Jump to content
The Education Forum

Conspiracy of Conspiracy


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Last week BBC Radio held a debate on the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy. The reason for this was to publicize a series of BBC television documentaries (the first one on 9/11 is on tonight).

The opening debate was between former MI5 agent, David Shayler, and left-wing journalist, Brendon O’Neill. Shayler, a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy was brilliant and exposed O’Neill as someone who knew very little about the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler

This debate was followed by a phone-in. Unfortunately, most of those who supported Shayler, sounded like they needed urgent medical treatment. They went on about how 9/11 was part of a 1,000 year conspiracy, etc.

Clearly the BBC selected these people very carefully. They wanted to redress the balance after Shayler’s clear victory. Then I got to thinking “maybe these callers were MI5 plants”. Maybe the ruling class use conspiracists against conspiracy theory. Then I started thinking about some of the strange posts we get on this forum. Is it possible that…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Last week BBC Radio held a debate on the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy. The reason for this was to publicize a series of BBC television documentaries (the first one on 9/11 is on tonight).

The opening debate was between former MI5 agent, David Shayler, and left-wing journalist, Brendon O’Neill. Shayler, a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy was brilliant and exposed O’Neill as someone who knew very little about the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler

This debate was followed by a phone-in. Unfortunately, most of those who supported Shayler, sounded like they needed urgent medical treatment. They went on about how 9/11 was part of a 1,000 year conspiracy, etc.

Clearly the BBC selected these people very carefully. They wanted to redress the balance after Shayler’s clear victory. Then I got to thinking “maybe these callers were MI5 plants”. Maybe the ruling class use conspiracists against conspiracy theory. Then I started thinking about some of the strange posts we get on this forum. Is it possible that…

EXACTLY, John!!!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They went on about how 9/11 was part of a 1,000 year conspiracy, etc. . . . I started thinking about some of the strange posts we get on this forum. Is it possible that…

I've stumbled across a 2,000-year-old conspiracy. You may think this is one of those strange posts, but that's the chance I have to take. In fact I'm taking an awful big chance in breaking this news.

The Second Coming of Christ has already happened. It happened back in the first century, just as Christ himself predicted and as the first Christians expected. But there has been a conspiracy for two millenia now to cover it up.

The First Council of Nicaea, convoked by the emperor Constantine with the proclamation "We need a creed," was basically a fourth-century Warren Commission, which covered up the Second Coming by completely ignoring it.

Meanwhile all wannabe gospels and epistles that made any allusion to the Second Coming having happened were destroyed along with other heretical works. This was all part of the Church’s preposterous SBT or Single Bible Theory.

However, one copy of a gospel that the Church was most intent to destroy has survived. Entitled "The Gospel of Deja Vu," it was written apparently by a rogue agent in the early Christian movement, and begins with the joyous pronouncement "He's back!"

The copy of this gospel was discovered around 1970, but any enterprising members of the news media who tried to cover the story met untimely deaths, most notably CBS's Michele Clark in 1972 and NBC's Jessica Savitch in 1983. Everyone else in the media got the message and the Gospel of Deja Vu has remained successfully suppressed.

This conspiracy is going to unravel, however, because The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown, brave soul that he is, is writing a novel about it. He's undertaking this courageous project not only to let the world know what's been going on, but because he needs the money.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week BBC Radio held a debate on the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy. The reason for this was to publicize a series of BBC television documentaries (the first one on 9/11 is on tonight).

The opening debate was between former MI5 agent, David Shayler, and left-wing journalist, Brendon O’Neill. Shayler, a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy was brilliant and exposed O’Neill as someone who knew very little about the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler

This debate was followed by a phone-in. Unfortunately, most of those who supported Shayler, sounded like they needed urgent medical treatment. They went on about how 9/11 was part of a 1,000 year conspiracy, etc.

Clearly the BBC selected these people very carefully. They wanted to redress the balance after Shayler’s clear victory. Then I got to thinking “maybe these callers were MI5 plants”. Maybe the ruling class use conspiracists against conspiracy theory. Then I started thinking about some of the strange posts we get on this forum. Is it possible that…

In Australia, there's a national talkback radio program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation called 'Australia Talks Back".

It's one of the programs I used to listen to regulaly, convinced I was listening to the authentic voice of (more often than not) intelligent Australians.

After 9-11 I thought I'd call in and express doubts about the official version of events in a calm and rational manner.

I managed to get one call in - but was hustled off rather quickly once the content of my call became apparent. A couple of callers mentioned interest in my call in their subequent comments.

On subsequent occasions with ATB, I found call vetting increasingly stringent. Callers are typically asked to state beforehand what they want to say. Argumentative producers/vetters filtered out my call, saying it was off topic or throwing up other objections.

These days, if I bother to call on hot topics, I lie about what I plan to say.

I dislike doing that, because I have a general preference for honesty... but it does represent a more effective strategy.

I have no doubt at all that Australia's ABC is policed so "arguments" flow happily along pre-determined lines. It is, for instance, quite acceptable to express disgust against the Iraq War. It is also fine to express disgust over Islamic terrorism. But some things are - or have been - out of bounds.

On a couple of occasions, I've called up late night ABC talkback radio. Most chatter is light-hearted, but occasionally serious topics are covered.

I've been quite struck, on every occasion that I called the ABC, how well-informed presenters appear to be on topics that, if one only tracked the mainstream media, are effectively invisible. They trypically don't react, for instance, to a call about the US Israeli spy-ring of 2000/1 by challenging the story of quizzing the details. They don't express surprise. They just hustle the caller off-air, ASAP.

As I've kept my quantity of calls over the years quite low, my interventions are unlikely to have attracted special black marks. I doubt I've really shown up on the corporate radar. What I've experienced seems to me a matter of general ABC policy.

The experience has certainly made me wonder...

I think it's remarkable that David Shayler made it onto the Beeb at all. Very encouraging actually. I wonder if he gets any more invitations, now he's shown how persuasive he can be?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week BBC Radio held a debate on the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy. The reason for this was to publicize a series of BBC television documentaries (the first one on 9/11 is on tonight).

The opening debate was between former MI5 agent, David Shayler, and left-wing journalist, Brendon O’Neill. Shayler, a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy was brilliant and exposed O’Neill as someone who knew very little about the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler

This debate was followed by a phone-in. Unfortunately, most of those who supported Shayler, sounded like they needed urgent medical treatment. They went on about how 9/11 was part of a 1,000 year conspiracy, etc.

Clearly the BBC selected these people very carefully. They wanted to redress the balance after Shayler’s clear victory. Then I got to thinking “maybe these callers were MI5 plants”. Maybe the ruling class use conspiracists against conspiracy theory. Then I started thinking about some of the strange posts we get on this forum. Is it possible that…

Didn't Brit intel plant assets in television studio audiences during the Wilson-called referendum on our continued membership of the EU?

Also germane to recall that, with apologies to Fouche, there are essentially three types of conspiracy theorist: Those deployed by secret police bureaucracies to discredit the cause they ostensibly espouse; genuine nutters; and interested amateurs with something useful to contribute. Only the former pair are, as a rule, permitted to sully our mainstream media.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week BBC Radio held a debate on the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy. The reason for this was to publicize a series of BBC television documentaries (the first one on 9/11 is on tonight).

The opening debate was between former MI5 agent, David Shayler, and left-wing journalist, Brendon O’Neill. Shayler, a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy was brilliant and exposed O’Neill as someone who knew very little about the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler

This debate was followed by a phone-in. Unfortunately, most of those who supported Shayler, sounded like they needed urgent medical treatment. They went on about how 9/11 was part of a 1,000 year conspiracy, etc.

Clearly the BBC selected these people very carefully. They wanted to redress the balance after Shayler’s clear victory. Then I got to thinking “maybe these callers were MI5 plants”. Maybe the ruling class use conspiracists against conspiracy theory. Then I started thinking about some of the strange posts we get on this forum. Is it possible that…

John

How ‘tongue in cheek’ was (if at all) your post? Wouldn’t it have been easier and more effective to have called an abler opponent to debate Shayler?* Do you think the Beeb in conjunction with MI5 keeps faux wackos on call waiting to call in on such occasions? Unfortunately it seems that a good number of the people who back the inside job theory do sound like they are off their psych meds. Yes some suggest the Illuminati were responsible others that explosive charges were built into the towers or that the hole in Shanksville was dug the day before. This even applies to some the movement’s leaders who propose theories such as:

- The towers were destroyed by satellite based energy beams

- No planes were involved in any of the “crashes” etc etc.

Shayler by the way is a “no planer” according to an article by a certain Brendan O’Neill*. Perhaps O’Neill thinking Shayler stark raving mad under estimated him. It's also possible Shayler appeared better informed because he made up or distorted facts as "truthers" often do and he did in the video linked below**. Since he backs one of the more “fringe” theories it isn’t surprising to me the show would have gotten a lot of fringe callers. How many people who supported O’Neill got through?

Do you really think as you seem to suggest that some of the “inside jobbers” here really are agents sent to make other conspiracists look bad? Peter and Jack since you seemed to agree with John’s suggestion I was wondering who amongst your fellow 9/11 CTists you think are the disinfo agents? (Rhetorical question since answering would probably violate forum rules).

Len

Such as the guy who runs 911myths.com . He is English and IIRC a Londoner.

* http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028

** he also supposedly expresses similar views in this video but I didn’t have the patience to listen all the way through. http://www.nopers.com/video/398/david_shay...eblower_on__911

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week BBC Radio held a debate on the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy. The reason for this was to publicize a series of BBC television documentaries (the first one on 9/11 is on tonight).

The opening debate was between former MI5 agent, David Shayler, and left-wing journalist, Brendon O’Neill. Shayler, a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy was brilliant and exposed O’Neill as someone who knew very little about the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler

This debate was followed by a phone-in. Unfortunately, most of those who supported Shayler, sounded like they needed urgent medical treatment. They went on about how 9/11 was part of a 1,000 year conspiracy, etc.

Clearly the BBC selected these people very carefully. They wanted to redress the balance after Shayler’s clear victory. Then I got to thinking “maybe these callers were MI5 plants”. Maybe the ruling class use conspiracists against conspiracy theory. Then I started thinking about some of the strange posts we get on this forum. Is it possible that…

John

How ‘tongue in cheek’ was (if at all) your post? Wouldn’t it have been easier and more effective to have called an abler opponent to debate Shayler?* Do you think the Beeb in conjunction with MI5 keeps faux wackos on call waiting to call in on such occasions? Unfortunately it seems that a good number of the people who back the inside job theory do sound like they are off their psych meds. Yes some suggest the Illuminati were responsible others that explosive charges were built into the towers or that the hole in Shanksville was dug the day before. This even applies to some the movement’s leaders who propose theories such as:

- The towers were destroyed by satellite based energy beams

- No planes were involved in any of the “crashes” etc etc.

Shayler by the way is a “no planer” according to an article by a certain Brendan O’Neill*. Perhaps O’Neill thinking Shayler stark raving mad under estimated him. It's also possible Shayler appeared better informed because he made up or distorted facts as "truthers" often do and he did in the video linked below**. Since he backs one of the more “fringe” theories it isn’t surprising to me the show would have gotten a lot of fringe callers. How many people who supported O’Neill got through?

Do you really think as you seem to suggest that some of the “inside jobbers” here really are agents sent to make other conspiracists look bad? Peter and Jack since you seemed to agree with John’s suggestion I was wondering who amongst your fellow 9/11 CTists you think are the disinfo agents? (Rhetorical question since answering would probably violate forum rules).

Len

Such as the guy who runs 911myths.com . He is English and IIRC a Londoner.

* http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028

** he also supposedly expresses similar views in this video but I didn’t have the patience to listen all the way through. http://www.nopers.com/video/398/david_shay...eblower_on__911

Like Jack you seem to think I was referring to the anti-conspiracists on the forum. I was not. My comments were aimed at those conspiracy theorists who contaminate the good name of good researchers by developing what I consider to be daft theories.

I was not suggesting that the BBC lined-up nut-cases to support Shayler. All they did is to let the crackpots speak. The BBC always appears to be very fair by matching one supporter with one opponent phone-caller. The cheating comes with who they select to speak.

The same was true of the BBC documentary on the so-called 9/11 conspiracy last night. The three supporters of the conspiracy who appeared were wide-eyed extremists. This included our old friend Jim Fetzer. The opponents were three very rational men who took a very scientific approach to the case. It was a "no contest". The conspiracy theorists would get very few converts from this programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week BBC Radio held a debate on the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy. The reason for this was to publicize a series of BBC television documentaries (the first one on 9/11 is on tonight).

The opening debate was between former MI5 agent, David Shayler, and left-wing journalist, Brendon O’Neill. Shayler, a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy was brilliant and exposed O’Neill as someone who knew very little about the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler

This debate was followed by a phone-in. Unfortunately, most of those who supported Shayler, sounded like they needed urgent medical treatment. They went on about how 9/11 was part of a 1,000 year conspiracy, etc.

Clearly the BBC selected these people very carefully. They wanted to redress the balance after Shayler’s clear victory. Then I got to thinking “maybe these callers were MI5 plants”. Maybe the ruling class use conspiracists against conspiracy theory. Then I started thinking about some of the strange posts we get on this forum. Is it possible that…

John

How ‘tongue in cheek’ was (if at all) your post? Wouldn’t it have been easier and more effective to have called an abler opponent to debate Shayler?* Do you think the Beeb in conjunction with MI5 keeps faux wackos on call waiting to call in on such occasions? Unfortunately it seems that a good number of the people who back the inside job theory do sound like they are off their psych meds. Yes some suggest the Illuminati were responsible others that explosive charges were built into the towers or that the hole in Shanksville was dug the day before. This even applies to some the movement’s leaders who propose theories such as:

- The towers were destroyed by satellite based energy beams

- No planes were involved in any of the “crashes” etc etc.

Shayler by the way is a “no planer” according to an article by a certain Brendan O’Neill*. Perhaps O’Neill thinking Shayler stark raving mad under estimated him. It's also possible Shayler appeared better informed because he made up or distorted facts as "truthers" often do and he did in the video linked below**. Since he backs one of the more “fringe” theories it isn’t surprising to me the show would have gotten a lot of fringe callers. How many people who supported O’Neill got through?

Do you really think as you seem to suggest that some of the “inside jobbers” here really are agents sent to make other conspiracists look bad? Peter and Jack since you seemed to agree with John’s suggestion I was wondering who amongst your fellow 9/11 CTists you think are the disinfo agents? (Rhetorical question since answering would probably violate forum rules).

Len

Such as the guy who runs 911myths.com . He is English and IIRC a Londoner.

* http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028

** he also supposedly expresses similar views in this video but I didn’t have the patience to listen all the way through. http://www.nopers.com/video/398/david_shay...eblower_on__911

Like Jack you seem to think I was referring to the anti-conspiracists on the forum. I was not. My comments were aimed at those conspiracy theorists who contaminate the good name of good researchers by developing what I consider to be daft theories.

I was not suggesting that the BBC lined-up nut-cases to support Shayler. All they did is to let the crackpots speak. The BBC always appears to be very fair by matching one supporter with one opponent phone-caller. The cheating comes with who they select to speak.

The same was true of the BBC documentary on the so-called 9/11 conspiracy last night. The three supporters of the conspiracy who appeared were wide-eyed extremists. This included our old friend Jim Fetzer. The opponents were three very rational men who took a very scientific approach to the case. It was a "no contest". The conspiracy theorists would get very few converts from this programme.

Given the prohibition on ad hominem attacks here, I find this message very puzzling on several counts.

It calls Dr. Fetzer an irrational wide-eyed unscientific crackpot extremist who contaminates good research with

daft theories. I consider that a fine example of a personal attack. Let's count'em: daft, contaminates, crackpot,

irrational, unscientific wide-eyed extremist. Hmmmmmm? Shouldn't Dr. Fetzer be owed an apology...or should

the insults be reiterated by letting the words stand?

It likewise suggests an interesting meaning read into my one-word response "EXACTLY" to a previous posting

in which I agreed with a posting as I understood it. Perhaps the posting was not as clear as I thought, and I was

mistaken to agree with it, since the writer suggests a meaning not intended. I knew exactly what I meant by

saying EXACTLY, but apparently the writer did not. Hmmmmmm?

I suggest that the writer is totally out of touch with research on this subject, whereas Dr. Fetzer has researched

the book he is writing INTENSIVELY FOR TWO YEARS. Perhaps it is the writer who does not know the subject,

not Dr. Fetzer.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week BBC Radio held a debate on the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy. The reason for this was to publicize a series of BBC television documentaries (the first one on 9/11 is on tonight).

The opening debate was between former MI5 agent, David Shayler, and left-wing journalist, Brendon O’Neill. Shayler, a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy was brilliant and exposed O’Neill as someone who knew very little about the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler

This debate was followed by a phone-in. Unfortunately, most of those who supported Shayler, sounded like they needed urgent medical treatment. They went on about how 9/11 was part of a 1,000 year conspiracy, etc.

Clearly the BBC selected these people very carefully. They wanted to redress the balance after Shayler’s clear victory. Then I got to thinking “maybe these callers were MI5 plants”. Maybe the ruling class use conspiracists against conspiracy theory. Then I started thinking about some of the strange posts we get on this forum. Is it possible that…

John

How ‘tongue in cheek’ was (if at all) your post? Wouldn’t it have been easier and more effective to have called an abler opponent to debate Shayler?* Do you think the Beeb in conjunction with MI5 keeps faux wackos on call waiting to call in on such occasions? Unfortunately it seems that a good number of the people who back the inside job theory do sound like they are off their psych meds. Yes some suggest the Illuminati were responsible others that explosive charges were built into the towers or that the hole in Shanksville was dug the day before. This even applies to some the movement’s leaders who propose theories such as:

- The towers were destroyed by satellite based energy beams

- No planes were involved in any of the “crashes” etc etc.

Shayler by the way is a “no planer” according to an article by a certain Brendan O’Neill*. Perhaps O’Neill thinking Shayler stark raving mad under estimated him. It's also possible Shayler appeared better informed because he made up or distorted facts as "truthers" often do and he did in the video linked below**. Since he backs one of the more “fringe” theories it isn’t surprising to me the show would have gotten a lot of fringe callers. How many people who supported O’Neill got through?

Do you really think as you seem to suggest that some of the “inside jobbers” here really are agents sent to make other conspiracists look bad? Peter and Jack since you seemed to agree with John’s suggestion I was wondering who amongst your fellow 9/11 CTists you think are the disinfo agents? (Rhetorical question since answering would probably violate forum rules).

Len

Such as the guy who runs 911myths.com . He is English and IIRC a Londoner.

* http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028

** he also supposedly expresses similar views in this video but I didn’t have the patience to listen all the way through. http://www.nopers.com/video/398/david_shay...eblower_on__911

Like Jack you seem to think I was referring to the anti-conspiracists on the forum. I was not. My comments were aimed at those conspiracy theorists who contaminate the good name of good researchers by developing what I consider to be daft theories.

I was not suggesting that the BBC lined-up nut-cases to support Shayler. All they did is to let the crackpots speak. The BBC always appears to be very fair by matching one supporter with one opponent phone-caller. The cheating comes with who they select to speak.

The same was true of the BBC documentary on the so-called 9/11 conspiracy last night. The three supporters of the conspiracy who appeared were wide-eyed extremists. This included our old friend Jim Fetzer. The opponents were three very rational men who took a very scientific approach to the case. It was a "no contest". The conspiracy theorists would get very few converts from this programme.

I agree completely.

Sometimes an underlying event may be the result of a conspiracy (JFK assassination).

Sometimes the investigation of it may be a conspiratorial cover-up (the WC, the Waco FBI and Congressional investigations, etc.).

Sometimes there simply is no conspiracy, even though there may be coexisting evidence that a conspiracy could have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Jack you seem to think I was referring to the anti-conspiracists on the forum. I was not. My comments were aimed at those conspiracy theorists who contaminate the good name of good researchers by developing what I consider to be daft theories.

I was not suggesting that the BBC lined-up nut-cases to support Shayler. All they did is to let the crackpots speak. The BBC always appears to be very fair by matching one supporter with one opponent phone-caller. The cheating comes with who they select to speak.

The same was true of the BBC documentary on the so-called 9/11 conspiracy last night. The three supporters of the conspiracy who appeared were wide-eyed extremists. This included our old friend Jim Fetzer. The opponents were three very rational men who took a very scientific approach to the case. It was a "no contest". The conspiracy theorists would get very few converts from this programme.

No John I understood that, you seem to have misunderstood me. reread my last post. You did seem to confuse Jack and Peter though.

Having debated “inside jobbers” (i.e. people who think 9/11 was an “inside job”) on a few forums and visited their websites I have doubts about your theory that the Beeb ‘screened in’ the wackos, it might well have been a representative sample especially since Shayler believes that the Twin Towers weren’t hit by passenger jets an idea at the fringe even of the “truth movement”.

I share your concerns about Fetzer making progressives who question the actions of the current American and British administrations look foolish. In fact Josiah “Tink” Thompson and I discussed this problem on another forum before signing up here and I discussed this with a member (now a moderator) here.

Len

Jack,

John didn’t refer to Fetzer as a “crackpot” or “daft” nor “unscientific” or “irrational” though one could argue he insinuated the latter two. He did say your friend “APPEARED to be (a) wide-eyed extremist” but none of these expressions are ad homonyms. You could argue they constitute personal attacks but coming from someone who has labeled his opponents “accessories after the fact” to murder, “assholes”, “provocateurs” “stupid” and “goons” you don’t really have a leg to stand on. How different are “unscientific” or “irrational” or “appeared to be a wide-eyed extremist” from “ignorant” which you argued wasn’t a personal attack. Even after the moderator system was set up you referred to people who disagree with you as being like “hyenas”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Sometimes I wonder about John Simkin! During the eight hours BBC was here in Madison interviewing me, I made most if not all of the following arguments. They of course included exactly one--about the Pentagon!--when the program finally aired. It is not rocket science to grasp that by selecting and eliminating--selecting the evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest--a skillful editor can convey whatever impression he wants.

As for suggesting that I am a "wide eyed extremist", that's just a blatant, unjustified smear. Nothing I said was remotely "extreme", so I wonder what's going on with the moderator of this forum? I am reluctant to speculate, but exaggerated criticism with no basis in fact is typical of those who have an agenda other than truth, especially in relation to complex and controversial cases like JFK and 9/11. Others can judge for themselves, but I am disappointed in John Simkin!

Here are around twenty arguments, most or all of which I made during the BBC's visit to my home in Madison:

The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.

UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for three or four hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly at an average temperature of around 500*F--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.

If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.

William Rodriguez, the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the subbasements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a 50-ton hydraulic press and ripping the skin off a fellow worker, a report corroborated by the testimony of around three dozen other custodians.

Willie reported that the explosion occurred prior to the airplane's impact, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job", which demonstrates that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds prior to the airplanes impacts.

Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which normally only occurs with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pegelow has pointed out to me.

The destruction of the South and North Towers in about 10 seconds apiece is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.

The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.

There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; the cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at 911Scholars.org.

______________________

Like Jack you seem to think I was referring to the anti-conspiracists on the forum. I was not. My comments were aimed at those conspiracy theorists who contaminate the good name of good researchers by developing what I consider to be daft theories.

I was not suggesting that the BBC lined-up nut-cases to support Shayler. All they did is to let the crackpots speak. The BBC always appears to be very fair by matching one supporter with one opponent phone-caller. The cheating comes with who they select to speak.

The same was true of the BBC documentary on the so-called 9/11 conspiracy last night. The three supporters of the conspiracy who appeared were wide-eyed extremists. This included our old friend Jim Fetzer. The opponents were three very rational men who took a very scientific approach to the case. It was a "no contest". The conspiracy theorists would get very few converts from this programme.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.

Who said that the steel needed to melt in order for buildings to collapse? Please provide a relevant quote from an expert in in the fields of structural or materials engineering.

UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for three or four hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly at an average temperature of around 500*F--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.

Please provide a UL cite that they certified the steel in the WTC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder about John Simkin! During the eight hours BBC was here in Madison interviewing me, I made most if not all of the following arguments. They of course included exactly one--about the Pentagon!--when the program finally aired. It is not rocket science to grasp that by selecting and eliminating--selecting the evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest--a skillful editor can convey whatever impression he wants.

I have sympathies with Jim in this case. Any director with an axe to grind can make what he/she wants out of an interview - especially given plenty of footage to choose from.

BBC spin is slick - up there with the best in the world.

Demonization is easy.

I'd like to see this program. Is it online?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder about John Simkin! During the eight hours BBC was here in Madison interviewing me, I made most if not all of the following arguments. They of course included exactly one--about the Pentagon!--when the program finally aired. It is not rocket science to grasp that by selecting and eliminating--selecting the evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest--a skillful editor can convey whatever impression he wants.

I have sympathies with Jim in this case. Any director with an axe to grind can make what he/she wants out of an interview - especially given plenty of footage to choose from.

BBC spin is slick - up there with the best in the world.

Demonization is easy.

I'd like to see this program. Is it online?

Sid...I think this may include a video link to it...

................

http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/febru...broughtdown.htm

More Ground Zero Heroes On The Record: Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought

Down

Testimony of multiple rescue personnel that they were told Building 7 was going to be imploded means FEMA, NIST,

Silverstein Properties and federal government all lied, revelations demand immediate grand jury inquiry into insurance

fraud, vindicates call for new independent 9/11 investigation

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones

Prison Planet

Friday, February 9, 2007

Two more ground zero emergency rescue personnel are on the record as stating they were told Building 7 was going to be brought

down on 9/11 hours before its symmetrical implosion, completely contradicting the official explanation of accidental collapse.

---------

http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/febru...issueoflies.htm

BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation

Outraged truth community demands answers from Guy Smith,

immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage agenda

driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Monday, February 19, 2007

UPDATE: Audio - Paul Joseph Watson & Dylan Avery Debate Guy Smith on the 9/11 BBC Hit Piece

The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end.

Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement and

he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath.

You can watch the one hour show below via Google Video on the link above.

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...