GazeboflossUK

ok, my bad. I misread your comment. I think we should stop posting on this thread now....we seem to have digressed a bit...haha.

I think you mean high.

Agree. Fucking hell. Are people actually this pathetic? I don't give a flying fuck how good at Snake 2 you are. Haha. 19+ so-called "Clubs" It's just silly - you're a moderator, now stop it. Do people actually get excited by being 'part of' a Coffee Club for example? or any of the other 19+ 'Club' threads. It's just clogging up this site. You don't need to make up threads just so you can having something to type about - or maybe there should be a whole new section called: "Utter Pointless Shit That Only Means Something If You Are Cool Enough To Be In On The Stupid, Almost Non-Joke That You Chatted About In A Private Messaging Program With (or indeed if you are just brain dead)" section. Yes? How about no - just think for crying out loud and stop being so 'cookie'. :sick:

In with both feet. Hate them.

I have the ability to see things for what they really are. Not in a "super hero" type of way - I don't have X-Ray Vision. I think it's just attention to detail. I'm a bit of a perfectionist. This can cause me to spend a long time on smaller tasks - which isn't always a bad thing of course.

G spot? What's that's exactly? :book2: Oh, right.... :joker: :p

.

The hit piece can be viewed on google video, here

Producer Struggles to Defend Flaws & Bias of BBC Hit Piece Guy Smith says 'we can debate these issues all day' without being able to debate any of them Tuesday, February 20, 2007 The producer of the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary, a poorly researched and bias hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, appeared on the Alex Jones Show yesterday and struggled to defend charges that the program was laden with glaring flaws and crass emotional manipulation throughout. Judge for yourself by listening to the MP3 audio. Smith began by claiming that he conducted the investigation in an "objective and balanced way" and yet there were as many as thirteen individuals representing the official story or a whitewash version of it versus just three individuals representing 9/11 skepticism. How can a more than four to one ratio be judged as balanced? In addition, the debunkers were allowed to talk at length while the skeptics were tightly edited and had extremely little on screen time. Smith is completely dishonest in claiming the evidence alone led the nature of the documentary because the way in which it is filmed and edited clearly betrays an overwhelming bias and a zeal to discredit the skeptics by means of editorial deceit and cinematic manipulation of the audience. Smith was forced to state "no I'm not denying that" when he was questioned on the imbalance of having four times the amount of debunkers compared to skeptics. Dylan Avery's first question for Guy Smith was to ask, "How can I drop out of something I never attended." In the hit piece, the narrator calls Avery a "self-confessed dropout," a clear smear attempt to undermine his trustworthiness, when in reality Avery never even attended college. Smith bizarrely tried to wriggle out of this basic factual error by claiming that in England the term "dropout" doesn't mean to drop out of college or University, but merely to go a different route. Being British, I immediately confirmed that dropout, in the overwhelming majority of its usage and certainly in this context, means to have attended University or school and dropped out. It means the same thing in England that it does in America and a simple search of the BBC News website shows that the term 'dropout' is almost always used in this context. In claiming otherwise, Smith is dishonestly trying to hide from the fact that the term was deliberately used to undermine and smear Avery in the documentary. Trying to change the meaning of words in the context they are used is a crass attempt to deflect accusations of bias and Smith needs to take a long and serious look at himself in the mirror. When asked about the deliberate implosion of the twin towers, Smith responded, "We looked into that and we came to the conclusion that the evidence just doesn't support the conspiracy theory." Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, the evidence the BBC was using to illustrate its ridiculous "pancake theory" collapse scenario, which was so implausible that even official NIST investigators had to back away from it, was a graphic animation that shows just ten floors collapsing every six seconds, meaning the BBC is telling us that the twin towers took around 66 seconds to collapse when in reality they fell in just fourteen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weqBynRZGG8 Above is an excellent debunking of this animation and below you can see how the BBC used it to support their flawed case. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoAftFBLdiI When challenged on this flaw, all Mr. Smith could say was "it's not misleading," despite the fact that anyone with two brain cells to rub together can look at it and see that it is. Guy Smith will probably recoil in embarrassment at the You Tube explanation above when he realizes he has used a completely flawed animation as the central supporting evidence for his advocacy of the official conspiracy theory that two modern 110 story steel buildings were demolished into small pieces and dust in under sixteen seconds without the use of incendiary devices. When challenged why Smith failed to include the words of just one of the dozens and dozens of first responders, police and firefighters who heard and saw explosions, and namely Craig Bartmer, the former NYPD official who heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from it, Smith at first claimed ignorance to who Bartmer was, even though he had met and interviewed him at Dylan Avery's home. Smith says that he tried to "go back to primary sources, to eyewitnesses" when in reality the show gave 10 minutes to a Hollywood sci-fi producer of a show that went off the air five years ago, and there was no coverage whatsoever of the primary eyewitnesses who reported bombs and explosions, just one selective clip of a fireman talking about damage to Building 7's sprinkler system. When challenged with why he didn't even mention firefighters who reported bombs, never mind use any of the literally dozens of video clips and audio segments from the official NYFD tapes, Smith had no answer and began talking about people who had complained that he gave too much air time to "conspiracy theorists," implying that a ratio of four to one in favor of the debunkers was not enough. Smith began to sound like a broken record at this point, repeating the line 'we could debate this all day' and variations of it without ever actually being able to debate or defend the numerous flaws and bias throughout his hit piece. The producer had the gall to claim he had looked at the evidence in an "objective and dispassionate" way when the documentary was laden from beginning to middle to end with emotional manipulation about how asking questions about 9/11 was insulting and hurtful to the victims, a ludicrous and cynical attempt to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. In reality, Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the attack, and represents the largest group of 9/11 victim's family members, says that over half of his members are asking the same questions, not to mention the Jersey Girls and numerous polls of New Yorkers that consistently show the majority believe there is a government cover-up surrounding 9/11. When challenged on the notion that Smith had already come to a conclusion before filming for the show had even finished and therefore betraying an implicit bias, in addition to Alex Jones' claim that Smith laughed off 9/11 "conspiracy theories" in a restaurant meeting months before the show was aired, Smith stuttered before claiming he went into the project with an "open mind." I would suggest Mr. Smith’s blatant and offensive bias in producing this sham documentary comes as a result of his zeal to maintain his perch in the media establishment peanut gallery and on the BBC gravy train. Maybe it’s Mr. Smith’s fear that because of journalistic cowardice in tackling the weapons of mass destruction farce, he realizes his role in the media is under threat – because people don’t trust the mainstream any more and are increasingly turning to the alternative press in search of truth. The Conspiracy Files charade will ultimately only fan the flames of 9/11 truth even more, being that its flawed evidence, inherent bias and manipulative smear tactics will be obvious to those who still maintain the ability to think for themselves.

Exactly......this will be my last post in the thread because I'm standing by my view that it's a completely exhausted "Ultimate Question" that frankly is as productive as watching paint dry. Go, live and be good! Learn and see new things without reservations! If there is a higher being endless talking about it changes nothing! If your "God" emerges along the way then, well, great.....until then......

I don't need to believe in a God or follow religious structures to be a good and honest person. Some people do - some people don't.......either way, nobody knows nor can possibly ever find out. So why should we waste time talking about it? Timewasting thread - of which there has been many similar. Lets get on with bigger and better things!

"Type 2 diabetes - From eating high-calorie food while watching TV" Wow, they were scraping the barrel to get to 15 huh? Should have just had a list of 14 and be done with it.

The extraordinary photo that reveals just how little MPs knew about the Iraq war UK Mail On Sunday Sunday, February 18, 2007 The extraordinary picture below lays bare just how much Tony Blair's Cabinet was kept in the dark as Britain went to war in Iraq. Rather than being told by the Prime Minister that the country was at war, they had been roused from their beds by policemen or phoned by journalists with news of the first American strikes. But at this moment, 7.55am on March 20, 2003, they know no more about the final decision to launch the attack than the rest of the British public tuned in to the early-morning news. Standing around an ante-chamber in Downing Street, drinking tea and coffee from china cups, they wait while in a locked room behind them the real War Cabinet meeting is already in progress. Mr Blair is being briefed by military and intelligence chiefs about the attack, launched surprisingly soon by President Bush, a few hours earlier. But outside of this inner circle, the rest of the Prime Minister's War Cabinet wait for news, the strain and lack of sleep appears etched on their faces. Also there that morning were former Times editor Peter Stothard and photographer Nick Danziger, who took this extraordinary image. The pair had been given unprecedented access to Downing Street to record these events for posterity. Stothard recalls how the bemused Cabinet greeted them. His account begins three days earlier, on March 17, 2003, a day before the Commons debate on the Iraq War. He is standing outside the Cabinet Room when he is accosted by Robin Cook, who was about to resign. "What on earth are you two doing here?" sighed Robin Cook. "We're flies on the Downing Street wall," I sighed back with a forced attempt at levity. "Flies on the wall?" the ex-Leader of the Commons muttered softly. "You're not the bloody only ones". He pointed back towards his colleagues in the Cabinet Room, even then discussing events over which they had little real control." Three days later Stothard is back outside the Cabinet Room, where Danziger takes this historic picture. "The Americans had dropped their "shock and awe" on Baghdad somewhat earlier than their best ally had been expecting. Before the War Cabinet meets, its members are musing on how they heard the news: Gordon Brown from the BBC World Service, Jack Straw from a policeman pummelling at his door, David Blunkett from Radio Five Live. "In retrospect, there are only three men in this picture who could have kept Britain out of the conflict. The face of the first, Lord Goldsmith, does not suggest a man exhilarated by his long and agonised judgment that the war is legal, a view shared by uncomfortably few of his learned friends. "The lowered eyes of the second, Gordon Brown, look thunderously at the camera. Five days before I had listened to the Chancellor while he put it to the Prime Minister, "What people ask me is why is there not just a little more delay". He had received only crackle and snap for an answer - and was now on War Cabinet call to discuss "resource allocation". "Jack Straw is the Minister who has been most entwined in the negotiations about how long a delay there could have been. As the Minister responsible for MI6 he has responsibility, too, for the promise from its boss, Richard Dearlove, that weapons of mass destruction were assuredly there, in Iraq, and would assuredly be found. "But on this first morning everyone in the room affects to be satisfied on the matter of Iraq's illegal arsenal. David Blunkett now says he had arrived that morning "with an expectation of an explanation" but adds that as the war went on "often we didn't get it". Blair at War: Photographs by Nick Danziger is at the National Portrait Gallery from February 24 to July 15.

IMPORTANT TO KNOW! BBC vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Begins Winter Patriot Sunday, February 18, 2007 LOOKOUT BELOW! Here comes a load of manure from the the BBC: We're all conspiracy theorists at heart Why are conspiracy theories so popular? We may not always believe what we're told, but we still can't resist listening to them. Guy Smith, producer of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files, suggests the answer may lie deep within us all.Did you catch that? It's deep within us all; i.e. it has nothing to do with whether the official stories purporting to explain these great national tragedies bear any relation to the physical evidence allegedly supporting those stories. Really. I'm sure that's all it is. And if you don't believe me, read Guy Smith: I admit it. If I'm being really honest, I can't deny that I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps we all are. It's easy to dismiss all conspiracy theories as "bunkum", but remember just occasionally they do turn out to be true. Remember Watergate? Iran-contra? Special Branch collusion with loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland? As Jim Fetzer, one of the leading 9/11 conspiracy theorists, says: "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."Now watch this! It's the old fake-em-over-here and then run-over-there play. A counter-trap, in American football terms. He makes an opening nod to Fetzer, and claims to be a "conspiracy theorist" (whatever that means) and then goes in the other direction. I've just spent the best part of nine months investigating the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the al-Qaeda attacks on 11 September, 2001. ... The deeper you dig in the dark world of conspiracies, the more you realise that different theories share much in common. The conspiracy theorist seizes on any apparent inconsistency and from that germ of truth the story is built up.Ahem. From that germ of truth an investigation is started. What happened to the white car apparently involved in Diana's accident? Was there a second gunman on the Grassy Knoll? And why did it take so long to scramble US fighters on 9/11?All good questions, no? And we can't help but be fascinated by them.But why? Here's the place where Mr. Smith diverges from reality: Perhaps it's because deep down, we're all story tellers. It's one of the things that makes us who we are. Since the dawn of time, we've been creating heroes and monsters as a way of trying to make sense of the world. In the beginning, we told those tales round camp fires. Now, it's through internet chat rooms or on mobile phones. But it's still basically the same process - weaving stories out of real life.That's the mis-direction. I'm a conspiracy theorist, Iran Contra, blah blah blah, we're weaving stories out of real life. As a matter of fact, we are mostly asking questions about stories we were told by known serial liars which allegedly explain national and global tragedies but which in fact have virtually no relation to the physical evidence which allegedly supports these stories. And speaking of Iran-Contra, forgive me but aren't these the same guys? If Mr. Smith had spent nine months investigating the attacks of 9/11 with an open mind then he might have learned something truly useful, but as you can see from his introduction, he spent nine months investigating the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the al-Qaeda attacks on 11 September, 2001 -- in other words he started out with the official conspiracy story in his head and spent the next nine months fleshing it out, in order to make a documentary for BBC which is going to amount to nothing more nor less than Popular Mechanics on skates. In this column, Guy Smith lays the groundwork for his work of massive fraud. He's about to become an accessory-after-the-fact in a case of mass murder on an unimaginable scale, which means he's obliged to descend into the world of absolute falsehood. He goes gently and elegantly, and he precedes his descent with admirable deception, but into the world of absolute falsehood he certainly does go. When something awful, inexplicable or just plain evil rocks our world, we have an instinctive need to construct elaborate explanations to try and make sense of our anxiety and fear.We have an instinctive need for an explanation that makes sense, but there's no need for the explanation to be elaborate. In fact, the simpler the explanation, the better. In the JFK assassination, for instance, we were told on the very evening that the case had been solved: it was a communist, acting alone, who had done the deed, he'd been caught, no problem, and nothing to worry about. So the nation relaxed -- into an ocean of grief. It was easy to believe the one-lone-nut tale of Lee Harvey Oswald, because it was so simple. And it was only later that we started to find out that the official story was not only dubious but actually contradicted by the physical evidence. After that whenever something really bad happened, it got harder and harder to get the evidence. When Princess Diana was killed, we were told it was simply an auto accident -- well, who could do anything about that? Except grieve. And we did. And it was comforting to know there was a simple explanation. The world is complex enough, daily life is sufficiently taxing, people tend to buy the simplest possible explanation for virtually anything. Except when it doesn't make sense. And when it turned out that the car in which she died was sealed away and there was no public examination of any evidence to support the official story of that horrible event, it was natural for people to wonder whether what really happened and what we were told happened were one and the same. And the more they dug, the more they doubted. This didn't happen because people tend to gravitate toward awful and complex explanations when simple and comforting tales are available. It happened because -- again -- the simple and comforting tale was found wanting. And no matter how badly people wished to believe it, they couldn't. When 9/11 happened, it was the same thing all over again only bigger. Awesome waves of grief swept the world, and the story came out fast and simple. Nineteen hijackers armed with box cutters had hijacked four commercial airliners simultaneously and they all crashed. Two of them smashed into gigantic office towers and a third hit the most heavily fortified building on the planet. Neither the national capital nor the the business capital of the world had any appreciable air cover that day, and the two office buildings which were hit by planes burned for a little while and then disintegrated -- didn't fall apart but turned to powder! How much more absurd could it get? Even before a third building -- which was not hit by any plane -- turned to powder later in the day, the story we were being fed sounded impossible to anyone who had their wits about them at the time. But most people didn't have their wits about them; they were shocked and horrified and utterly distraught. Some had no capacity for rational thought whatsoever. At that point, we were most vulnerable to being fed a line of bull, and that's exactly what happened. People found it easier to believe the relatively simple official conspiracy theory than to ask hard questions about what they had just seen and heard, and to accept the even harder answers that would inevitably follow. As an aside, but a crucial one, let us never forget that the official story of 9/11 involves a most unlikely conspiracy. We're all "conspiracy theorists" on 9/11, unless anyone of us can imagine a scenario in which the 19 hijackers were working independently! Now, more than five years later, with the American people beginning to regain their wits, the official conspiracy theory sounds even more implausible, the failings of the so-called investigation are even more obvious, and quite a number of people who used to think I was crazy are not so sure. Time to roll out more lies! Many eye-witnesses to 9/11 thought, "This terrible event can't just be something as simple as 19 young hijackers armed with pocket knives. There must be more to it than that - because the alternative is just too horrific to contemplate." No, sorry. Close, but no cigar! We thought: "This terrible event can't just be something as simple as 19 young hijackers armed with pocket knives. There must be more to it than that - because if this is it, if this is the whole story, they never could have done it." It's the alternative -- by which I mean any plausible alternative to the official story of 9/11 -- which is in fact far too horrific for many people to contemplate, and therein lies a great deal of the official story's power. The official story of 9/11 is comforting because it's simple, and because all the villains are foreign, but it's difficult to believe because it doesn't make very much sense. Alternative stories, on the other hand, are difficult to believe because their implications are so painful, but they are comforting because they make more sense, not because their explanations are always especially convincing, but because they at least try to answer questions that the official story simply ignores. And the best of the alternative stories are very convincing indeed. So it's disgusting but not surprising to see this BBC producer claiming to be a conspiracy theorist and saying exactly the opposite, just prior to the airing of the so-called documentary he has made. But such is life in the twenty-first century, I suppose. Welcome To The global propaganda Machine. BBC vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Continues Winter Patriot Sunday, February 18, 2007 LOOKOUT AGAIN! Here comes another load of manure from the BBC! We wondered what kind of documentary the BBC was making about 9/11, and it's becoming clearer by the day. Guy Smith, producer of the upcoming BBC "Conspiracy Files" episode on 9/11, laid the groundwork in a piece called " We're all conspiracy theorists at heart" which was published by the BBC on Friday. In that piece, Smith claims conspiracy theories persist because people are natural story-tellers who instinctively look for elaborate tales to describe events beyond their control. Your nearly frozen correspondent replied with "BBC vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Begins". I urge you to read both pieces if you have any doubts about our respective positions, or motivations. On Saturday the BBC laid the next layer of infrastructure for its coming propaganda barrage, under the curiously misleading headline: Q&A: What really happened In BBC vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Begins, I half-jokingly claimed the upcoming documentary would be "nothing more nor less than Popular Mechanics on skates". Imagine my surprise, then, to see the current BBC offering taking the same approach used by PM. The BBC purports to explain the events of 9/11 by asking and answering 10 questions, and I will deal with each of them, briefly or otherwise, below. But first let's talk about why this approach -- the attempted "debunking" of selected "conspiracy theories" -- is an unsatisfactory approach to the problem. The Madness In The Method The common approach taken by both BBC and Popular Mechanics consists of a series of vignettes. In each one, they pick out an anomaly between the official story and the available evidence of what really happened, they detail one possible explanation for that anomaly (which both BBC and Popular Mechanics helpfully refer to as a "conspiracy theory"), and then they allegedly debunk the "conspiracy theory" using one means or another. It's a three-step process and it's vulnerable to corruption at every step. We'll talk about this more below. But here I want to mention a very important limitation on the method. Even if this approach were carried out with rigorous logic, even if no corruption were allowed at any stage of the process, it would still prove unsatisfactory for the following reasons: [1] There's a vast difference between proving that a so-called "conspiracy theorist" is wrong on a given point and proving that the official story is right on that point. Here's a concrete example: I happen to disagree with Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer and Dylan Avery on key points and yet I still do not believe the official story. So nobody -- not Guy Smith, not anybody else -- is going to make me believe the official story by pointing out places where Alex or Jim or Dylan has allegedly gone astray. In other words, even if all these so-called "conspiracy theorists" are "wrong", and even if BBC demolishes all of them, that still doesn't prove that the official story is correct. And for that matter, even the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" is overloaded with spin, because the official story -- the story that Guy Smith is trying to protect -- talks of at least 20 people -- Osama bin Laden and 19 hijackers. Anyone who believes that those 20 people conspired to pull off this enormous crime is also, by definition, a "conspiracy theorist". And anyone who believes they did it without conspiring -- that they just happened to work together without any prior planning or communication -- is flat-out crazy. To be blunt about it, anyone who thinks the attacks of 9/11 could have been done without a conspiracy is crazier than anything Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer and Dylan Avery and Guy Smith have ever said all combined. [2] Even if the BBC's answers to all 10 questions were sound and solid, their sum total would barely begin to explain the differences between the attacks of 9/11 and the official version of same, because the number of unanswered questions about 9/11 runs into the hundreds. Therefore the selection of 10 key questions in effect amounts to a ruling that all the hundreds of others are beyond the pale, and this is the necessary first step in the ongoing propaganda campaign to get you to believe lies about what really happened. First they get you thinking it all boils down to 10 easy questions, and then they lie to you about the questions -- and then they lie to you about the answers, and kaboom! ... or should I say "Zzzzz" ... you're sound asleep! 1: Could the US Air Force have prevented the attacks? This is certainly a good question and answering it in the "politically correct" manner requires serious obfuscation, so it's surprising to see it first. However, if the BBC is going to lie to you through all 10 questions, it doesn't really matter which comes first, so they may as well dive in the deep end. Well, let's go with them: To sceptics of the official account of 9/11, the idea of 19 fundamentalists hijacking commercial airliners and outsmarting the world's most advanced air defence system seems simply incredible. Some 9/11 conspiracy theories argue that the US Air Force should have succeeded in intercepting at least some of the hijacked planes, and that someone, therefore, must have prevented them from doing so. The official version - 9-11 Commission Report - holds that on the morning of 11 September, 2001 a major defence training exercise was taking place. What an understatement! What was taking place was the most heavily concentrated set of training exercises ever scheduled! The BBC can roll out any number of explanations as to why these exercises were sufficient to derail the air defense in the Northeastern US that day, but they don't dare approach the next logical question: Who scheduled those wargames? Did Osama bin Laden send key components of the US Air Force to places like Alaska and Greenland that day? And if not, who did? BBC quotes Popular Mechanics reporter David Coburn pushing the "incompetence" theory, which simply doesn't wash in the face of so much deliberately sown confusion, and then deals with an issue that's been hanging over the "official investigation" for quite some time: Following the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report it emerged that the Commissioners were concerned they might have been deliberately misled by the military about the timeline of their response to events on the day. Suspicions of a cover up by the military were recently addressed by a report from the Pentagon Inspector General. The report found that there had been no deliberate attempt to mislead the 9/11 Commission, and that the discrepancies in their testimony to the Commission were the result of "a lack of capabilities and thoroughness" within the military.The next logical question should be: Why is the Pentagon investigating whether the US military colluded in the coverup of 9/11? But instead the BBC allows the suspects the final word on this issue. It's a ploy we'll see again and again. Did anybody at the BBC notice that their link to the 9/11 Commission report is broken? (I've fixed it in the quoted passage.) 2: Were the Twin Towers deliberately demolished by explosives? Of course they were. Anybody watching on TV knew that right away. But the official story doesn't account for Osama bin Laden getting access to the WTC in order to plant explosives there, so now we have to have all these transparent lies. Was it a "pancake collapse" or a "progressive collapse" or in fact what kind of collapse was it? The official story has changed, but not the official wording. All the talk about "why the towers collapsed" is absurd because the clear and visible fact -- perhaps the most notable fact of the day -- is that the towers didn't collapse at all; they disintegrated! BBC prefers to obfuscate these very inconvenient facts in the following manner: After 9/11, investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) determined that the collapse of the Twin Towers was due to the impact of the planes and the large quantities of exploding jet fuel released into the buildings. Those questioning this account point to the lateral puffs of smoke that emerged from the towers just ahead of their collapse. Could these be explosive devices planted as part of a conspiracy? They also argue that jet fuel, which has a far lower burning temperature than the melting point of steel, is unlikely to have weakened the steel supporting framework sufficient to prompt the collapse of the Twin Towers. Jet fuel burns at 800 degrees Celsius whereas temperatures must reach 1,500 degrees Celsius for steel to melt.Those questioning this account raise a lot of other questions as well, such as why so many firemen and emergency workers testified to hearing bombs going off all around them just before the towers fell, or why the steel beams appear to have been cut rather than having buckled, and why there was molten steel in the basements of the towers so long after the "collapse". But the BBC is not prepared to admit these questions, much less deal with them. Instead, we get a rehash of the official line (which still makes no sense!) The explanation for the puffs of smoke offered by the authors of the Popular Mechanics study is that as the floors crashed down of top of one another, a pressure wave forced dust and smoke out of the windows. As for the fuel temperature - the official explanation holds that whilst steel does indeed melt at 1,500 degrees Celsius, it loses half its strength at a much lower temperature of 650 degrees Celsius. The fuel might not have melted the steel columns, but it weakened the structure, and especially the trusses that supported each floor, to the point that they could no longer support the weight on the building.So BBC supports the "truss failure" theory. The supports couldn't hold up the floors. The main problems for this "explanation" is that it is hugely at variance with the evidence. If trusses had failed the floors may have come tumbling down but the steel exterior walls and the central steel columns would have been left standing, or at worst would have fallen over, or bucked and fallen partway over, or at any rate the result would have been very different than what we saw that day. The NIST report says the steel buckled but doesn't provide any photos of buckled steel. In some photos of WTC damage the steel appears to be cut. And then there's the issue of molten steel in the basements, or the reports of "rescue workers" working at Ground Zero having to change their boots all the time, because the soles were melting. How could a truss collapse generate that much heat? And why do we have eyewitness reports of underground explosions in the towers before the planes hit? The BBC doesn't go near any of these questions either. They just pick one detail they like (the puffs of smoke coming from the buildings) and they work that detail into the official story in one way or another (i.e. the puffs of smoke were compressed dust and smoke being squeezed out of the buildings by the collapse) and they move on to the next narrowly framed question, as if the entire issue were settled. It's a ploy we'll see again and again. But in the meantime ... Here's a good way for you to evaluate the "steel weakened and buckled" theory at your own convenience: Go out and start your car. Watch what happens when burning fuel heats the steel around it -- in this case the steel is your engine block. Let it run for a while and you'll find that your engine block actually buckles -- because the heat from the burning fuel is so intense that, even though it's not hot enough to melt the steel, it's hot enough to weaken the steel, and this combined with the intense pressures in your engine, make the steel of the engine block lose its strength and buckle. And that's why you can't drive your car for long distances, because the heat from the burning fuel weakens the steel and your engine sags and the next thing you know it loses its compression. You see this happening to other people all the time, don't you? Cars and trucks broken down by the side of the highway, no longer able to move because their engine blocks are so deformed from the heat of the burning fuel... You see them every day, do you not? No? Well ... Maybe I'd better go back and check my facts, then! 3: Was WTC7 deliberately demolished by explosives? Well, yes, it appears it was. In the last week we've had an emergency worker speak out and say yes, bombs were going off, yes, we had a twenty-minute warning to evacuate, and yes, it was what it looked like -- a controlled demolition. He was using an alias and saying he'd lost his job because he spoke the truth and within a few days other emergency workers started talking and saying "yes, he's right, that's what happened" ... So what does the BBC have? In the afternoon of 11 September 2001, World Trade Centre Building 7, a 47 storey office block close by the Twin Towers collapsed without even being hit by the planes. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties and with so much else happening that day, its collapse was barely reported.That's another understatement. And it's something skeptics find a bit sinister! WTC 7 was home to local offices of the CIA, Department of Defense, the United States Secret Service and the city's Office of Emergency Management, among others. Sceptics of the official account, including those at Scholars for 9/11 Truth argue that the building was deliberately destroyed in a controlled demolition, perhaps in order to conceal important information about a pre-9/11 plot by the authorities.Some even argue that the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania was intended to crash into Building 7. The collapse of WTC has been investigated by FEMA. Their interim report found that when the North Tower collapsed, debris crashed into Building 7. This was the likely cause of fires which quickly took hold. The sprinkler system did not work effectively because the water main in Vesey Street had been knocked out when the Twin Towers came down. With the intense fires burning unabated, the steel structure supporting the building was fatally weakened. But the FEMA investigators conceded that this hypothesis had a low probability of occurring.Say again?? "This hypothesis had a low probability" and yet it's being offered as an official explanation? Or is it? In their final report, due to be published later in 2007, FEMA is expected to back its original hypothesis substantially - the collapse of WTC7 was accidental, not deliberate. This is supposed to explain anything? This is supposed to make those questions go away? The two propaganda techniques we see at play here are [1] pretending that the questions which have drawn replies have been answered, and [2] pretending that the questions that haven't been answered don't exist. Sneaky debating tricks. Underhanded but not evil. This is a pattern which you may see change very soon. Note the links in this passage. The BBC link to the FEMA interim report leads to "page not found". How convenient. Or how sloppy. Either way, BBC looks ... well, I'm sorry but I can't bring myself to say it. But I have fixed the link in the quoted passage. 4: Were Jews forewarned about the attacks? The headline alone gives me hives. We'll talk about that in a minute. But first, here's the BBC's take on this aspect of the story: Shortly after the attacks a rumour started in the Middle East and spread around the world which claimed that 4,000 Jewish employees at the World Trade Centre had not turned up for work on 11 September. Were they warned to stay away? One conspiracy theory suggests that 9/11 was an Israeli plot to discredit the Arab world; another that the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, found out about the attacks beforehand and warned the Jewish community in New York. The rumour started after the Jerusalem Post reported that roughly 4,000 Israelis were believed to be living or working in New York and Washington. Crucially it did not say they were dead or missing - just people in the immediate areas of the attacks who might have been affected. This report was picked up by Arabic media outlets, including Al Manar, the Beirut satellite TV station linked to the Islamic militant group Hezbollah. Al Manar TV added a spin to the story. It reported that 4,000 Israelis working at the World Trade Centre had not shown up for work on 9/11. As the anti-Semitic rumour spread, the details became embellished - like in a game of Chinese whispers. According to official figures, of the 2,749 victims of the World Trade Centre attacks, 2,071 were occupants of the buildings. Research by The Conspiracy Files shows that of these 2,071 victims, 119 were confirmed Jewish and a further 72 were believed to be Jewish. This would make a total of 191 - or 9.2% of victims. This figure is broadly in line with the 9.7% of New York's commuting population which is believed to be Jewish.This is a straw-man attack of the highest order, and it requires delicate surgery to take it apart. First of all there may have been a report in the Jerusalem Post saying Jews had been forewarned of the attacks; if so it would clearly be to everyone's benefit to hide that report as quickly as possible. You will notice the BBC has linked to the Jerusalem Post website and the Al Manar website rather than to the two reports in question. Why? If I wanted to refer you to a particular news report, I would point you to the article I wanted you to read, rather than the publisher's website. Unless I didn't really have anything... But that's a minor point. Everything we've just read from the BBC about this story could be perfectly true. And yet... Yesterday Guy Smith wrote that he has spent nine months researching, and today we find out that he doesn't have a link to the Jerusalem Post report he claims started the whole story. If I had spent nine months researching I think I would have come back with a link. And the use of this one anecdote to dismiss all claims about foreknowledge is not very convincing. In fact, of all the stories I heard shortly after 9/11, this one wasn't even among them. The stories I heard had to do with Israelis, not Jews, and I know there's a lot of overlap, but the two groups are not identical by any means. The most dramatic story circulating shortly after 9/11 said that employees of the Israeli company Odigo had received text messages early on the morning of 9/11, warning them of the impending attacks. The BBC has done nothing to ease my mind about this story. But even more chilling are the stories about alleged Israeli foreknowledge that weren't circulating shortly after 9/11. And the BBC hasn't even tried to deal with them! By speaking of "Jews" rather than "Israelis", the BBC follows in the Popular Mechanics tradition and muddies the waters considerably. After framing it as a story involving "the Jews", supporters of the official story often move on to play the "anti-Semitism" card, and pretty soon after that the "Holocaust-denial" card, and even though these cards are quite irrelevant, they do derail an awful lot of discussions. The last time I checked, there was nothing anti-Semitic about wanting to know who attacked your country, and there was no hint of Holocaust-denial in asking whether certain highly-placed Israelis knew about the attacks before they happened. The Odigo story is only one example. Far more serious, in my view, is the story from NYC about the three Israelis who were seen celebrating the attacks by exchanging high-fives, holding up their lighters as if at a rock concert, frolicking for their cameras against the backdrop of the burning towers. These men were later arrested along with two other Israelis; the five were held for 71 days during which they repeatedly failed lie detector tests. Eventually they were released and whisked home, but not before it was established that two of the five were agents of the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. Why would Mossad agents be cheering the burning towers? According to Christopher Ketcham: After the first plane hit, no one really thought that this was a terrorist attack. I mean, most people thought -- and I was there, you know, on the Brooklyn waterfront watching this whole thing. Everyone thought it was an accident. These guys, when they were interrogated by FBI, told them that -- essentially said that they immediately knew it was a terrorist attack. And they actually told the FBI that the reason they were celebrating was because the attacks would be beneficial to Israel, that it was, quote, “a good thing for Israel” -- that's according to the FBI spokesman who spoke on the record about this -- and that it would bring sympathy for Israel's political agenda in the Middle East.And there you have it in a nutshell. Israel's political agenda in the Middle East, is, of course, a euphemism, but we can't fault Christopher Ketcham, who has brought so much of this story into the light. 9/11 works to enable Israel's military agenda in the Middle East, and that's what this is about -- not the Jewish people of New York City, who comprise nine point something percent of the population and suffered nine point something percent of the deaths. This is not about them at all, nor is it about anti-Semitism nor Holocaust denial, nor any of the other charges that get thrown at 9/11 skeptics with nauseating regularity. In fact -- come along with me here for a moment and let's think like a conspirator, shall we? -- if 9/11 was an Israeli black op, a warning to the Jewish workers of NYC would have defeated the purpose. If the plotters hoped to generate sympathy for Israel, and planned to do it by killing a huge number of people, surely they would have realized that if there were no Jewish victims, this might reflect badly on Israel and could cause a backlash rather than an increase in sympathy. So they wouldn't have done it that way. If they did it at all. 5: Did a commercial airline hit the Pentagon? What difference does it make? Some people think a commercial airliner did hit the Pentagon, but they still don't believe the official story. Some think that whatever hit the Pentagon couldn't have been a commercial airliner, and of course none of them believe the official story. Some people on each side of the argument think the entire issue has been inflamed by disinformation that's been deliberately injected in order to split the 9/11 truth movement into hostile bickering camps. Whether or not that was the intention, the existence of this split is used by some official conspiracy apologists to discredit all who ask questions about 9/11. For its part, the BBC says: At 09:37 on 11 September, the Pentagon, headquarters of the American military, was rocked by a huge explosion. According to the official account American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the building, killing all passengers on board and 125 military personnel and civilians on the ground. But some people argue that AA 77 could not have hit the building, as there is little visible wreckage, and the hole in the wall caused by the impact is too small to have been inflicted by a Boeing 757 airliner. The first photographs taken before the front wall of the Pentagon collapsed show the hole appears to be some 18-20 feet across at its narrowest point. Conspiracy theories argue that a remote controlled drone or missile struck the Pentagon. The official explanation is that the fuselage - which is 12 feet wide - punctured the building, but the two engines and the wings largely broke up on impact. US Defense Department photographs taken shortly after the attack show fragments of aircraft wreckage, some with the distinctive American Airlines livery. The black box recorders and engine parts were found amongst the wreckage, and many eyewitnesses described seeing the plane hit the building. Engineers and computer scientists at the Rosen Centre for Advanced computing at Purdue University, Indiana have built a computer model to recreate the crash. Their research suggests that it was the exploding jet fuel which caused the worst damage inside the Pentagon.None of this proves anything to me; most telling of all in my estimation is that the BBC chose to link to the US military multimedia site -- rather than to any specific photographs -- on the phrase "US Defense Department photographs". It's as if they're saying: Photographs proving our point exist -- find them if you can! 6: Can CCTV footage prove what happened at the Pentagon? BBC says: Conspiracy theorists argue that the Pentagon, America's military headquarters, was not hit by a commercial airplane. They say the initial hole in the outer wall is too small and there is no evidence of visible wreckage. Instead they believe the Pentagon was hit by something smaller, such as an unmanned drone or a cruise missile. For Professor Jim Fetzer, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the evidence is clear-cut. "Whatever hit the building was not a Boeing 757," he told The Conspiracy Files. "Anyone that tells you a Boeing 757 hit the building is saying something that is probably false, that cannot possibly be true." The Pentagon and the FBI have released some footage taken from CCTV cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon. Judicial Watch. Some of that footage - from the nearby CITGO petrol station and the Doubletree Hotel - does not shed any light on what hit the building. Frames taken from two cameras at a car park in front of the Pentagon appear to show the silver nose cone and tail fin of a Boeing 757 moments before the explosion, but the footage is of very poor quality and not conclusive. The FBI will not confirm whether or not it holds other security camera footage of the attack. Its lack of openness has fuelled further conspiracy theories. There are many reports that security cameras at the nearby Sheraton Hotel captured images of the attack, but the hotel manager told The Conspiracy Files that none of their cameras were pointing in the direction of the Pentagon and no such footage exists. The Conspiracy Files interviewed rescue workers who said they clearly identified wreckage from a passenger jet in and around the building. And photographs taken in the immediate aftermath of the explosion and shown in the documentary, identify parts of a Boeing 757 including a piece of fuselage with the distinctive livery of American Airlines.And what difference does this make? No matter what hit the Pentagon, the official story is still patently false. A better question might be: Why did the FBI confiscate all the videotapes from all the area cameras that might have been able to show us what happened? You'd think if they were really interested in catching the terrorists they'd have better things to do than intimidating employees at the local gas stations. And if you stop to see what they have at Judicial Watch you may find yourself shaking your head in astonishment that anything so vague could be considered evidence of anything. 7: Did a military transport plane control the attack on the Pentagon? Again it doesn't matter -- and that makes three questions in a row here of the wedge-driver variety. According to the BBC: As the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 approached Washington DC, a military transport C-130 aircraft took off from Andrews Air Force Base, en route to Minnesota. Conspiracy theories suggest that the C-130 may have been controlling the attack that morning as part of a secret government plot, or even fired a missile which downed the Boeing. The C-130's pilot, Lt Colonel Steve O'Brien, tells a different story. He told The Conspiracy Files that he and his crew were alerted by Air Traffic control to the presence of an unidentified jet approaching the capital. O'Brien describes seeing a Boeing passenger jet with the distinctive silver and red colours of American Airlines crossing their flight path in an unusually steep bank. His first reaction was that the aircraft was in trouble and trying to make an emergency landing at the nearby Reagan National Airport. Moments later the Boeing crashed into the Pentagon. Lt Colonel O'Brien points out the C-130 is not capable of carrying missiles.This is a wild tale and makes no difference to anything. It amounts to an allegation by the BBC that some unnamed conspiracy theorists are wrong on this point. But so what? I knew 9/11 was a black op long before I heard this story about a C-130. On the other hand, if you were trying to think of 10 relatively safe questions to ask and answer, the question about the C-130 would be far more appealing than questions about foreknowledge or obstruction of justice, to name but two sorely neglected areas of great concern. 8: Was United 93 shot down? Here's another question that really doesn't matter. I was watching the events unfold on television and I knew it was a false flag attack while flight 93 was still in the air. Whatever happened with that flight was not going to make the official story -- as told so far -- any more believable. Quoth the BBC: United Airlines 93 was the fourth plane hijacked on 9/11, and the only one not to reach its target. The official account of the day, as told in the 9/11 Commission Report holds that Flight 93 crashed into open ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, apparently as passengers tried to seize back the controls from the hijackers. But 9/11 conspiracy theorists are suspicious of this account. Some argue that substantial wreckage from the aircraft was found at Indian Lake, a reported 6 miles from the crash site in Shanksville. If this would true, it would lend weight to the theory that the aircraft disintegrated in mid-air after being hit by a missile. Leading conspiracy theorist and broadcaster Alex Jones of infowars.com argues that planes generally leave a small debris field when they crash, and that this is not compatible with reports of wreckage found further afield from Shanksville. The reports of wreckage at Indian Lake were accurate in so far as small, light fragments of insulation material and paper from United 93 were found by residents at the lake, having blown there from the crash site on the prevailing wind. However, the distance between the two locations was misreported in some accounts. In fact, in a straight line, Indian Lake is just over a mile from the crash site. The road between the two locations takes a roundabout route of 6.9 miles - accounting for the erroneous reports. Also, the fragments of debris which were found at Indian Lake were downwind of the crash site and east of the plane's flight path. Had United 93 started to disintegrate in mid-air, wreckage would have fallen below the flight path - to the west of Shanksville. Wally Miller, the local coroner at Somerset, Pennsylvania is at the centre of another debate about the crash of United 93. In his film Loose Change, Dylan Avery quotes Miller as saying: "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there." However, interviewed for The Conspiracy Files, Wally Miller says he was misquoted. "I said that I stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because it was perfectly clear what the manner of death was going to be. "It was a plane crash, but yet it was a homicide because terrorists had hijacked the plane and killed the passengers." He says it is technically correct that there were no complete bodies at the crash site, but the recovery operation found many body parts and DNA to identify all the passengers and crew on board.So here the BBC's claim amounts to saying that Alex Jones was wrong about how far-scattered the debris from Flight 93 was, and Dylan Avery used a quote from Wally Miller who later said he was misquoted. And these two claims of the BBC may very well be true. But even if they are true, so what? The "crash site" still doesn't look like a crash site, the stories of cellphone calls being made from high altitude didn't make any sense, and we have all sorts of reasons to believe the official story is full of holes (if not full of lies, or something even more aromatic!) on this point, even if Alex and Dylan are both wrong! And that's not to say that they are wrong. I don't know. It's possible Wally Miller was misquoted. It's also possible Wally Miller changed his tune after speaking a bit too freely. If that's what happened, it wouldn't be the first time a key witness in a key story had changed his tune. Perhaps a shady character drew up alongside Wally Miller one day and alerted him to the fact that he had spoken too freely. It wouldn't be the first time for that, either. The BBC's link to infowars.com doesn't work, but I've fixed it for you. ;-) 9: Did United 93 crash? Here's another side of the previous question. But this time it's framed in such a way as to discredit Loose Change specifically. Loose Change has become increasingly popular lately, especially in Britain, and as the defenders of the official story see it, Loose Change needs all the discrediting it can get. Here the BBC says: Photographs taken at the crash site near Shanksville show a small crater and fragments of clearly identifiable aircraft wreckage along with personal possessions from some of those on board. But the size of the crater and the absence of large pieces of wreckage have led some to question whether UA93 actually crashed there at all. This question is examined at the following website: Killtown: Hunt the Boeing II Dylan Avery, director of the hugely popular internet film Loose Change, argues that Flight 93 landed elsewhere, with the passengers abducted as part of an elaborate government plot. Loose Change Avery's film quotes reports from a local TV station in Ohio saying that two planes had landed at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport because of a bomb threat. Avery suggests that one of these was Flight 93. In fact, there was one plane diverted to Cleveland that morning, with a suspected bomb on board. But this was a different flight: Delta Airlines Flight 89, which had been proceeding along the same westward air corridor as United 93. In the chaos of that morning, Air Traffic Control had confused the two flights and ordered the Delta to land. Local TV stations covered a press conference by the local mayor in which he referred to the Delta flight landing because of a suspect bomb, but later amended their stories when it became clear that Delta 89 had not been hijacked.So what do we have here? A "crash scene" that doesn't look much like a crash scene, and BBC not even attempting to deny it. Instead they point to an assertion in Loose Change that's been denied. And what can that mean? First, of course, just because something's been denied that doesn't make it false. Look: Two plus Two isn't Four! Do you believe me? Secondly, even if Dylan Avery is completely wrong on this one, the "crash scene" still doesn't look like a crash scene, and the BBC still doesn't deny it. Click that Killtown link if you don't believe me. Really. Check out that Killtown link and tell me a commercial airliner crashed in that field. And watch Loose Change sometime if you haven't done so already. It's not perfect but it asks a lot of good questions. Thanks to BBC for two good links here. ;-) 10: Could the attacks have been prevented? Here we have an example of a very broad question being addressed as if it were very narrow. The BBC says: Were there chances to stop the attacks prior to 9/11? If so, was this failure deliberate? The CIA knew that two al-Qaeda terrorists had entered the United States as early as January 2000. But the CIA never passed on this information to the FBI - so the FBI did not know to look for them. The two future hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar settled in San Diego, where they started to take lessons at a local flying school. They used their real names in official documents and one of them - al-Hazmi - was even listed in the local phonebook. Had the CIA tipped off the FBI that two known al-Qaeda operatives had travelled to America, it would have been easy to track them down - and possibly the 9/11 attacks could have been thwarted. But Dale Watson, who led the FBI's investigation of 9/11, told The Conspiracy Files that there was no deliberate CIA plot to keep information from the FBI. He said: "In large organisations you do have breakdowns in communications at the lower end. There was never any top down orders either by the FBI or the CIA. And anybody that believes that - they're wrong."Dale Watson might just be telling us a tall tale there. We've heard all sorts of stories about agents in the field starting investigations that could have foiled the plot but who were called off the hunt by their superiors. Perhaps there was never any all-encompassing top-down orders from central headquarters in either the FBI or the CIA. But the right people knew that certain sorts of leads ought not to be investigated! We could talk to Coleen Rowley about that, but we'd do most of the listening! The story of one instance where the CIA had information that could have led somewhere if only the FBI had known of it (1) doesn't begin to cover the question of whether the attacks could have been prevented, and (2) conveniently places the blame on an intelligence agency the administration has been trying to intimidate and eviscerate for years -- first in the pressure to find intelligence that would support the administration's bid to sell their long-planned war in Iraq, later in a reshuffling that eliminated all serious opposition to the unitary executive, based on the pretext that the CIA had been wrong in their assessment that Iraq did in fact have WMD. Oh what a tangled web these professional mass murderers do weave! After the attacks, government officials were summoned to give evidence before a Congressional Inquiry set up to investigate the intelligence failure before 9/11. It seems that the CIA information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar was "lost in the system".BBC doesn't want to talk about the other things that were lost in the system, or buried by the system, as the case may be. But at least they're willing to quote Bob Graham. But Co-chairman Senator Bob Graham told The Conspiracy Files of his frustration at the lack of co-operation from the FBI in that inquiry, and by the government's decision to censor over 30 pages of his report which related to Saudi Arabia. "Within 9/11 there are too many secrets," he said, "and that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security."Interestingly, the BBC has left the last word with a skeptic. And the quote, coming from a US Senator, deserves to be taken seriously. Within 9/11 there are too many secrets, and the doubts they engender certainly cannot be dispelled by 10 narrow questions. The Questions They Don't Ask Some of the questions the BBC doesn't ask are even more interesting than those they do. And perhaps there's a good reason for this. What about president Bush, sitting there in the classroom doing a deer-in-the-headlights impersonation after being told the country was under attack? If he was a target, why didn't the Secret Service whisk him away? And if he wasn't a target, how could they have known that? And why didn't he do anything? He's Commander-In-Chief, right? Or only during campaign season? What about the hijackers? How did they get into the country? How did they get their flight training? Why did they seem to be leaving deliberately conspicuous trails? Or do fanatical Muslims usually snort cocaine and pick fights at strip clubs? What about the bin Laden family? Why were so many members of the alleged ringleader's extended family collected and ushered out of the country so soon after the attacks that the FBI didn't even get a chance to talk to them? And speaking of the FBI, it doesn't list Osama bin Laden as a 9/11 suspect because, it says, it has no hard evidence implicating him. Why is Sibel Edmonds gagged? She knows things about money, and drugs, and Turkey, which the administration is deathly afraid of. So she's under a State Secrets gag order which prevents her from telling us certain things which we're told would be very detrimental to sensitive diplomatic and business arrangements. I'll say they would! If you take a look at the amount of poppy being grown in Afghanistan and shipped through Turkey you can get a sense of how sensitive it really is! Why was the steel from the WTC collected as quickly as possible and shipped to China for recycling? Why wasn't the world's greatest-ever crime scene preserved? Why did it take so long for an investigation to be set up? And then why was it run by an administration insider with a specialty in public perception and myth-making? Don't get me started! There are a zillion and one other unanswered questions, and by not even admitting that those questions are out there, and that we're still waiting for answers, the BBC shows quite clearly that it's not interested in the truth, and hardly interested in supporting the official story, but primarily interested in discrediting those who would question the very absurd official account of that very absurd day. There's hardly any journalism involved in such an effort. Baby, what a big surprise! The Method In The Madness Realistically speaking, it seems crazy to go to air with a case this weak. But circumstances have forced Guy Smith's hand. They've spent money on this. It's been scheduled and advertised for quite a while now. He can't back out at the last minute. So now it's a question of production. When the propaganda special airs on Sunday night, with all the magic of modern audio/video behind it, spellbound viewers will allow themselves to be put to sleep on the pablum of officially sanctioned lies, with no hint of the tyranny creeping up around them. But you won't be among them, will you? Nor your friends, nor your families. I don't usually encourage people to email my articles to others, but if you ever wanted to do something like that, this would be a good time to try it. ;-) The truth shall set us all free, my friends. But only if we share it!

77 FLIGHT DATA DECODING SHOWS 911 TRUTH IS UNYEILDING! Offical Flight Data Offers Amazing Proof of.....well, Proof that there's somthing very wrong. Gareth Williams February 17th, 2007 After several weeks of tireless efforts by pilotsfor911truth.org there has been a startling and very important discovery involving Flight 77. The painstaking task processing official data has resulted in a full "decode" of what the NTSB (US National Transportation Safety Board) claim to be the complete raw data output from the Flight Data Recorder of Flight 77. Pilotsfor911truth have managed to achieve something that only some airlines, the military and one of the very few specialists in crash investigation in the world could normally carry out. The ‘raw data file’ given out under FOIA request is more or less useless unless you have access to very specialist software costing upwards of $100,000 USD. Normally, the chances of a member of the public being able to ever get this type of file decoded are about 10000/1. But these aren’t normal circumstances and obviously they weren’t counting on the `1` this time…..were they. This data however has again produced more questions than answers, for example the data recording STOPS over a mile and a half from the Pentagon. Raw data has confirmed the accuracy of the NTSB animation that was acquired by a truth group member under a FOIA request from the NTSB last August. This information is incredibly useful as it categorically shows that the plane was no-where near the 5 light poles that were reportedly damaged by Flight 77 – a claim that appears in the Official 9/11 Commission Report. Another astonishing discovery is that the data also confirms that the last figure of altitude given was 273 feet above ground level. (The pentagon is 71 feet tall). This is from radio altitude so it’s accurate to within just several feet. The VOR (A data entry figure that is used to determine the distance from an object, in this case a transmitter at the Airport near the Pentagon) gives a last distance of 1.5 miles from F77 to the transmitter. Combine this information with the last figure of given altitude and also with speed of the plane (530 mph) and quite simply something just doesn’t add up. At the speed the plane was moving this puts Flight 77 2 seconds away from the face of the Pentagon. At that point the height was such that the plane could NOT have nosedived fast enough to have hit the face of the building where that hole was seen: the gravity forces at the acceleration required would buckle and simply cause an airframe to break up. Analysis is ongoing (the spreadsheet of data is about 4 million cells of data long) but it does confirm that the flight path does NOT match up to the damage leading up to the Pentagon. Interestingly the path DOES match up to eyewitness testimony, some of whom saw two planes and cemetery workers have reported that they saw a jet fly over the Pentagon at the time of the blast. (Eyewitness interviews are to be released in a film called the PentaCON) NTSB’s Jim Ritter - who signed off the Flight 77 study – was contacted by pilotsfor911truth.org but he refuses to make any comment. An FBI team named ‘PentBOM’ (who commandeered jurisdiction of the F77 issue from the NTSB) were also contacted. However, they too cannot make comment as the PentBOM team has since been disbanded. How convenient. (All the audio from these conversations was recorded) Another piece of truly hard evidence makes its way into the public domain and with gritty efforts like this we really can show that 911 Truth is in this for the long haul – until a new full and independant investigation is forced.

He's normally using a couple of Line 6 Delay units too.

Haha, hmmm....It is important isn't it, yes.....:thinking:

Shit...haha...bloody Daily Mail readers! They let anyone become Mods these days! :p

Britney is Bald Yep. ....shaved her head. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Entertainment/story?id=2883542&page=1 I don't normally wish to promote such pointless stuff but...well....she's bald!

Their new album is just amazing....I've had it on non-stop for the past few days. I'd say 3 full listens is needed to start you off.

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-george-monbiot-these-are-facts-of.html

Documents show new secretive US prison program isolating Muslim, Middle Eastern prisoners Jennifer Van Bergen Raw Story Friday, February 16, 2007 The US Department of Justice has implemented a secretive new prison program segregating "high-security-risk" Muslim and Middle Eastern prisoners and tightly restricting their communications with the outside world in apparent violation of federal law, according to documents obtained by RAW STORY. Quietly implemented in December, the special "Communications Management Unit" (CMU) at a federal penitentiary in Indiana targeting Muslim and Middle-Eastern inmates was not implemented through the process required by federal law, which stipulates the public be notified of any new changes to prison programs and be given the opportunity to voice objections. Instead, the program appears to have been ordered and implemented by a senior official at the Department of Justice. In April of last year, the US Federal Bureau of Prisons -- part of the Department of Justice -- proposed a set of strict new regulations and, as required, there was a period of public comment. Human rights and civil liberties groups voiced strong concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed program. The program originally proposed was said to be applicable only to terrorists and terrorist-related criminals. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), however, along with a coalition of other civil liberties groups, objected to the language of the regulation as too broad, and potentially applicable to non-terrorists and even to those not convicted of a crime but merely being held as "witnesses, detainees, or otherwise." After pushback from civil rights groups, the program appeared to have been dropped by the Prisons Bureau, with coalition groups believing that they had made their case regarding Constitutional rights. Yet documents obtained by RAW STORY show that a similar program, the CMU, was surreptitiously implemented in December 2006. Executive Director Howard Kieffer of Federal Defense Associates, a legal group based in California that assists inmates and lawyers of inmates on post-conviction defense matters, says the order for the program must have been issued by one of the offices which oversee the US Federal Bureau of Prisons. Only three government offices have the authority to issue such changes in federal prison operations, and they all fall within the senior management of the Justice Department: the office of Harley Lappin, the Director of Prisons Bureau, the Office of Legal Counsel, or directly from the office of the US Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. The Public Affairs offices of the Department of Justice and the Attorney General referred all requests for comment to the Prisons Bureau. As of press time, Felice Ponce, an officer in the Prisons Bureau Office of Information, was unable to answer requests to confirm the existence of the program, provide details about it, or comment on it at all. Those who had such information at the Bureau were all "out of pocket," Ponce said. Documents obtained by RAW STORY show that the CMU program, instituted Dec. 11, 2006 -- shortly after the mid-term elections in which Democrats won both chambers of Congress -- is being implemented at Terre Haute Federal Correctional Institution in Indiana. Under the CMU program, telephone communications must be conducted using monitored phone lines, be live-monitored by staff, are subject to recording, and must be in English only. All letters must be reviewed by staff prior to delivery or sending. Visits must be non-contact only, live-monitored, and subject to recording in English. Keiffer asserts that the program, which purports to house high-risk inmates for the purpose of better monitoring their communications, "is not related to inmate security" at all. The program "doesn't affect the highest security inmates who are still being kept in other high security prisons, where some may be allowed greater freedom in communications than the CMU inmates," he says. "It affects a class of inmates who would not garner as much sympathy as others and who have diminished support in the US." "It is just like the detentions after 9/11," he adds. "It's profiling." Calls placed to the FBI were not returned. The CMU is in apparent violation of the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, which explicitly requires that all prison regulations be promulgated under that law. Courts have overturned programs that have violated this law "half a dozen times over the past ten years," Keiffer says. One of the documents obtained by RAW STORY, titled "Institution Supplement," was issued by the Terre Haute facility and given to prisoners transferred into this new program. The document states that "all contact" between the inmates and "persons in the community" may only occur "according to national policy, with necessary adjustments indicated herein," indicating that the new program's contact rules are the same as normal prison rules except where "adjusted" in the Supplement. Attorney Peter Goldberger, a Philadelphia-area specialist in criminal appeals and former law professor who has 30 years experience dealing with federal prisons and inmates, told RAW STORY that the Terre Haute Institution Supplement is officially a supplement to the Prison Bureau's national Program Statement on Inmate Discipline and Special Housing Units, published in the Code of Federal Regulations and last amended in 2003. Keiffer explains that an Institution Supplement cannot exist by itself without specific authorization. The CMU Institution Supplement states that it is "according to national policy." But Keiffer notes that the national Program Statement does not in fact authorize the CMU program. In order for the program to be properly authorized, it would have to address the particular program parameters, locations, specify the inmates to whom it applied, and would have to take into account the specific and unique features of that program. The already existing national Program Statement does not address the CMU program and thus does not authorize it. Goldberger notes that "what's different" about the program, "is limitation of contact with friends, family and outsiders -- instead of 300 minutes of telephone time per month, it's one 15 minute call per week, which can be reduced in the Warden's discretion to a mere three minutes once a month." "Instead of all-day visiting every week or every other week, it's only two hours at a time, twice a month, with no physical contact, presumably sitting on opposite sides of a plexiglas window," Goldberger continued. "And all letters, except to lawyers, courts, and Congress, will be read and copied, with weeks of delay, instead of cursorily inspected and sent right on," he adds. "It's a totally new and different program." Director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, D.C. Kate Martin told RAW STORY that restrictions of inmate communications must be narrowly tailored to serve a specific identifiable need of the government. Martin said that there was a clear rationale for restricting communications of those who had previously handled classified information -- for example a former CIA agent who had passed secrets to a foreign government. But with individuals who never possessed classified information, she said, that rationale doesn't exist. The government must show that the inmates had been plotting terrorist crimes from their cells or some similar scenario, Martin said. Without that, the restriction of communication of a group of prisoners raises a suspicion that it is actually an effort by the government to deny information to the press and public about what it is doing. Who's in the program? The federal penitentiary where the most dangerous criminals are held, including the Unabomber and the Millennium Bomber, is the maximum security prison known as ADMax at Florence, Colorado. The CMU is not being implemented there, however; instead it is being implemented in Terre Haute Federal Correctional Institution in Indiana. The CMU is said to be targeting terrorists or suspected terrorists, but many being held are not considered high risk or even convicted of violent crimes. According to a letter obtained by RAW STORY, sent by CMU inmate Dr. Rafil Dhafir to one of his supporters, the current unit has at present only 16 prisoners, but is expected to have 60-70 more added soon. Dhafir writes that the CMU "is still not fully understood. The staff here is struggling to make sense of the whole situation," and says that the prisoners are "so far treated with great respect and good accommodation" but "with the new system we will have absolutely no privacy." The letter has been posted on a support site for Dhafir. Dr. Dhafir was convicted for violating US sanctions against Iraq, because he had sent humanitarian aid to the country during the restricted period. Dhafir was not charged with any terrorism related activities or a violent offense. Also in CMU detention are also five of the "Lackawanna Six," a group of six American citizens who traveled to Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001 and were indicted for giving material support to Al Qaeda. Yahya Goba, one of the group's members -- who turns up as a government witness in numerous cases -- is not in the system, although he was sentenced to ten years along with the other Lackawanna defendants. Unconstitutional? Howard Keiffer believes that the program not only violates federal law but the Constitution as well, saying it abridges the prisoners' right to freedom of expression and association. These inmates are "not able to communicate like other inmates," he said. James Landrith, Jr., who heads "The Multiracial Activist," an on-line journal that covers social and civil liberties issues relating to multi-racialism, says the new program sets a "very, very bad precedent." Landrith says it's "interesting that this administration is trying to push these things through covertly" -- things he views as unconstitutional restrictions -- "while you have a sitting Vice President who could be charged in the short-term future with having been involved in outing a CIA agent." He added that the program "makes it very very hard for someone to mount a real defense or appeal when they can't talk to anyone on the outside." Some say the program smacks of racial or religious profiling. Paul Wright, the editor of Prison Legal News, told RAW STORY that "segregating prisoners based on their race, national origin or language directly contradicts the recent US supreme court ruling in Johnson v. California which held that the racial segregation of prisoners was illegal." Johnson v. California, a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision, involved the segregation of African-American inmates. While the Court noted in its decision that it did not decide whether the segregation violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution, it nonetheless "explicitly reaffirm[ed] that the 'necessities of prison security and discipline,' are a compelling government interest justifying only those uses of race that are narrowly tailored to address those necessities." Race, national or ethnic origin, one's status as an alien, or any innate or immutable characteristic that a person has no power to change must be scrutinized by courts under the same standard: only a compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored program is held to be constitutional. Religious discrimination is prohibited by Prison Bureau regulations. The regulation states that Bureau "staff shall not discriminate against inmates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or political belief. This includes the making of administrative decisions and providing access to work, housing and programs." Director of the Human and Civil Rights Division of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation Ibrahim Ramey says his group is "deeply concerned about the violation of civil rights of incarcerated Muslims" who are targeted by the program. "The removal and concentration of Muslims" Ramey says, is a "violation of the concept of innocent until proven guilty." Though the inmates have been convicted, Ramey believes the CMU appears to be "a precursor to a program of segregation of people by religion in federal detention facilities." "You don't segregate all Jews or all Christians," he adds. Most of RAW STORY's calls and emails to inmates' attorneys or former attorneys were not returned. Several refused to comment. One attorney who represented one of the inmates at trial commented that "the new facility creates hardships for the family because of the distance and restrictions on visitation and phone use, but overall the staff are treating the inmates very well; they are very professional in their handling of the inmates." Jennifer Van Bergen is the author of The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America, dubbed a "primer for citizenship." Her book Archetypes for Writers: Using the Power of Your Subconscious will be out in March 2007. Muriel Kane provided research assistance for this article.

FUCK :(

:wacko: :stunned: No Cars Go.......fuck :stunned:

BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece? BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece? Crane claims two different versions exist, former Fox exec demanding attack dogs released to prevent harm to American market Friday, February 16, 2007 The BBC has produced two versions of its documentary on 9/11, one being a balanced example of investigative journalism and the other a sophisticated hit piece. According to a leading UK 9/11 truth activist, recently appointed US chief Garth Ancier is pressuring the corporation to air the version that portrays the 9/11 truth movement as a fringe cult of mythology in a bid to protect BBC's American market. Yesterday we reported on the allegations of those interviewed for the show that the documentary was set to be a debunking effort, with the intention of relegating important questions in favor of nebulous and damaging theories. This story garnered massive readership after being featured on the front page of Digg, a user generated content phenomenon that gets more traffic than the Drudge Report. In a follow up story, we highlighted how the BBC was using promotional material, including a psychological conspiracy test and an interview with X Files producer Frank Spotnitz, to imply that 9/11 truthers were borderline cult members with psychological problems. In a new development, Ian R. Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland, claims a source told him that producers Mike Rodin and Guy Smith have edited two different versions of the show and are in a quandary as to whether to air the balanced piece or the hit piece. Crane's claims are printed in full at the Cremation of Care website. It appears that the dilemma is a direct result of the phenomenal reaction to the recent flurry of 9/11 related items appearing in the National Media," writes Crane. "The debate kicked off with the publication of George Monbiot’s ill-researched hit-piece on Loose Change, the most downloaded video in the history of Google Video. Any casual observer perusing the responses posted on the Guardian website, could not fail to notice that the remarkable difference in style between those who leapt to the defence of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) and those were seeking answers to the glaring anomalies between the OCT and the physical evidence. The vapid vitriol from the defenders of orthodoxy was no match for the measured curiosity of the Truth seekers." In addition, Crane cites the UK Daily Mail article as another example of a fair hearing for 9/11 truth and one that angered those with a stake in maintaining the official myth. Yet another large British newspaper, Scotland's Herald, also today featured a positive write up of the 9/11 truth movement. Crane claims that the new head of the BBC's commercial operations in the US, former Fox senior executive Garth Ancier (pictured above), is the point man in persuading program directors to air the hit piece, fearing that a more balanced appraisal would anger corporate partners and sales across the Atlantic. "Newly responsible for the marketing of BBC productions in the US, Ancier is no doubt claiming that he will not be able to maximize revenues if the BBC is seen to be running programmes, however balanced, intimating that 9/11 might have been an inside job. From personal experience of operating within the US industrial complex, it is not beyond the realms of probability that Ancier is waving mega$ incentives if the Beeb agrees to run the hit-piece. As Princeton graduate and an initiate of the Phi Beta Kappa fraternity, serious pressure will be being put on Ancier to get the Beeb to ‘play ball’," writes Crane. If past examples are anything to go by, it's likely that the hit piece will be chosen because the previous installment in the series, an investigation into questions surrounding the death of Princess Diana, was widely acknowledged as a whitewash that toed the official line. Besides the X Files interview and the psychological test, BBC's promotional material for the show has been both extensive and reasonably balanced. A summary article of the 9/11 truth movement lent implicit credibility to 9/11 skeptics, and an online unedited clip of Alex Jones and Jim Marrs at Dealy Plaza was absent the usual condemnation and ridicule seen in mainstream coverage many times before. The fact that the promotional trailers do not prominently feature any debunkers (besides a poorly spoken woman who is presumably used to rubbish the Jewish conspiracy angle), suggests that the show will either be a fair representation or the more likely scenario, that the BBC will employ the familiar tactic of using a sneering female narrator to arrogantly attack the carefully edited words of the skeptics and obsessively focus on tenuous issues while ignoring the hardcore evidence. :angry: GET ACTIVE: Populate the BBC's Conspiracy Files blog and encourage the BBC to represent real investigative journalism and air the balanced version. Click here and leave your comments.:angry: