill on the Western Front in 1915 was another one who had been a strong supporter of appeasement. Beaverbrook and Sinclair were both to play important roles in these peace negotiations and the cover-up of the Hess affair. It also has to be remembered what happened to Hoare after he was removed from the cabinet. Churchill appointed him as Ambassador to Madrid. This was an extremely important post in 1940. It was the epicenter of secret negotiations that were taking place between Britain and Germany. He also took part in important talks with Franco while in Madrid. If Hoare was being punished for his appeasement views why was he sent to Madrid instead of some outpost in the British Empire? The only possible explanation is that Hoare was under the control of Churchill. Some historians have accepted this point and have argued that the Hoare negotiations were part of “sting” operation to fool Hitler. That of course is a possibility but other events that took place after 1945 suggest that this was not the case. There are several pieces of evidence that have emerged over the last few years that suggest that Churchill was fully in control of these peace negotiations. That rather than working for a group within the government who intended to overthrow Churchill, Hoare was loyally carrying out Churchill’s orders. That in fact, there was no plot to remove Churchill because in reality he shared their right-wing philosophy that the primary objective was to destroy the Soviet Union rather than Nazi Germany. Just before Hess arrived in Scotland on 10th May 1941, there was an important meeting held at the Special Operations Executive (SOE) at Woburn Abbey. At the meeting were senior figures of the SOE, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Economic Warfare. This included Hugh Dalton, head of the SOE at the time and Anthony Eden, Churchill’s foreign secretary. Eden had resigned in protest because of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy and so it was highly symbolic for Churchill to appoint him as his foreign secretary. The minutes of this meeting was recently declassified. The minutes reveal that members were very depressed by the situation that the UK found itself in during May 1941. Members spoke of how it seemed that the UK was on the verge of losing Malta, Crete and Cyprus. The meeting also mourned the loss of Greece and recent defeats in the Middle East. Leonard St Clair Ingrams pointed out that Russian oil could now be sent to Nazi Germany via the Black Sea and Greece. The most interesting comments in the minutes comes from an unidentified speaker who says that the situation is so serious that: “We should therefore encourage the Germans to attack Russia by misleading Hitler and by hinting that the large sections both in Britain and the United States, who preferred to see the overthrow of the Russian rather than the German regime, might be prepared to force through a compromise peace between Britain and Germany and combine to destroy the common enemy, Communism” (Doc. FO 898/00009 – Public Records Office, Kew). Of course, the speaker is right, unless the British could persuade Hitler to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, the war would be lost. This had been known since May 1940 and it is why Churchill began negotiations with Hitler as soon as he gained power. These negotiations were taking place via Hoare in Madrid. Before the meeting took place, Anthony Eden had a private session with Robert Bruce Lockhart. He is an extremely interesting character and worked very closely with Churchill during the war. Lockhart was Acting British Consul-General in Moscow when the first Russian Revolution broke out in early 1917, but left shortly before the Bolshevik Revolution of October that year. Bruce Lockhart became an undercover agent for MI5 and with fellow British agent, Sidney Reilly, was implicated in a plot to assassinate Lenin. He was accused of plotting against the Bolshevik regime and, for a time during 1918, was confined in the Kremlin as a prisoner and condemned to death. However, his life was spared in an exchange for the Russian diplomat Maksim Maksimovich Litvinov. During the Second World War he became director-general of the Political Warfare Executive, co-ordinating all British propaganda against the enemy. Bruce Lockhart was also for a time the British liaison officer to the Czechoslovak Government in Exile under President Eduard Benes. Bruce Lockhart recorded some of what was said at this meeting in his diary (published after his death in 1974). Eden asked Lockhart about Eduard Benes. What we know about these peace negotiations is that Churchill was willing to let Hitler keep Czechoslovakia and Poland in exchange for changes in the occupation of France, Belgium, Holland, etc. Benes and General Sikorski, the head of the Polish government in exile, would obviously become a problem if such a deal was done. Bruce Lockhart wrote in his dairy that he told Eden that “he (Benes) had taken knocks better than anyone I know”. Eden agreed and said: “He’s had enough too”. Bruce Lockhart then adds: “I went on to say I was sorry meeting was postponed, coz (sic) I considered matter urgent lest Germans forestall. Eden told me he would have meeting earliest possible day next week.” (Robert Bruce Lockhart, The Diaries of Robert Bruce Lockhart, 1974 page 98) It is not clear what this meeting with the Germans was all about it seems to be connected with Benes and the fate of Czechoslovakia. It is probably a reference to the peace negotiations being carried out by Samuel Hoare. If so, it is clear that Churchill was fully aware of what was taking place. Another important released document provides further evidence that Churchill was aware of these negotiations. William Strang was assistant Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office. In the 1930s Strang had banded together the anti-appeasement faction headed by Churchill. Strang was therefore a trusted member of Churchill’s inner-circle. This was reflected in Strang being given the key job of the Foreign Office liaison officer to the SOE. On 28th April 1941 Strang wrote to Sir Alexander Cadogan, his boss at the Foreign Office. “Further to our discussion concerning the H matter (the name given to the secret peace talks being conducted by Samuel Hoare) last week. I attended a meeting with HRH the Duke of Kent last Friday. After I explained a little of the situation he seemed most willing to assist in this most delicate affair.” Strang goes on to say that the Duke of Kent is concerned about the “extreme sensitivity and potential political hazards of the task he had been asked to perform, and the jeopardy it would place himself in”. Kent pointed out that he would need to meet with Cadogan to ask further questions about this secret operation. What is more, he insisted that his friend, the Duke of Buccleuch, should attend this meeting. Buccleuch was one of the leading figures of the pro-Nazi group in the UK. We now know that he was a member of the secret Right Club that was responsible for supplying secret information to Nazi Germany during the war. Kent’s request for the attendance of Buccleuch is interesting. He clearly feared that he was being set-up by Churchill and wanted a witness to what was being said at the meeting. However, there was a clear danger that by inviting Buccleuch, this information would get back to Hitler. (Doc FO 794/19 Public Records Office, Kew) This document shows that the Duke of Kent was involved in these peace negotiations. This makes sense. Other documents show that Samuel Hoare was having difficulty persuading the German government to believe that Churchill was genuine in his peace talks. Hoare requested that a representative from the royal family should become involved. The Duke of Kent was the perfect choice. He had negotiated with the Germans before the war started on behalf of the Duke of Windsor and George VI. Hitler knew he held pro-Nazi views. Kent’s reaction to this invitation is also understandable. The presence of the Duke of Buccleuch would help to assure the Germans that these peace talks were genuine. There is also firm evidence that the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Buccleuch were at the Duke of Hamilton’s home (Dungavel House) when Hess arrived on the night of the 10th May. On the morning of the 11th May the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Buccleuch were involved in a car crash while driving along the Douglas to Lanark road. The Duke of Kent’s car hit a coal lorry. The scene of the accident was very close to Dungavel House. The following day a memorandum marked top secret was sent by a man named S. Voigt to Rex Leeper of the Political Intelligence Department and a key figure in the peace negotiations with Germany. “I can confirm that neither the Duke, or his passenger, Buccleuch, were injured, and in view of Lanark’s close proximity to the events of last weekend, steps have been taken to ensure the accident remains unreported by the press”. (Doc. FO 898/14 – Public Records Office, Kew) Of course, if we look at this document in isolation, it makes sense to keep this story out of the press in order to stop speculation about possible conspiracies. However, when you put it together with the William Strang document, it does suggest that the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Buccleuch were in Scotland to meet Hess. This is confirmed by the testimony of the housekeeper at Dungavel House. She told the authors of Double Standards (page 269) that the Duke of Hamilton was at the house on the night of the 10th May 1941 with someone with a foreign accent. This is almost certainly Baron de Ropp, who was involved in the German-British peace talks. The historians, Martin Allen (The Hitler/Hess Deception) and Peter Padfield (Hess) argue that Churchill was involved in carrying out false negotiations with Hitler that were so successful that it encouraged Hitler to invade the Soviet Union. If this is the case, why did Churchill not take credit for this highly successful operation that saved Britain from being defeated by Nazi Germany? Martin Allen argues that Churchill was unable to do this because this disclosure “would have given Britain’s enemies an opportunity to decry British perfidy, tainting her post-war standing in the world of foreign affairs.” (page 285) I do not find this argument convincing. Everyone was aware that Churchill was guilty of “perfidy”. How else do you explain that Churchill was willing to hand over Poland and Czechoslovakia to the Soviet Union in 1945? Remember we had apparently gone to war against Nazi Germany in order to bring freedom and democracy to these two countries. Churchill might have promised these two countries to Hitler in 1941, he actually gave them to Stalin in 1945. Stalin of course already knew about Churchill’s negotiations with Hitler as he had spies in the British Foreign Office, MI5/MI6 and the SOE. On 6th November, 1944, Churchill made a visit to Moscow. At a supper in the Kremlin, Stalin raised his glass and proposed a toast to the British Intelligence Services, which he said had “inveigled Hess into coming to England.” Churchill immediately protested that he and the intelligence services knew nothing about the proposed visit. Stalin smiled and said maybe the intelligence services had failed to tell him about the operation. (Doc PREM 3 434/7 Public Records Office, Kew) What Stalin was doing was to make it clear to Churchill that he intended to take over Poland and Czechoslovakia and that Churchill was in no position to resist this process. Churchill was being blackmailed into submission. The next post will explain why Churchill had to order the assassinations of the Duke of Kent and General Sikorski. Mr. Simkin, These are very intersting and enlightening posts on the possible actions and motives behind the behavior of Churchill and other high ranking or otherwise influential British Autocrats and Aristocrats. Being from America, the history lessons from my youth painted Churchill as an absolute Hawk, anti Nazi and anti Hitler, with no middle ground. Your series of posts paints a possible (or likely) alternate POV, in which Churchill has played both sides of maybe the most dangerous game of his, and Britain's 20th Century history. I remember hearing Chrchill's rallying speeches from the radio, when he had galvanized the English populace together against the impending doom of National Socialism and its politics. Its very hard to question this portrait of him, but you have made many compelling points. My question is this. Considering that there was a group of highly placed German officers and politicians, who, as early as 1940, may have seen the writing on the wall, which is that Hitler's war policies were dooming Germany, saw that a separate peace should be negotiated, and if successful, may have led to a Coup de tat or at least Hitler's assassination, is it possible that Hess had traveled to England to negotiate this possibility (which may have seemed more than possibility at the time). From Hitler's secretary's diary, over the past several years of the war (possibly as far back as 1940), his military tactics and those of many of his highest staff officers were not in agreement. Is there a possibility that secret negotiations were sought by Churchill with possible successors to Hitler, to assist in this tack, help their resolve, and ensure a peaceful transition out of War should Hitler be assassinated? Just a question. Thank you.

Evan Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with? Sid, Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective. I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation). By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation. There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties. barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun. I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain. Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media). I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork. I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you? Thank you, Peter McKenna

The following is taken from Hitler’s Volkstaad, published in Germany, note that this was most immediate of items I have read on this topic. There have been many, identifying that Hitler had oversold bonds to raise capitol, which, when called in, could not have been paid, however as Hitler was planning for inevitable war, the overselling of bonds was not an issue. If I'm not mistaken, this was part of Goering's (Schaap's) four year plan. Also Germany was printing money at an hyper-inflationary rate, which means that, unchecked, with too much money floating around, prices would rise at an hyperinflationary rate. Market pricing was controlled by heavy handed oppression, as were the trade union labor rates. I remember reading this information in several sources, although it would take days to cursorily re-read the tremendous volume of materials to find this particular piece of information. I understood it to be common knowledge. Why do you think that Germany sacked Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, the netherlands, scandinavia, etc.? Do you really think that germany had a self sufficient economy capable of funding their own rearmament after the treaty of Versailles and the Great depression, and the sanctions preventing overt arming of their populace? "When Götz Aly's book Hitlers Volksstaat (Hitler's Volksstaat) was published in Germany a year ago, it apparently struck a nerve among German historians as well as the general reading public. But unlike movies such as Der Untergang (The Downfall) or television features about Albert Speer which were enjoying popularity at the time, Aly's research does not concentrate on the personalities of individual perpetrators during the Nazi dictatorship. Instead, it focuses on the benefits that an average, non-Jewish German wage-earner reaped owing to the policies of the National Socialist regime. Aly's study touches only marginally upon the extent to which the beneficiaries realized the source of their relative prosperity, namely, the rapacious looting of the occupied countries and of Jews who had been deported and murdered. The author leaves it to his readers to draw their own conclusions from the material he presents. With painstaking diligence the author perused archives and sifted through the records on tax and financial legislation. What were the details of taxation policy during the various phases of Nazi rule? Which income groups were increasingly enlisted to foot the bill for social policies on the one hand and war policies on the other, and at which junctures? How did Hitler's financial policy-makers manage to keep domestic inflation at bay and offload it to the occupied countries? Aly develops a highly suspenseful approach to examining such supposedly dry questions as financial policy. He scrutinizes the populistic social reforms during the first years of Nazi rule and provides documentation that the broad social safety net for the population exceeded by far the regime's financial resources and therefore soon resulted in excessive debt. The search for new sources of revenue within the country itself led to increased financial repression of the Jewish population, culminating initially in a one billion Reichsmark surcharge, an "atonement payment," that was imposed on Jewish citizens (following the pogrom night of November 9, 1938). As early as December of the same year, however, Göring formulated very concrete steps for converting the assets of German Jews - calculated at some eight billion Reichsmarks - into German State Bonds. The sweep of the plan becomes clear when one considers that even one billion Reichsmarks would already have increased the Reich's revenues by 6 percent. The author shows how the occupied countries, with the help of well-contrived systems, were saddled with the costs of the occupation and in part also with providing for the German population "within the Reich," thereby wrecking their national economies. Soldiers were issued a type of artificial currency that they could use as tender, for example, in French or Belgian shops. These credit notes were then submitted to the respective national central banks for the ultimate purpose of being redeemed in Germany. Special clearing houses were set up in Berlin which would issue credits for these costs to the occupied countries after the Germans had been victorious. Even young soldiers whose morals were relatively intact found their sense of justice undermined and were corrupted by this system of obfuscation, as Aly demonstrates using the letters that a young Heinrich Böll sent home to his family from France, telling of his hoarding purchases. Aly researches the various means of financing the national budget that were employed over the entire Nazi period. In addition to the taxation policies mentioned above, he examines the gradually proceeding expropriation and subsequent deportation and annihilation of the Jews, as well as the ransacking of the occupied countries. He proves that the well-known figures such as Hitler, Goebbels, Göring and Himmler were not the only ones to plot and implement the destruction of European Jewry; the regime's financial policy-makers were equally cold-blooded and calculating, as they not only took millions of deaths into account but viewed them as a legitimate means of acquiring additional revenue. If growing numbers of Jews were deported to Poland shortly after heavy bombing runs on Hamburg, then a clear connection emerges between bombed out non-Jewish citizens and the fully furnished apartments of Jews which now became "vacancies." It is hardly conceivable that no one asked where all the beautiful things came from. It appears more readily believable, however, that average citizens didn't question where the money for expanding social services might have originated. After all, there was no concurrent rise in their tax burden. Aly's book has been criticized for its central proposition, namely, that the vast majority of average German citizens profited in a personal sense from the crimes of the Nazis. It is said that the author overrates greed as the driving force behind the genocide and thereby assigns too minor a role to the motive of racial hatred. Still, this is not the historian's first book on the National Socialist regime, and he enjoys honing provocative arguments. Since the early nineties he has been publishing works on many different aspects of the Nazi regime, the annihilation of European Jews, and the continuity of certain social elites in German history. It is no longer necessary to declare that historical explanations must never be one-dimensional. But the ability to portray history, and financial history in particular, in such a suspenseful manner is immeasurably valuable." Ah, you meant Volksstaat (not Volksstaad). Thanks for clarifying that. I guess a spell-checker doesn't help with typos of that kind? I imagine, Peter, that you are not be fluent in German? It's a disadvantage when researching this field, isn't it? I find it so. However, this first-order disadvantage does not appear to faze some ‘scholars’, such as Debeorah Lipstadt, who purport to be experts in an area of historical knowledge where quite clearly lack of German language skills is a crucial disadvantage. Without it, people like myself and Deborah Lipstadt are forced to rely entirely on secondary sources. Yet she is an ‘expert’ and I'm not. She makes categorical statements and I don't. How come? Chutzpah? Careerism? Connections? Dishonesty? All of the above? Who knows? Now, which are you to be? Peter? A non-expert like me who’s trying to find out the truth? Or a non-expert like Ms Lipstadt who not only purports to know the truth, but proclaims it with a latter day bugle? If the latter, I fear we may continue to cross swords. If the former, then let's work together to try to find out what really did happen in that important yet poorly understood historical period (the 1930s and 40s). If finding out the truth is indeed our common goal, then I suggest fewer definitive statements about what's 'obvious' and 'well known' - and more willingness to consider different ideas and demand documentation for ALL claims about the period (not only claims that are controversial in mainstream discourse). In your last post, you indicated that you have used, as a key reference for your position, Hitler’s Volkstaad by Götz Aly Now, Götz's book is an interesting contribution to a historical debate that's now more than half a century old. But I'm not aware it's a consensus view of the period, as you seem to imply. Actually, I'm not sure really what you are implying when you say: "I qualified the statement with the verbiage "It seems obvious" meaning that I drew a conclusion based upon information readily available. To provide a quote to support the "seemingly obvious" conclusion, would be redundant." What does that mean, Peter? Plain English please. If Hitler’s Volkstaad IS a consensus view, I imagine that will come as a surprise to Adam Tooze, who wrote a very clear and well referenced critique of this book in late 2005. These are complex matters, IMO. It is unhelpful to real analysis when people make strident claims and assert them as "obvious", then shy away when asked for detailed documentation. Part of the reason we know the period so poorly, IMO, is because the very act of discussing it has been so politically loaded to an unprecedented extent from the outset. In that regard, I return to the point I made elsewhere. WW2 is, arguably, a war that’s still in progress - in the sense that we are still at pains to discuss it rationally. Apparently interests that won out in WW2 still have a lot to gain from trying to enforce their view of that period. That's the main reason, IMO, why we are still so hazy about what really took place. No-one goes to jail - or loses their job - for taking an unpopular view about WW1. I look forward to the time - very soon - when the same applies to WW2 and we all can approach the task of discovering what happened without fear or favour. The continued persecution – including incarceration - of people over their historical views is so unacceptable in a civilized society that I shall not miss this opportunity to highlight my utter disgust with those who carry out this abuse. The simple fact that I do not speak German (I had three years of German, am half German, and unfortunately I cannot speak or read the language fluently). However, this is irrelevant. The book, Hitler’s Volkstaat, was quoted in articles that I had read in the past and discusses the economics of WW II, unfortunately, when I attempted to Google for passages that I had read, I could not find much, and I am not going to spend days searching or rereading books I read years ago to find them. This information (that Germany overextended their finances preparing for war, fully expecting to gain via the spoils of war) is, I’m sure, contained in several books. This information is contained in the four year plan of 1936 (have you read it? It outlines Germany’s preparation for war) and expanded upon in books such as the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and the book Hitler’s Volkstaat (if I got the spelling right), whether or not I have directly read this book is irrelevant, I have read translated quotes and pertinent critical articles. Germany went into deep into debt between 1936 and 1939. Do you dispute this? The purpose of the four year plan and the indebtedness that Germany wrought to finance it seem obvious. This has been documented. Has it not? The reason for this is documented in the four year plan, to prepare for war. Do you contend this? This seems obvious to me, maybe you have a different opinion of what 1936 Nazi four year plan did. If so than we will have to agree to disagree. I won’t be sucked into discussion over ancillary issues, such as Hitler’s morality, the Holocaust, or any Nazi apologist positions. Those topics have nothing to do with what I said.

David I don't want to divert this thread - any further - from its primary purpose. It was set up by John to outline his new theory about the death of the Duke of Kent. The origins of and responsibility for the Second World War - and the hidden agenda (if any) behind the war - are somewhat relevant, but should probably be debated on another thread. Suffice it to say that while I don't purport to be an expert in this area of history. I do not believe the case has ever been made for propositions made with remarkable frequency on this forum, such as (1) the real agenda behind WW2 was to destroy Russia (not Nazi Germany or independent Imperial Japan); or that (2) Nazi Germany was really a tool (gone wrong?) of sinister western interests; or that (3) Hitler's agenda was 'obviously' to destroy Britain and its Empire and take over the entire world; or that (4) Hitler's economic policy was suicidal. When Peter makes claims such as "It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war", without adducing a shred of evidence, I play the annoying role of asking for the evidence. It's a role which, on this thread, we should perhaps more appropriately direct to John's serialized exposition. Regarding which, I tend to agree with Len. How about bringing on the punchline? Well, sorry to digress, but I cannot let this one item go... Sid, are you really saying that the inflationary tactics of the Third Reich which lead to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, as well as its own 'population' (I won't go into who in the population) did not lead ultimately and unavoidably to War with the West? Where isn't this documented? Try the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler's Volkstaad, etc., I'm sure any of the books referenced above would provide suitable evidence. As far as written documentation where Hitler had cozied up to the West to allay the West's abhorrance at the Third Reich's political practices while preparing for the inevitable war with the West, as there have been many sources for this (try the Unauthorized Biography of Prescott Bush or americanheritage.com, amoung many locations). This seemed to me to be common knowledge. As Len asked ... all of the above. Anyway I qualified the statement with the verbiage "It seems obvious" meaning that I drew a conclusion based upon information readily available. To provide a quote to support the "seemingly obvious" conclusion, would be redundant. Well, re-assured by John that's he's not annoyed at what might have been perceived as a diversion from the thread's main topic, I'll respond in brief. In general, Peter, you have a very curious way of providing references. Why not find exact quotations that back your points and cite them, with sufficient detail about where they come from so an interested reader can follow up the original source? You take a different approach, something like: "it's all in "The Rise & Fall..." or it's all at the americanheritage.com website... go find it yourself!" I am disinclined to do that, Peter. If you wish to back up points that you claim are 'obvious' or 'well-known', it should be very easy for you to provide specific references. It is unhelpful not to do so - and can give rise to the suspicion that they may not exist at all. I've been on enough wild goose chases seeking out non-existent source information to be wary of investing too much time on someone else's vague say-so. What is "Hitler's Volkstaad", by the way? (excuse my ignorance) You wrote: "Sid, are you really saying that the inflationary tactics of the Third Reich which lead to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, as well as its own 'population' (I won't go into who in the population) did not lead ultimately and unavoidably to War with the West? " It's an odd question, Peter. I'm, not entirely sure I understand it - or that it really makes sense. I'll turn it round to try to clarify your claim. Are you really saying that the 'inflationary' tactics of the Third Reich led to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, - as well the predictable sacking (?) of groups within its own population - and in turn led unavoidably to War with the West? What do you mean by 'inflationary' in this context? The following is taken from Hitler’s Volkstaad, published in Germany, note that this was most immediate of items I have read on this topic. There have been many, identifying that Hitler had oversold bonds to raise capitol, which, when called in, could not have been paid, however as Hitler was planning for inevitable war, the overselling of bonds was not an issue. If I'm not mistaken, this was part of Goering's (Schaap's) four year plan. Also Germany was printing money at an hyper-inflationary rate, which means that, unchecked, with too much money floating around, prices would rise at an hyperinflationary rate. Market pricing was controlled by heavy handed oppression, as were the trade union labor rates. I remember reading this information in several sources, although it would take days to cursorily re-read the tremendous volume of materials to find this particular piece of information. I understood it to be common knowledge. Why do you think that Germany sacked Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, the netherlands, scandinavia, etc.? Do you really think that germany had a self sufficient economy capable of funding their own rearmament after the treaty of Versailles and the Great depression, and the sanctions preventing overt arming of their populace? "When Götz Aly's book Hitlers Volksstaat (Hitler's Volksstaat) was published in Germany a year ago, it apparently struck a nerve among German historians as well as the general reading public. But unlike movies such as Der Untergang (The Downfall) or television features about Albert Speer which were enjoying popularity at the time, Aly's research does not concentrate on the personalities of individual perpetrators during the Nazi dictatorship. Instead, it focuses on the benefits that an average, non-Jewish German wage-earner reaped owing to the policies of the National Socialist regime. Aly's study touches only marginally upon the extent to which the beneficiaries realized the source of their relative prosperity, namely, the rapacious looting of the occupied countries and of Jews who had been deported and murdered. The author leaves it to his readers to draw their own conclusions from the material he presents. With painstaking diligence the author perused archives and sifted through the records on tax and financial legislation. What were the details of taxation policy during the various phases of Nazi rule? Which income groups were increasingly enlisted to foot the bill for social policies on the one hand and war policies on the other, and at which junctures? How did Hitler's financial policy-makers manage to keep domestic inflation at bay and offload it to the occupied countries? Aly develops a highly suspenseful approach to examining such supposedly dry questions as financial policy. He scrutinizes the populistic social reforms during the first years of Nazi rule and provides documentation that the broad social safety net for the population exceeded by far the regime's financial resources and therefore soon resulted in excessive debt. The search for new sources of revenue within the country itself led to increased financial repression of the Jewish population, culminating initially in a one billion Reichsmark surcharge, an "atonement payment," that was imposed on Jewish citizens (following the pogrom night of November 9, 1938). As early as December of the same year, however, Göring formulated very concrete steps for converting the assets of German Jews - calculated at some eight billion Reichsmarks - into German State Bonds. The sweep of the plan becomes clear when one considers that even one billion Reichsmarks would already have increased the Reich's revenues by 6 percent. The author shows how the occupied countries, with the help of well-contrived systems, were saddled with the costs of the occupation and in part also with providing for the German population "within the Reich," thereby wrecking their national economies. Soldiers were issued a type of artificial currency that they could use as tender, for example, in French or Belgian shops. These credit notes were then submitted to the respective national central banks for the ultimate purpose of being redeemed in Germany. Special clearing houses were set up in Berlin which would issue credits for these costs to the occupied countries after the Germans had been victorious. Even young soldiers whose morals were relatively intact found their sense of justice undermined and were corrupted by this system of obfuscation, as Aly demonstrates using the letters that a young Heinrich Böll sent home to his family from France, telling of his hoarding purchases. Aly researches the various means of financing the national budget that were employed over the entire Nazi period. In addition to the taxation policies mentioned above, he examines the gradually proceeding expropriation and subsequent deportation and annihilation of the Jews, as well as the ransacking of the occupied countries. He proves that the well-known figures such as Hitler, Goebbels, Göring and Himmler were not the only ones to plot and implement the destruction of European Jewry; the regime's financial policy-makers were equally cold-blooded and calculating, as they not only took millions of deaths into account but viewed them as a legitimate means of acquiring additional revenue. If growing numbers of Jews were deported to Poland shortly after heavy bombing runs on Hamburg, then a clear connection emerges between bombed out non-Jewish citizens and the fully furnished apartments of Jews which now became "vacancies." It is hardly conceivable that no one asked where all the beautiful things came from. It appears more readily believable, however, that average citizens didn't question where the money for expanding social services might have originated. After all, there was no concurrent rise in their tax burden. Aly's book has been criticized for its central proposition, namely, that the vast majority of average German citizens profited in a personal sense from the crimes of the Nazis. It is said that the author overrates greed as the driving force behind the genocide and thereby assigns too minor a role to the motive of racial hatred. Still, this is not the historian's first book on the National Socialist regime, and he enjoys honing provocative arguments. Since the early nineties he has been publishing works on many different aspects of the Nazi regime, the annihilation of European Jews, and the continuity of certain social elites in German history. It is no longer necessary to declare that historical explanations must never be one-dimensional. But the ability to portray history, and financial history in particular, in such a suspenseful manner is immeasurably valuable."

David I don't want to divert this thread - any further - from its primary purpose. It was set up by John to outline his new theory about the death of the Duke of Kent. The origins of and responsibility for the Second World War - and the hidden agenda (if any) behind the war - are somewhat relevant, but should probably be debated on another thread. Suffice it to say that while I don't purport to be an expert in this area of history. I do not believe the case has ever been made for propositions made with remarkable frequency on this forum, such as (1) the real agenda behind WW2 was to destroy Russia (not Nazi Germany or independent Imperial Japan); or that (2) Nazi Germany was really a tool (gone wrong?) of sinister western interests; or that (3) Hitler's agenda was 'obviously' to destroy Britain and its Empire and take over the entire world; or that (4) Hitler's economic policy was suicidal. When Peter makes claims such as "It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war", without adducing a shred of evidence, I play the annoying role of asking for the evidence. It's a role which, on this thread, we should perhaps more appropriately direct to John's serialized exposition. Regarding which, I tend to agree with Len. How about bringing on the punchline? Well, sorry to digress, but I cannot let this one item go... Sid, are you really saying that the inflationary tactics of the Third Reich which lead to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, as well as its own 'population' (I won't go into who in the population) did not lead ultimately and unavoidably to War with the West? Where isn't this documented? Try the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler's Volkstaad, etc., I'm sure any of the books referenced above would provide suitable evidence. As far as written documentation where Hitler had cozied up to the West to allay the West's abhorrance at the Third Reich's political practices while preparing for the inevitable war with the West, as there have been many sources for this (try the Unauthorized Biography of Prescott Bush or americanheritage.com, amoung many locations). This seemed to me to be common knowledge. As Len asked ... all of the above. Anyway I qualified the statement with the verbiage "It seems obvious" meaning that I drew a conclusion based upon information readily available. To provide a quote to support the "seemingly obvious" conclusion, would be redundant.

I assume he means Hitler moving West in 1940 (Norway, Holland, Belgium and France). Of course, he originally attacked Czechoslovakia. and Poland in 1939. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWchron.htm Yes. Forgive my laziness. David Hmmm. But David, your initial remark, in context, was: Hmmmmmm.Let's role the historical tape back. Summar 1939: Germany and Poland in conflict over Danzig corridor. August 23, 1939: Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact signed Late August: Poland refuses further negotiations and mobilizes army. September 1: Germany invades western Poland. September 3-10: Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada declare War on Germany. (Churchill is a major force in Parliament in favour of war with Germany). mid-September: USSR invades eastern Poland So, here's my question. How on earth is this timeline compatible with your analysis? If the goal of Britain and America in WW 2 was to destroy the USSR - and the survival of Nazi Germany was a relative non-issue - there was a much easier way to achieve that goal. Ally with Germany against Russia. It seems clear that Germany was keen on this too. But that's not what happened - and I don't believe the case has been made that the 'real' purpose of the British and American power elite in WW2 was to destroy the USSR (and Germany was not really in their sights). If that was the case, the conspirators sure set about things in a highly convoluted way - and ended up failing to achieve their primary goal in quite spectacular fashion. I think this is just a post-war myth, popular on the left in Britain and America, but with little or no basis in fact. Regarding the funding of the Nazis by dark forces in the USA and Britain, it may have happened, but hard evidence would be nice. Do you have any? Once in power in Germany, Hitler's understanding of Keynesian economic theory liberated him from the impact of the economic boycott imposed on Germany by international finance (especially Jewish banking interests). The German economy grew spectacularly in the five years leading to 1939 - and it's hard to make a case that under-the-carpet external funding was responsible. However, if you have evidence for that, please bring it on. Hello Sid, From reading about Prescott Bush (his autobiography by Tarpley), and some posts John Simkin has included on this site, It is my understanding that while there wasn't overt financing for Germany provided by the UK or US 'Power Elite', there was quite a lot of foreign investment from the US and UK. For example, the ownership of the Upper Silesian Coal and Iron Works (did I get the name correct?), located in Poland but which provided raw materials for German Industry and re-armament, by Harriman and Co. and the Directorship of Prescott Bush. The oppression of the trade unions by the Nazis provided a low income work force in Germany (the labor rate dropped by 25%). This would have helped IG Farbin and Zeiss Opticals, for example, to secure US investment through the mid 1930's. Ford and ITT invested in German armaments in the 1930's (www. americanheritage.com). Remington Arms Co. supplied the German SA arms during the 1930s (likely done covertly due to the Versaille Treaty. This info from the Prescott Bush Unauthorized Biography, By W. Tarpley). Your point about Keynesian economics seems correct, as Hitler printed money in excess of any limit required to preclude hyperinflation, but was able to check inflation through other means, i.e. the oppression of the Trade Unions and in the marketplace. Germany printed and sold bonds on a massive scale to fund the purchase of raw materials during the 1930s. During this period both the UK and the US had offical policies of appeasement (from my recollection of Rise and Fall of the Thiord Reich), although FDR was a staunch anti-nazi (as per his Quarantine speech of 1937) and predicted war with Germany was inevitable, as did Churchill (publicly). Hitler attempted to maintain an image of friendship with the US and the UK, at least until the invasion of Poland occurred (www.americanheritage.com). So while there wasn't any public or official policy to fund Germany, nor (as far as I know) any organized effort by the US or UK 'Power Elite' to fund Hitler during the mid to late-1930s, there was quite a bit of private monies which helped (enormously-from what I've read) fund the industrialization and re-armament of Germany during this period. Also, from my recollection, it was Germany who pulled away from the diplomatic talks with Poland, in a dispute over the Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Co. I think that was discussed in John's thread on Prescott Bush (I may be wrong about the source). RE: turning West? It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war. The recapture of territories lost in WW-I (and the treaty of Versailles) was to be a preliminary to the annexation of other lands (Poland, Czechoslovakia, France) in the south and west, needed to buffer the Western border, and to gain additional raw materials and funding. The 'Turn' West was inevitable, and IMO part of Hitler's plan from the beginning.

Mr. Simkin, Sorry, but I felt that I could no longer remain silent RE: Jack White's request to sanction Mr. Burton. Since registering at the Education Forum, I was quite enamoured of the site's (fairly) free and open dialogue, which included a variety of personalities and usually intelligent discourse. It is not often that the mix of personalities posting here could be found continuing in polite discourse, over any length of time, without descending into something less than polite conversation, given the topics discussed and the emotional attachment many seem to have. Mr. Burton has, IMO, done very well, as he has been both moderator and an involved discussant in many of these postings. It would be a shame to remove him. Mr. White has on more than one occasion baited threads with seemingly innocent 'questions' about images he posted, only to provoke and on occasion, insult anyone responding. The Political Conspiracy Forum has become dominated with Apollo hoax threads, which do little but descend into open warfare. Many have replied in steamed reposts, but I do sense the hand of Mr. White in provoking at least some of this. Mr. Burton has been amoung the several (including me) who have found the pro-Apollo hoax posts to be specious and provocational, adding little more than a spiral into base arguments without any real merit. I would not deny anyone the opportunity to express their freedom of speech. But the whole baiting, specious claims, lack of cogent defense of claims made, provocations made to anger reposters, descending into childish arguments, and then, when the fruits of such behavior results in such a request as Mr. White has made, it would seem, to me at least, that the whole 'Apollo Hoax' theme must go the way of the slide rule, for a while at least. It is a waste of good dicussion space. I read these threads (for entertainment purposes in a kind of of sensational glee, to see the repostes spiral out of control in some sort of tabloid like caricature) and have realized that the domination of this forum by this topic will certainly condemn the forum to obscurity and marginalization sooner or later. I hope that you keep Mr. Burton as moderator and can figure out something to do concerning the Apollo Hoax threads, before the site becomes terminally infected. Thanks.

Duane, Hopefully you are able to benefit form this; The CERN Laboratory has been doing considerable work in attempting to understand UHECR or Ultra High Energy Cosmic Radiation . This is the energy for that could produce what is termed Hadron upwards showers. A Hadron is a large nuclear particle that typically forms part of an atomic nucleus, such as protons or neutrons. I believe that this is the effect that was referred to in the article you pasted in. Since UHECRs occur on the frequency of only a very few per square kilometer per century, the probability of an astronaut being affected by one is incredibly slight. http://cerncourier.com/main/article/47/3/27 Now, identifying the lunar surface as "radioactive" is entirely a misnomer. Since UHECR may strike humans on earth with far more likelyhood than an astronaut on the moon, would that human suddenly becaome radioactive, because he emitted a proton or neutron? No. For something to be radioactive it must, by universally accepted definitions, by composed of material which exhibits "radioactive activity". That is, material composed of unstable isotopes which decay, while emitting photons (electromagnetic radiation), and particles, such as gamma rays, xrays, protons (Alpha particles), electrons (beta particles), neutrinos, and the occasional neutron. The moon may contain some naturally occurring radioisotopes, but no probably no more so than the earth. UHECR's while can be attenuated by the earth's atmoshere, are not absorbed (not significantly) by the earth's atmoshere, so people on earth can be struck by the UHECR almost as likely as an astronaut on the moon. Jim Mattehws from LSU has been conducting experiments on Earth to collect these rare collision for study, but it is very difficult and takes tremendous patience. The terming of the moon as "Radioactive" is a misnomer. I don't care who said it. Solar flares are a different story, and could pose a hazard, but the vehicles they inhabit provides adequate shelter, and ample warning can be provided if they are near to their vehicle. More concern would exist if much longer stay times in space were an issue, or a larger population were on the moon, without nearby shelter, and it is likely (IMO) that new studies are examining a scenario where astronauts (and other moon or mars habitants) may not have easy acess to shelter. What Cosmic Rays are caused by, exactly, remains a mystery. They result in compton effect and scattering, neutrino streams, and a host of subatomic particle interactions due to the incredibly high energies they possess. They can cause (as a secondary ot tertiary effect) hadron upwards showers, but they are relatively rare and not a concern for the average person or astronaut. Would it surprise you to learn that there is a great liklyhood that you have emmitted a neutron (or several) during your life? Or absorbed some? I know I have. Typically neutrons are moving at such high speeds & at such high energies that they can pass right through a person without causing damage (although the water in a human can "Thermalize" or slow down a neutron, where it could strike and be absorbed by another nucleus, it is not likely). However, due to the rarity of High Energy Cosmic rays striking any particular location, the concern is very minimal. I suggest reading up on Jim Matthews work and The CERN Laboratory work, to name a couple. NASA are not experts in high energy physics, although I would guess they have a few physicists specializing in this field on staff, the JPL group wouldn't be the best source for this info ( and I believe the article you referenced came form the NASA JPL lab). Good luck in you research

1965 Lots of interesting stuff in there. Thanks Evan for the actual reports and the application of context (which I guess were embedded in the reports). The information doesn't really provide the Thread author supprt for a point or the substance of an argument, unless I am missing something, but it does provide some interesting information with respect to some of the Safety Criteria for the astronauts. Maybe that is the intent of the quotes? Sorry to say, but Mr. Daman is correct in saying that I shouldn't really spend any more time reading these threads. Thanks again.

Well, while I haven't delved deeply into this scuttlebutt about Browne, nor do I intend to, but I must say I'm appalled at the little I've read. So... Mr Browne may face charges of perjury because he allegedly lied about how he met a former lover. Big deal. I know little about Browne, and I'm skeptical about corporate greenwash, but I suspect Browne may be about the best of the bunch when it comes to CEOs of leading energy company's. To be persecuted over one's sexuality in 2007 is disgusting, IMO. I thought our freedom and right to privacy in that most private part of our lives was one of the reasons "they" hate us. Must cross that off the list, as well. I'm surprised by your last remark, John. It seems a rather snobbish comment, out of character for you. Although nepotistic lobbying and perjury are of the most unseemly acts, especially alleged homosexuality? In today's day and age this is the stuff of tabloid sensationalism and probably creates more public awareness than either of the two allegations, simply because of the tabloid stigma. Since Bill Clinton was caught having sex in the Oval Office and lied about it, sex and politics seems to have its own nominal category in the news, and I guess CEOs fall into this same category, although a CEO may need be held to the same standards as a Government executive. Obviously there is a different standard for people like Browne than the common man. Willie Nelson was caught with marijuana in Louisiana last month. Louisiana is the toughest state in the US, especially for repeat offenders of Marijauna laws. Willie has had some history, actually admitting to have smoked marijuana in Jimmy Carter's White House (on the roof) once. Louisiana once had the death penalty listed as a maximum offense for felony possession (intent to distribute, but this was many years ago). Last month they gave him a citation (like a traffic ticket), no bail, and let him go. As he walked out of court people were cheering him, shaking his hand and asking for autographs, he was treated like a hero. Regular people would be castigated. Different standards for celebrities and those highly visible. A double standard. IMO, things aren't so different outside the US in other 'enlightened' countries. If I have my facts wrong or have this out of context here, please correct me.

Why does the Conspiracy section here, which usually includes controversial, informative, and possibly some of the better discussion/debtae on salient current affairs spend so much ink on the NASA hoax? It seems that half of the recent posts on page 1 are dedicated to some issue related to the apollo program or space travel in general. The energy spent on this topic at this forum could almost power a space mission to escape velocity. I would like to suggest that a separate section be dedicated to the apollo 'hoax'.

Obviously your understanding of cosmic rays and radiation on the moon is somewhat lacking. Cosmic rays are of the highest order energy levels of naturally occurring radiation encountered. Its radiation not particles, not the stuff of the Van Allen belts. Cosmic Rays are not shielded by Earth's atmoshere (to any significant degree) and is measured at high altitudes using water tanks (a group of physicists from the US are running an experiment in South America right now trying to quantify Cosmic Ray radiation levels amoung other things. Cosmic Rays are intemittent, limited in area and not particularly harmful (no more so than here on earth). What makes the surface of the moon so full of radiation? Are you confusing radiation and contamination? The moon is not radioactive as your post states, but if some sort of radiation is emmitted in space, the surface of the moon may be subjected to this same radiation, to the same exposure, but it is not literally radioactive. Where does this theory come from? Deep space radiation (other than cosmic rays) can include emmisions of high energy particles (from the sun, i.e. solar activity such as solar flares, I believe). Some of these particles can be of high orders of energy, but are again, intemittent, and typically not a problem, also astronauts should be able to be provided some advanced warning to allow them to get back in the capsule, and to relative safety (as the particles are shielded by low-Z elements, not lead, as had been pointed out by Kevin and Dave, et al in previous posts, and these are heavy particles, which are stopped by less dense materials) if a transient occurs. This info is available on multiple space exploration sites. Although I don't want to suppress anyones free speech, students read these posts and the author should do a little futher research on radiation in space from bona fide scientific sites and not the fly by nigght conspiracy central sites pushing half baked ideas and invalid statements. FWIW.

I'm sorry, but I just spent twenty minutes trying to figure out this post (aligning dates to quotes and associated contextual points) before I came to the conclusion that it is just a collection of gibberish. As far as I can tell, it doesn't make or support any conclusions or establish anything in the way of a meaningful post. Maybe the author can elaborate (in a shorter but more succinct post)? I like to read this forum as most of the contributors provide intelligent and (sometimes) controversial posts which are thought provoking. What is the intent of this post?

I have read in an earlier post, that Marina Oswald had written the name "Alek Hidell" on Oswald's selective service card. I wonder which wallet contained this particular selective service card, that is, the card which Marina Oswald had "assisted" Oswald by writing the 'Hidell' name on. With two LHO wallets, If the wallet fortuitously dropped by LHO at the Tippet murder scene included the selective service card on which Marina Oswald had written Alek Hidell on it, Marina would have to have been complicit, no? Can it be differentiated in the evidence which wallet contained the selective service card? BTW, this was a fascinating post. Amazing info. From "The Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald" Complied by Mae Brussell http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html From The 'Junie needs a new pair of shoes' thread. "I will not say who wrote A. J. Hidell on my Selective Service card. [it was later confirmed that Marina Oswald wrote in the name Hidell.] . . . " Bold font added for emphasis..

I have read in an earlier post, that Marina Oswald had written the name "Alek Hidell" on Oswald's selective service card. I wonder which wallet contained this particular selective service card, that is, the card which Marina Oswald had "assisted" Oswald by writing the 'Hidell' name on. With two LHO wallets, and the wallet fortuitously dropped by LHO at the Tippet murder scene included the selective service card on which Marina Oswald had written Alek Hidell on it, Marina would have to have been complicit, no? Can it be differentiated in the evidence which wallet contained the selective service card? BTW, this was a fascinating post. Amazing info.

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

Jack that is utterly ridiculous. Noty only is it a ham handed oversimplification it is absolutely wrong. To make that analogy is a gross distortion and a disservice to JFK assasination researchers as well as myself. Go back to sleep.

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

In the April 6, 2007 edition of The New Republic, an article entitled “Rabble Rousers”, about Russian Oligarchs living in London, Boris Berezovsky is interviewed. Berezovsky is convinced that the Kremlin is behind the poisoning deaths of the Russian expatriates. The article goes on to say that “Berezovsky isn’t the only one who subscribes to that theory;” “Putin has created a state so intolerant of opposition that it is possible to imagine that a dissident was murdered by his government in the heart of London with a radioactive isotope. He has presided over the greatest rollback of human rights since the communist era. His government has sanctioned the arrest, torture, and murder of countless Chechens, while leveling their Capitol virtually to the ground; it has rolled over the press and failed to convict anyone of the murder of at least 13 journalists since Putin came to power in 2000. He has installed KGB veterans at nearly every significant level of government and allowed the security service to become a massive corporate empire.” Hi again Peter, You apparently find both New Republic and Boris Berezovsky credible sources of information. I'll leave the New Republic to stew in its reactionary juice for a moment. My interest here is Mr Berezovsky. Just what is it about Boris Berezovsky's evolving tales that Peter McKenna finds believeable? Here is one of Berezovsky's earlier claims: Berezovsky Claims Chechen Rebels Have A-bomb, Do you believe that, Peter? How about Berezovsky's claim that Putin was behind the Moscow appartment bombings in 1999? On that topic, Pravda, made the following observation: Now Berezovsky - and possibly Peter McKenna - may argue these articles are yet more proof of their allegation that Putin's Russia has become an autocratic State with a totally controlled meda regurgitating pro-Putin spin 24x7.Nevertheless, the question remains. Was Boris Berezovsky correct about that too? Was Putin's hand really behind the Moscow appartment bombings? I'd like to hear your take on this, Peter. You clearly have a first class, analytical and independent mind when it comes to terrorism and tower-blocks - and the wisdom to distinguish between honest men and charlatans in the murky world of post-Soviet Russian politics. First of all, the paragraph from the New Republic; “Putin has created a state so intolerant of opposition …” was not a quote of Beresovsky’s, but other critics of Putin, as per TNR article. So I was not quoting Beresovsky. The agency behind the murder of the Russian journalists (Including Anna Politkovskaya, the journalist murdered after publishing articles critical of the Russian army’s atrocities in Chechnia), the poisoning of Putin’s critics, the apartment bombings, etc., have not, of course, either blatantly or surreptitiously confessed to being responsible. However, quite a number of Russian expatriates and Russian studies experts, including David Satter, a Senior Fellow, of the Hudson Institute, specializing in Russian studies, murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya, and Litvinenko himself, believe (or believed) that the Kremlin was responsible for atrocities against their own people: http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...ils&id=4344 I can understand skepticism of Beresovsky, and his ‘opinions’, he has plundered billions of Russian capitol. Also, it does not make sense that Litvinenko was assassinated and Beresovsky wasn’t (although Litvinenko had revealed a plot to assassinate Beresovsky). Regardless, the facts in that last paragraph have attained near universal acceptance. I personally don’t necessarily subscribe to the theory that Putin was behind the poisonings, as this would damage his image internationally. I also don’t understand the West’s seeming reticence at protesting Russia’s behavior, especially as the poisoning of Litvinenko, a British citizen, occurred in England, and Marina Kovalenskaya, 48, and her daughter Yana, 25, both Americans, were apparently poisoned with radioactive Thallium during a visit to Russia. As far as The New Republic, it is slightly biased for my tastes, but with the exception of the Stephen Glass articles, it is also considered to be unimpeachable. During Clinton’s presidency, it was the “official magazine of Air Force One”. But The New Republic doesn’t have near the prestige carried by such inimitable sources of objectively researched material offered by “Physics911” or Indymedia”. Thank you, also, for your sarcastic compliments. Reading you insightful analysis of this topic confirms my faith in that touch of humanity that will temper the excesses of totalitarianism.

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