UCC Bans Conference over security concerns
national |
rights, freedoms and repression |
news report 
Monday October 24, 2005 19:37
by Irish 9-11 Truth - Irish 9-11 Truth
info at 911truth dot ie
(086) 0505864
At 12pm last Friday we were informed by UCC's General Services office that the 9/11
Conference planned for November 12th could not take place on UCC grounds over
security concerns that an Intelligence Agency of a Foreign Government (MI5) might
attempt to assasinate one of the guests (David Shayler) while on campus. The room
was booked by us last June 2005.
At 12pm last Friday we were informed by UCC's General Services office that the 9/11
Conference planned for November 12th could not take place on UCC grounds over
security concerns that an Intelligence Agency of a Foreign Government (MI5) might
attempt to assasinate one of the guests (David Shayler) while on campus. The room
was booked by us last June 2005.
At 4.30pm last Friday we hand delivered the following open letter to the President
of UCC as well as other relevant recipients. We followed up with an email on
Saturday to the effect that because time was now of the essence we would hope to
hear back from the parties involved by 5pm Monday. No response has been forthcoming
as of yet.
The Conference WILL go ahead. However, depending on the size of the room we
ultimately secure it may be necessary to as much as double ticket prices from their
current level of 20.
============================================President Wrixon, Presidents Office.
Sheila Maguire, General Services Office,
Head of Security, General Services Office,
Prof. Ciaran Murphy, Dept AFIS,
Prof. Ray Donnelly, Dept AFIS,
Prof. Neil Collins, Dept. Government,
Dr. Andrew Cottey, Dept. Government,
Prof. Fred Powell, Dept. Social Sciences.
Friday October 21st. 16.15.
Dear Recipients,
I send you this correspondence as a matter of the utmost urgency, the reasons for
which I trust will become self evident below (Contact details enclosed App B).
I am both a graduate of the University (B.Sc 96 MBS 00) and had been a member of the
Graduate Association before I joined as a part-time staff member of the University
(Dept. AFIS - Lecturing in Management Accounting) on Monday September 26th 2005 and
a week later also a part-time member of staff of the Dept. Management & Marketing
(Researcher with Family Business Centre).
Last January, while a lecturer at the Institute of Technology Tralee I saw
photographs for the first time of the Pentagon on 9/11 which clearly show that no
plane hit that building (see attached). Since then I have conducted hundreds of
hours of research into every aspect of that horrific tragedy and found the truth
behind the ‘attacks’ to be more than disturbing, yet hugely important to, I think
it’s fair to say, our civilisation.
Having watched a presentation by Professor David Ray Griffin of the famed Claremont
Institute of Theology on the outstanding US public affairs TV channel C-Span in
April, I undertook to organise a Conference on the topic here in Ireland for the
following November 12th. In June I spoke with and was told by the Communications
Officer of the Students Union that I would need to be co-presenting with a student
or other University Society in order to be able to advertise the Conference on
campus, as we had deemed that an essential means of making both students and staff
aware of the event. We had initially approached the Dept. of Government and the Law
Dept. to see if they would be interested but both declined.
We waited for 6 weeks until the beginning of September to realise that the Philisoph
and the Law Society were not in fact interested after all, and we read this for the
first time in an Irish tabloid Sunday newspaper with the rationale given ‘that we
were not presenting both sides of the argument.’ We had attempted to contact the
Philisoph approximately 20 times but our phone calls and emails went unreturned. We
are still looking for an institution of the University to partake (if only in
spirit) in order that we can advertise on the campus.
Approximately two weeks after the publication of the factually incorrect article in
the Sunday tabloid we went to the accommodations office to clarify if their quote in
the same article was correct. The girls in the office denied that any such quote was
given to the newspaper. At that meeting I requested that the room booking be changed
from the Philisoph/Law Society into my name as a private individual albeit member of
the graduate association etc. It should be noted at this point also that there is a
difference in the rates for room rental if we had not received a University
co-sponsor. The figures are €270 v € 675. I also clarified that we were happy to pay
the higher fee if we did not find a co-sponsor.
At the very same meeting I told the girls in the accommodation that we really should
have a meeting ASAP in order to prepare for security and indeed generally. The date
was between 10th -15th September. A meeting was duly arranged for a week or so later
maybe longer. At the meeting were representatives of the Security Guards and General
Services. I outlined at the meeting what the conference entailed and how
‘controversial’ it would be. I naively made the mistake of saying that some of the
speakers lives are in danger so I wanted us to take all sensible precautions for
their security. I said naively because I believed that might spark an interest in
those in attendance into wondering why these men’s lives might be in danger. I
couldn’t have been more wrong. The General Services manager requested at the meeting
any media coverage that we had received to date, not specifically about the
conference but in general. I did not see the rationale for this then or now but in a
spirit of full cooperation I said I would drop it in the following day which I did.
The meeting finished and we all agreed we would meet again soon.
About a week later I got a call from John Deasy of the Barracks Street Garda station
who said that he had been in touch with the University and said that they had some
concerns about security. He asked if I would call in to see him and we arranged a
time again a couple of days later. Before ending the call however he asked where I
was from. I said without thinking Listowel. Only then did it dawn on me that Mr.
Deasy wanted to ring Listowel to investigate me. Realising this I suggested he speak
to Garda Mike Sheehy who is my next door neighbour. At the meeting Mr. Deasy told me
that he did not think the risk would be sufficient to warrant the presence of a
Garda on the day. I said that was fine as between the Security and Conference
Volunteers we would be fine. Where the risk has come from since then has baffled me
and I can not seem to get any answers for other than that ‘we cannot guarantee
security.’ How long is a piece of string?
Approximately 2/3 weeks after the first meeting I was invited to attend a second
meeting last Friday 14th October. Attending were both General Services, Security
Guards & John Deasy. I brought along a poster of the Conference event to show
everybody present. When the General Services Manager saw the poster she asked if I
had gone ahead advertising the Conference ‘without her say so’. I never realised
once that I needed approval from the General Services Manager as either alumni of
staff in order to book a room in the college as a private citizen. I replied simply
that we hadn’t started advertising the Conference yet. Wondering all the while how
long it takes General Services to organise a Conference with six International
guests.
It became clear during the meeting that security shared the ‘reservations’ of
General Services. I was asked if it would be likely that people would be picketing
the event I said absolutely not. The problem, I said, was not protesters, the
problem was getting media organisations to cover the event as the general tendency
is not to, as has been to date. I was asked about the speakers and especially David
Shayler, former MI5 agent and whistleblowers who, at massive personal cost told the
world of the endemic corruption of that organisation. I explained that Mr. Shayler
had in fact had an attempt on his life a number of years ago presumably by an
intelligence agency, but that these would have to be plausible natural/accident
assignation attempts i.e. they wouldn’t be trying to shoot him in the Boole basement
for example. Securi ty pointed out that I could not guarantee that they would not
try to kill him on UCC property. I agreed that I could not, in the same way I cannot
guarantee that anybody who crosses a road will ever be knocked down. The general
Services Manager said that she would ‘let me know their decision.’ I asked when
given that the Conference was 28 days away at that point. I was told by Monday or
Tuesday. I was also asked by the General Services Manager if I would drop in the
media coverage as she had requested weeks previously. I told her that I had dropped
it in the following day as requested. Apparently it was lost. I dropped in another
copy of the media coverage two hours after this meeting, still failing to see it’s
relevance.
I then received a call the following Friday morning, which is today 21st October, 22
days before the Conference. I went to the General Services office and was told to
wait for Security. At the meet this morning, which lasted about 60 seconds, that
because of ‘security concerns’ the entire Boole basement would have to be closed off
but because there were other room bookings this would not be possible and thus it
would not be possible for the Conference to go ahead in UCC. I pointed out that if
there were concerns with security we could screen people or take tickets only at the
top of the stairs. It is still unclear to me why this was not deemed possible.
Now in the past week I had been comforting myself witb the thought that there was no
way they could cancel a room booking four months after it was made and 22 days
before the event itself. And what are the protocols for security at such an event?
Because when we booked the room and when three months later WE requested a meeting
we were never told about such security protocols. And if we have agreed to rule out
the ‘risk’ of protesters and agree that the only ‘risk’ comes from a British
Intelligence organisation then what exactly are we saying, because I think it is
helpful to codify;
“Security Protocols will deem an event unhostable by UCC if one of the participant’s
lives is in danger from an Intelligence Unit of a foreign government?”
And if all recipients of this letter agree that this is an appropriate stance for
our University then so be it. You will not hear from me again if that is confirmed.
However, such a concept is abhorrent to me and I think would be abhorrent to anybody
who believes that a University should be institutions of enquiry into truth for the
betterment of mankind. Should we qualify that to say except in controversial
circumstance? Again, the notion is incredulous.
As an aside I have been part of an online group ‘Academics for 9/11 Truth’ since
July which is headed by Professor Paul Zarembka of Buffalo State University and
editor of Research in Political Economy. Approximately a dozen academics, myself
included, are preparing a Volume on 9/11 that is to be published in the new year and
only yesterday I noted in a discussion about possible titles that ’I was so proud to
work on a Volume with academics from all over the world who have in many cases put
their research interests to one side to work on this most important issue of our
time.’ Details of the Volume are on the attached sheet (App C). In fact, the
deadline for submission of chapters is Nov 1st and I was just clearing my schedule
of non work related stuff in order that I could take some time out to write that
chapter next week. Now it seems I might have to spend the next week looking for a
new venue for our Conference instead.
Regardless at this point whether the Conference goes ahead or not in UCC I intend to
fight the absurd principle that this case seems to establish (see above). I do so
not out of spite and animosity but because should such a principle be established it
will sully the name of our University around the world as a place where only
convenient ‘truths’ are permissible. If that happens it will be akin to the
proverbial dagger through the heart of my love for this institution, our University,
famed far and near.
If any recipient of this letter supports the principal of academic freedom in its
truest sense I would love to hear from them ASAP. I am not familiar with the rules
or regulations for academic freedom as they pertain in UCC and so will defer to
others more familiar on that. The key questions that we need to address immediately
therefore I propose are:
1) Under what ‘security’ grounds can General Services/Security refuse to host
an event on campus by either alumni or current staff and
2) Is one of those grounds that a guest speaker might be assassinated by an
Intelligence Agency of a Foreign government?
I stress the urgency with which I hope to tackle these questions because a
Conference that has taken a group of people 6 months to prepare is in danger of
disappearing. And again I stress that if I am the only person to think the way I do
I will accept that and as soon as I do I will contact sympathetic local media to
announce on air that we are looking for a new venue. We have no time to spare if we
do it any other way.
Finally, some concerns have been expressed about perception that because the event
is held in UCC it might be interpreted as being supported by UCC. I pointed out
before and again now that all anybody has to do is ask that question and they will
be told the answer. No. This answer is endorsed by the fact that we are paying €675
for the room. i.e. the rate an external party pays. And if a Dept or Society did
decided to co-present the event, this still cannot be interpreted by any reasonable
yardstick that UCC is ‘endorsing’ the event. On the other hand should this decision
stand the word will spread like rapidly around Cork city and beyond that UCC ‘banned
the 9/11 Conference.’ I can appreciate the benefits of this ironically in raising
public awareness about the event but believe me when I say that I would take cold
comfort by selling more tickets in this manner. And my book on this campaign will
have an extra chapter on this fiasco that might make it a better read. Again, that
brings me negative joy.
Ultimately what this may be about is, to coin an unpleasant phrase, people covering
their asses just so no finger can be pointed at them if something ‘did go wrong.’
This is a common and simple motivation and can be easily understood. However, if it
takes precedence over the central core work of a University then we have reached a
sad chapter in our 160 year history.
What this should be about is to quote Professor Fred Powell of the Dept. Social
Sciences at a Graduation last month (full address attached App A):
“Knowledge is about the search for truth. The underlying purpose of truth-seeking
is the most noble and useful activity of humankind. In the university the pursuit
of truth is underpinned by academic freedom, which is usually described as the right
of each individual to enjoy the freedom to study, to inquire, to speak their mind,
to communicate their ideas, and to assert the truth as they see it. This claim to
freedom of the mind stretches back to Ancient Athens. Socrates, who was Plato's
teacher, became the embodiment of knowledge as the quest for truth. Democracy and
truth are interdependent”.
Should not the guiding principle for our University be then to ‘endorse the search
for truth’ however ‘controversial’ and/or ‘unpalatable’? After all, there is only
one truth. Surely we cannot abandon it on occasion?
Yours Urgently,
Morgan Stack B.Sc M.Acc MBS
Lecturer Dept. Accounting, Finance Information Systems,
Room 3.11,
O’Rahilly Building,
UCC.
Comments (36 of 36)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36The threat to shayler's life is so silly. Shayler regularly speaks at public meetings, openly and apparently without any threat all over London and the UK. Many people still think that he works for Mi5 ffs (he spilled the beans on Mi6 / SIS who he never worked for and has been very reticent about Mi5 who he did work for).
What happened is this.
You went to security and said, this guy might get assassinated by Mi5 here.
The security people translated this into non-delusional speak as "I am absolutely bonkers"
They thought, "oh oh, we didn't realise just how much of a loonspud this dude is, it could get embarrassing, let's pull the meeting."
They pulled the meeting.
If you doubt me, try the same experiment in any given university in the world, with any given delusional 'assassination target' and you will get the same result.
Come out with it morgan, are you a CIA disinformation agent?
Badman
You are really excelling yourself here. I write as someone with close personal knowledge of the corruption and duplicity of at least 3 of the signatories to the UCC letter - in another context entirely. UCC is a unviersity with the closest of ties to defence, pharmaceutical and GM American food interests. It is as rightwing an institution as the country has got and is playing a major role in undermining the best principles of university education which so many corporate and political interests are anxious to bring about. A 9/11 Truth Movement Conference on its premises had always struck me as something that would be unlikely to be permitted. I wrote to Morgan Stack to say as much - and Lo!
You are projecting your own well aired prejudices and personal viewpoint onto what has been written here.
This is an open publishing website. To accuse Morgan Stack of being a CIA disinformation agent is as paranoid and delusional as anything I have read from any so-called conspiracy theorist. If you support the banning of conferences and seminars on the basis that you, personally, believe them to be stupid, do you realise how vulnerable you make yourself on the same basis? There are an awful lot of people out there - probably a majority - who regard your more typical viewpoint as stupid also. You have the benefit at least of this open publishing forum in which to express your views, nevertheless.
OK!!! You dont believe in the 9/11 movement! You may or may not be right. But dont sing and dance when you hear anybody silenced for the wrong reason - especially those you dont agree with. It will almost certainly be you who is next.
What is really telling here for me is to find you weighing in on the side of Gerry Wrixon, Fred Powell and the likes - that is too laughable for words.
Whose side are you on, I begin to wonder.
And they banned the talk because of that?
Just want to make sure I get the essential facts clear.
That wasn't particularly clever - but nobody took that seriously - rest assured.
What is really laughable is the idea that UCC under Gerry Wrixon were ever going to host something critical of the Bush government. At an anti war meeting held at the university when the Iraq war began, how many students attended? Answer: 2. Why? Because the students knew that the President (Wrixon) would not approve and this could affect their future at the university. They were aware of Wrixon's own involvement in weapons research and the university's extensive interest and profit from that area of 'study'.
If you go to the administration of any university in the world and tell them that you need security as one of your speakers might be assassinated by MI5, they will invariably stop the meeting. I don't support that, I think loonspuds should be free to organise meetings, I am merely pointing out that it is just what happens in such circumstances. Try it. Approach any college you like and try to book a room while telling them that one of your speakers is likely to be assassinated by MI5 and you need protection. If you emerge with a confirmed booking, I'll eat my own head.
On the other hand, I cannot escape the conclusion that somebody who approaches a university with such information (which is itself a fantasy) and expects any other reaction, is seriously unhinged or engaging in a public relations exercise. Surely, any idiot knows that such an act is a 100% certain way of having the booking removed.
So, either these people are seriously deluded or they wanted to have their conference 'banned' for publicity reasons.
On the CIA disinformation thing - I acknowledge that I have no positive evidence for it, but it is still a far more plausible claim than any of the claims put forward by the loonspuds. Consider this evidence:
* A previously unknown US citizen shows up in Ireland and sets up a delusional movement which attempts to associate itself with anti-war feeling - it's what the conspiranoids call a 'false flag operation'.
* This 'movement' sets up a conference involving David Shayler, who is widely felt to be still working for MI5 and whichever way you look at it, he's a seriously dodgy character. Despite their much vaunted scepticism, they welcome him without so much as a tiny hint of caution.
* They attempt to manufacture a couple of incidents to show their 'presecuted' character and whip up interest in their bonkers theories.
This circumstancial evidence is easy to produce, I don't believe it, but it is MUCH more plausible than the bonkers stuff that they preach. If they don't like wild theorising based on circumstancial evidence and meaningless coincidences, they should stop producing it. If you can't take it, etc..
"On the other hand, I cannot escape the conclusion that somebody who approaches a university with such information ...and expects any other reaction, is seriously unhinged... Surely, any idiot knows that such an act is a 100% certain way of having the booking removed. "
I agree. But I dont think that was really the reason the conference was cancelled.
As for the rest of what you say - lots of plausible stuff but still just a personal opinion. You think your evidence is more compelling, others see it differently. Id like to be able to hear all opinions.
"They attempt to manufacture a couple of incidents to show their 'presecuted' character and whip up interest in their bonkers theories."
Do you really think this is what the 911 Truth Conference is about? Don't you think they'd be very scared then if the conference actually went ahead? If it went ahead, and they were actually CIA disinformation agents, they'd be in the embarrassing position of having to argue against their own subversion (presuming their subversion is to stop subversion). Oh, it goes very deep indeed.
Or perhaps these people would just like to present an alternative point of view to the mainstream, a point of view that the believe to be the truth.
Good Luck With The Conference.
"If it went ahead, and they were actually CIA disinformation agents, they'd be in the embarrassing position of having to argue against their own subversion"
Nope. They'd be in the position of spouting completely bonkers theories about non-existant planes, invisible missile pods, controlled demolitions taking place in front of the whole world without anybody noticing, vast amorphous and shadowy plots that defy the laws of the universe, etc. This sort of thing makes the powerful stronger as whenever somebody actually finds proper evidence of their evil-doing, they can just dismiss it as just another one of those bonkers theories that these guys are always spouting.
I can't think of anything more helpful to the kind of people who actually plan conspiracies (ie spooks), than a bunch of deluded eejits who constantly invent far fetched and evidence untroubled yarns about non-existant fantastically implausible conspiracies.
And do you really believe that these CIA dis-information "spooks" (as you label them)would really like to spout that nonense (as you call it). It wouldn't lend much credibility to the CIA would it? Why would someone like to do that to their own organisation?
Are you not formulating a conspiracy theory yourself?
The Badman doth protest too much, me thinks.
"Are you not formulating a conspiracy theory yourself?"
I am, quite openly so, and have stated as much above. I am doing so in order to illustrate just how easy it is to formulate sinister theories based upon imputing meanings into coincidences and partial information. I have also made it clear that I do not believe my own theory.
The answer to your question about the motives of these 'spooks' is straightforward. If an organisation like the CIA routinely faces deluded accusations of conspiracies, when somebody actually catches them doing something real and has evidence to back it up, it will be quite simple for the spooks to dismiss it as 'just another loonie conspiracy theory'.
"......... how easy it is to formulate sinister theories based upon imputing meanings into coincidences and partial information. "
thats for sure..
how easy was it to convince everybody that a 757 crashed into this building , left no wreakage, left the building intact and disappeared into a hole in the wall.
some folks will swallow anything
I just don't see why The CIA would put itself into a postition that it could so easily be found out to be setting up a conspiracy about itself.
University cancels MI5 spy's lecture due to fear of assassin
Ralph Riegel
Irish Independant, Wed 26th Oct
AN IRISH university has cancelled a guest lecture by former MI5 spy David Shayler
over fears he could be assassinated while there.
UCC last night confirmed that a speaking engagement by Mr Shayler for the Irish 9/11
Truth Movement at the university's Boole Library will not now take place on November
12.
UCC last night played down claims of "assassination fears" with the conference
organisers, but admitted it had "some security issues" with Mr Shayler's proposed
engagement.
The college last night said it would be "inappropriate" to detail the exact security
concerns to the Irish Independent which resulted the cancellation of the booking.
"This was a provisional booking - we are perfectly within our rights to decline
confirmation," one UCC official insisted.
DECISION
Last night, Morgan Stack of the Irish 9/11 Movement claimed that the group's members
were informed by the college that the decision was taken purely on security grounds.
"I called a meeting about six weeks ago specifically to address (their) security
concerns," Mr Stack explained.
"I told them that this individual, David Shayler, did have an attempt on his life
about four years ago. He worked on counter-terrorism in the 1990s involving Al-Qaeda
and the IRA.
"He left in 1997 and started blowing the whistle on the corruption involved. They
tried to jail him but he fled (to Paris). They tried to extradite him back to
England and eventually he was jailed in France.
"Then he came back to England and he was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act
and sent to prison basically for telling the truth. He is out now and is campaigning
about 9/11," Mr Stack went on.
Mr Stack has appealed for an alternative venue for the November 12 event.
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1494187&issue_id=13184
here is a link to a conspiraloon sight which contains a long list of eye-witness statements by people who actually saw the effing plane hitting the building.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
Even these loonspuds can see how implausible this particular story is. Or maybe they are a 'false flag' or playing a double bluff, or a triple bluff....
boing bonk wibble.
The story from the indo is hilarious too. Wonder why they are so happy to give this stupid non-story air? Could there be 'truth-seekers' among them? A few brave voices fighting against the man? Or is it just that they will print any old crap as long as it's sensationalist?
QUOTE: I am surprised when he says he only goes online if he is "hunting for documents, or historical data. It's a hideous time-waster. One of the good things about the internet is you can put up anything you like, but that also means you can put up any kind of nonsense. If the intelligence agencies knew what they were doing, they would stimulate conspiracy theories just to drive people out of political life, to keep them from asking more serious questions ... There's a kind of an assumption that if somebody wrote it on the internet, it's true."
I'm not sure if it's the surrealness or the pure comedy factor that has me shaking my head from side to side (disbelief) and up-down (humour) but one has to say at the very least it's entertaining... I could spend the next 12 hours analysing the above posts for you but I really am kinda busy right now with a Conference and stuff, which, incidentally is on in the Comedy Club Cork 10am-5pm Sat 12th Nov 2005. I have to correct one minor point though before I go about my day... The guy above with the 'so admit you are a CIA agent' buzz goin on said the following...
* "A previously unknown US citizen shows up in Ireland and sets up a delusional movement which attempts to associate itself with anti-war feeling - it's what the conspiranoids call a 'false flag operation'.
What I want to to say is this? Why you acting so messed up towards me dude? No, seriously, I just wanna point out that I am not an American citizen, have never been an American citizen, and don't expect to ever become an American citizen... as a result this means that I attended 'playschool' in North Kerry rather than 'kindergarden' in America. I went to St. Michaels College secondary school in Listowel which again could not be construed as 'high school' in any way. Finally I went to college in UCC, where I now work, although if some people got there way that might not be the case for much longer. Truth is, my handler has a new assignment ready for me as soon the nefarious history of CIA 'disinformation agent' recruitment in Coran Uí Mhuire school competitions hits the newsstands... My 'parents' are gonna be bummed when I tell them.
Regards,
Morgan.
Well then Badman here is your challenge should you wish you accept it. Go to the conference on Saturday (disguise is optional), you can bring any of the following items; notebooks, pens, Dictaphones, cameras and video cameras. Listen and see all the available evidence from the other side of the Fox News fence and then come back to us next week with a concise and academic rebuttal of the presented evidence. I myself will be doing almost the exact same thing, except I haven't yet made up my mind on what actually occurred. I have seen arguments from both sides that I'm not 100% happy with, and I hope Saturday will leave me a good deal closer to knowing the truth whether it be on the Fox News side of the fence or not.
Surely you don't want to be like the millions of people around the world who saw JFK's head shoot "back and to the left", yet contrary to every logical sense in their bodies still swallowed the Warren Commission theory that the bullet entered his head from the back-right. Just as I don't want to accept conspiracy theories at face value just because they are in opposition to the official account and the main published media.
I think the main difference between myself and you badman is that I actually don’t care which side of the fence the truth is on; I’m going to pursue it regardless.... are you?
In the words of Michael Meacher, well known
loonspud (well, certainly more well-known than
badman):
.......First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
........
From loonspud tabloid The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html
Morgan. If they can orchestrate a controlled demolition live on television without anybody noticing, do you expect me to believe that they'd have any trouble in planting one of their own in kerry? You're going to have to try harder than that, mister langley.
The following two responses both suffer under the same delusion. Just because I consider the '911 truth movement' to be a 'false flag' operation, taking advantage of guillible loonspuds, does not mean that I have any more time for 'fox news' or the bush administration, or any sane questions that are being put forward by people such as Michael Meacher.
The whole point of my argument is that conspiranoid lunatics who make the type of ridiculous claims that the speakers at this conference make, are exceedingly damaging to the people who do put time and effort into investigating things properly.
And trolltrasher, you're the only person trying to connect Meacher to the bookselling invisible missile, non-existant planes, controlled demolition conspiraloons. Why would you want to do that? I don't think it's a reasonable thing to do at all and is quite a slur on Meacher. Up to the old dis-info games again?
And, if anybody doubts it, I can profess myself extremely well read in 9-11 conspiralunacy, I can tell you almost exactly what the speakers will say and I have evaluated the various claims as properly as I am capable of doing and found them to be utterly bonkers in the main. So, I sadly have decided to give this conference a miss.
really interesting speakers and discussion, missed shayler as it was moved to sunday.
some people were recording it, hope it gets archived .
fair play to the organiser(s) for bringing over these speakers !
Badman,
Somethiong struck me since my last post.. you said the following...
"A previously unknown US citizen shows up in Ireland and sets up a delusional movement"
Now, can you please tell me why you said I was a US citizen? What prompted you to say that?
Also, you say I 'show up in Ireland.'
It is true to say that I returned to Ireland from the States a couple of years ago having lived there for a short time...
The thing is, how the hell did you know that?
Do you have access to information about me that 'regular' people don't have? Hmmm, now that I think is very very interesting..
How the tables can turn when one overeaches..
Ohh, and this 'looney' as you described me has been working on a chapter of an academic volume on 9/11 for the journal Research in Political Economy. One of my loony colleagues, a physicist, was on Tucker Carlson yesterday saying the buildings were demolished using explosives...
"Questioning what happened on 9/11:
Professor believes planes didn't cause all the damage around the WTC"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/#storyContinued
Morgan I read this and thought of you.....
"The thing is, how the hell did you know that?"
Simple really. CIA disinfo agents come from America. I thought everybody knew that. (The CIA satellite that I've been tracking you with on behalf of our reptile masters from space comes in handy too though, I must admit).
Your esteemed physicist 'colleague' is:
1. Not qualified in this area
2. Works for BYU (the mormon university), a world centre of loonspuddery.
3. Either completely foreign to rationality or mad as a bag of fannies.
**************************************
He doesn't seem to understand the first thing about testing hypotheses.
QUOTE: "JONES: ... There are two hypotheses here. One is fire and damage caused all three buildings to collapse.... The other is that explosives in the buildings may have caused the collapse. And so, then we analyze and see which fits the data better, and I've done that in my 25-page paper. "
Except that, if you were to see which of these theories fits the data better, you would need to come up with convincing answers to questions like:
1. How did the explosives get there?
2. How come nobody noticed that the building that they worked in was being wired with explosives (how does one drill thousands of kilos of explosives into the frame of a building without anybody noticing?)
3. Who did it?
4. Why has nobody come forward? (considering that the job must have involved huge numbers of people and given the fact that the people talk, suffer religious conversions, have crises of conscience, etc, how have 'they' managed to shut everybody up in such an unprecedented way? This is especially glaring considering the current obvious inability of the US government to hush things up _even within the CIA_)
5. Where do you find a large group of skilled and trained people who will happily slaughter thousands of their fellow citizens when ordered to do so, including some of their drinking buddies?
6. How come lots of the dead people were rich lawyers and bankers, the very people who hang out with the top government officials at dinner parties?
Imagine: "Hi Agent Larry, your next mission is to blow up the world trade centre and kill thousands of the citizens whom you have sworn to defend, including your best mate banker bob, your cousin Jim and your wife. Don't tell anybody now".
7. Why the hell would somebody want to blow up WT7?
"Hmm blowing up two of the biggest towers in the world was okay, but not quite impressive enough to really make people notice. If we also blow up this piddly little building nearby, that should do it though"
8. If it was a set up by the government to facilitate an invasion of iraq and afghanistan, why didn't they put any iraqis or afghanis on the plane? Indeed why did they populate the plane with bitter enemies of baathism?
9. If the government was capable of such an unprecedented feat of conspiracy why weren't they able to conjure up a single vial of dodgy chemicals in Iraq?
10. Why are virtually none of the people who were involved in organising the global anti-war movement and the protests involved or interested in the 911 conspiracy theory?
11. Why are the 911 conspiracists so quick to believe every word of seriously dodgy (ex?) spooks like Shayler?
12. Why do so many of the promoters of these theories have books/DVDs/Videos to sell for their own profit?
13. Was the Pentagon in on the plot? If it was, how did they decide who got blown up / incinerated by the 'bomb'? If not, why did the Pentagon or any of the armed forces just sit back and let their fierce rivals in the CIA blow up their HQ and many of their staff (including fairly senior personnel)?
If you really wanted to compare the two hypotheses, you would need to come up with convincing explanations for the above questions and many more. The failure to appreciate this obvious fact is what marks out the conspiraloon from the reality based community. This mormon chap has, characteristically of the genus loonspiducus conspiranoidicon, examined one hypothesis in minute detail while ignoring the galaxy-sized holes in the other theory.
***********************
Nor does he seem to 'get' the concept of conservation of energy.
"JONES: And yet all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal? It's direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product."
The combination of the release of potential energy as the building collapsed and the simultaneous ignition of the airplane fuel and all the flamable material in the building can be shown to give approximately 1 megatonne of energy - equivalent to a small nuke. Almost all of that energy would have been transformed into heat after the collapse (second law of thermodynamics).
So Badman,
Not alone did you not answer my question but you added on 13 of your own.
I have answered all 13 of your questions.
Now, please answer mine and don't change the subject again.
1) You said that I was an American citizen?
I am not. You are wrong. Now. Why did you say that I was an American citizen?
2) You said that I just turned up in Ireland?
What information have you got that suggested I went anywhere and indeed did 'turn up' in Ireland or, as I like to say in normal English 'returned to Ireland from America.'
And please don't fob me off here again. Answer the question.
3) Finally, please explain to me from looking at the photograph of the Pentagon above or here (below) WHERE THE BOEING 757 IS and why the hole in the Pentagon is ONLY 16 FEET ACCROSS.
Did the Boeing 757 shrink to the size of a small washing machine, enter the little hole and disappear inside? Is that your argument?
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/claim.html
There, just three simple questions. That's not too many right?
Three answers please....
===============
REBUTTAL TO YOUR BRILLIANTLY ARGUED POINTS:
Your esteemed physicist 'colleague' is:
1. Not qualified in this area
2. Works for BYU (the mormon university), a world centre of loonspuddery.
3. Either completely foreign to rationality or mad as a bag of fannies.
=====================
Let’s go through your points shall we
1) Not qualified in this area:
Jones is a Professor at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY. Three of his recent published papers are listed below. Do you understand any of the titles? And explain how YOU are qualified to talk about the WTC collapsing but this Physics Professor is ‘not qualified.’
Jones, S.E., et al. Charged-particle Emissions from Metal Deuterides. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.
Jones, S.E. and J. Ellsworth. Geo-fusion and Cold Nucleosynthesis. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.
Jones, S.E., et al. Neutron Emissions from Metal Deuterides. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.
2) Works for BYU (the mormon university), a world centre of loonspuddery.
This is just brilliantly rational thinking. Brilliant. Mormons are loons. What an excellent defence. I wonder if I would ever have thought of this. Incredible.
3) Either completely foreign to rationality or mad as a bag of fannies.
This is one of your defences yeah? Are you sure you just don’t want to take this one back? I understand if you are embarrassed about it now. You were in a hurry. We understand.
=====================
1. How did the explosives get there?
“According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. – a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton – the World Trade Center towers underwent a deliberate “power-down” on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York’s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC’s computer bandwidth. Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC’s first occupants after it was erected, and that a “power-down” had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) – approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC’s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors”.
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
by Margie Burns
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family. The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down." It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official. Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his arriving on the board in 1998. McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, but did not detail the nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998. Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
2. How come nobody noticed that the building that they worked in was being wired with explosives (how does one drill thousands of kilos of explosives into the frame of a building without anybody noticing?)
See above.
3. Who did it?
Established in the spring of 1997 and funded largely by the energy and arms industries, the Project for the New American Century was founded as the neoconservative think tank whose stated goal was to usher in a “new American century”. Having won the cold war and no military threat to speak of, this group of ideologues created a blueprint for the future whose agenda was to capitalize upon our surplus of military forces and funds and forcing American hegemony and corporate privatization throughout the world. In their statement of principles they outline a fourfold agenda:
1) Increase an already enormous military budget at the expense of domestic social programs
2) Toppling of regimes resistant to our corporate interests
3) Forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun in regions that have no history of the democratic process
4) Replacing the UN’s role of preserving and extending international order
According to their own document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses ( .pdf format ) their stated goals would never be realized “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event –like a new Pearl Harbor”. (page 52). George W Bush, whose political career has been nearly fully funded by the energy and defense industries was appointed by the Supreme Court after the disputed election of 2000. Immediately he appointed signatories of PNAC documents to the top levels of the Whitehouse and Pentagon.
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm
Some signatories to the PNAC document: Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John R. Bolton, Seth Cropsey, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Bruce Jackson, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter W. Rodman, Randy Scheunemann, Dov S. Zakheim & Robert B. Zoellick.
4. Why has nobody come forward? (considering that the job must have involved huge numbers of people and given the fact that the people talk, suffer religious conversions, have crises of conscience, etc, how have 'they' managed to shut everybody up in such an unprecedented way? This is especially glaring considering the current obvious inability of the US government to hush things up _even within the CIA_)
Nobody has come forward? You havn’t been paying attention Badman.
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
http://nswbc.org/index.htm
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), founded in August 2004, is an independent and nonpartisan alliance of whistleblowers who have come forward to address our nation’s security weaknesses; to inform authorities of security vulnerabilities in our intelligence agencies, at nuclear power plants and weapon facilities, in airports, and at our nation’s borders and ports; to uncover government waste, fraud, abuse, and in some cases criminal conduct.
Bergman, Bill, Former Senior Financial Market Analyst, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Bittler, Thomas, Training Coordinator, TSA-DHS
Carman, John, Former Senior Inspector, U.S. Customs
Carpenter, Shawn, Member of Technical Staff, Sandia National Laboratories
Chudson, Jonathan, Former Special Agents, IG-Office, EPA
Cleary, Kevin J., Senior Special Agent, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security/ICE & U.S. Customs Service (O.I.)
Cole, John M., Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist, FBI
Conrad, David “Mark”, Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs
Connolly, Frank, Senior Screening Manager @ Buffalo, TSA
Copley, James, Project Manager, DOE
Costello, Edward J. Jr., Former Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI
Cruse, Larry, Army Intelligence Analyst, DOD
Davidson, Kathaleen, Nuclear Security Training Coordinator, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
Dzakovic, Bogdan, Former Red Team Leader, FAA
Edmonds, Sibel, Former Language Specialist, FBI
Ellsberg, Dan, Former Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA), DOD
Elson, Steve, Veteran Agent, FAA
Forbes, David, Aviation, Logistics and Govt. Security Analysts
Gonzalez, Sandalio, Retired Federal Agent, DEA
Goodman, Melvin A., Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager, CIA; Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy
Guagliardi, Ray, training coordinator, TSA-DHS
Hirsch, Daniel M., Foreign Service Officer, Department of State
Jenkins, Steve, Intelligence Analyst, NGIC, US Army
Johnson, Larry, Deputy Director- Counterterrorism, Department of State; Analyst,CIA
Kwiatkowski, Karen U., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Veteran Policy Analyst-DOD
Larkin, Lynne A., Former Operations Officer, CIA
Lau, Lok, Former Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI
Lipsky, John, Supervisory Special Agent, FBI
Mansour, Joe, Occupational Safety Specialist, Federal Bureau of Prisons
MacMichael, David, Former Senior Estimates Officer, CIA
McGovern, Raymond L., Former Analyst, CIA
McInerney, Cullen, Supervisory Special Agent, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Federal Air Marshal Service
Nunn, Sandy, Former Special Agent, US Customs
Pahle, Theodore J., Senior Intelligence Officer (Ret), DIA
Price, Paul, Language Analyst, NSA
Russell, William H., Computer Specialist, R & E Division, NSA
Sarshar, Behrooz, Retired Language Specialist, FBI
Savich, William, Special Agent, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Department of State
Sculimbrene, Dennis, Former Special Agent, FBI
Shaffer, Anthony Allen, Lieutenant Colonel, Senior Operations Officer, DIA-DOD
Springmann, Mike, Foreign Service Officer-5; Second Secretary & Vice Consul, Department of State
Starns, Robert, Special Agent in Charge, Diplomatic Security Service, Department of State
Stella, Marie V., Retired Lead Information System Security Officer, FAA
Stroup, Jay, Former Federal Security Director, TSA
Sullivan, Brian, Special Agent, Risk Program Management Specialist, FAA
Tice, Russ, Senior Intelligence Analyst & Action Officer, NSA
Tortorich, Larry J., Retired Naval Officer, US Navy & Dept. of Homeland Security/TSA,
Turner, Jane, Veteran Special Agent, FBI
Vincent, John, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI
Walp, Glenn, PhD, Former Office Leader of the Office of Security Inquiries, Los Alamos National Lab, DOE
Woo, Robert, Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI
Wright, Robert, Veteran Special agent, Counterterrorism, FBI
5. Where do you find a large group of skilled and trained people who will happily slaughter thousands of their fellow citizens when ordered to do so, including some of their drinking buddies?
It’s called the US military right? They had no problem using chemical weapons in Fallujah and killing about 100,000 Iraqi’s. 3,000 International citizens seems like bargain in comparison.
6. How come lots of the dead people were rich lawyers and bankers, the very people who hang out with the top government officials at dinner parties?
Imagine: "Hi Agent Larry, your next mission is to blow up the world trade centre and kill thousands of the citizens whom you have sworn to defend, including your best mate banker bob, your cousin Jim and your wife. Don't tell anybody now".
Yeah they would have went out of their way to find agents friendly with people who worked in the building. This is again brilliant logic by you. Brilliant.
7. Why the hell would somebody want to blow up WT7?
“WTC 7 was a treasure chest of evidence, now lost.
The CIA's most important office outside Washington was there, unidentified by name, where major counterterrorist operations were handled--the East African embassy attacks, the U.S.S. Cole, and Osama bin Laden. (The Saudi Arabian connection got cut out of the Congressional Joint Inquiry report, too.)
The Securities and Exchange Commission had a major office in WTC 7 dealing in securities fraud cases, with at least 100 current (then Enron-era) prosecutions damaged or dropped. Whose? Were any cases transferred to that office just before 9/11?
I'm too suspicious, you say.
The Department of Defense had offices there; along with their industrial pals, they were among the few beneficiaries of 9/11. No?
Then how about the Secret Service, which had two floors in WTC 7? This is the same outfit that kept a straight face while the President, aware both towers had been hit, chatted with the second graders until it was time for his public appearance, then they drove him 80 mph (for the cameras) in order to board Air Force One to fly for an hour without a fighter escort, as if all that time they were sure he was safe.
New York City's Office of Emergency Management was there, on which the city had spent millions of dollars to make it an attack-proof bunker with its own electricity, water, and even air supply. When Mayor Rudy Giuliani arrived, before either tower collapsed, no fire yet, he found that "authorities" had ordered WTC 7 evacuated.
No one died in WTC 7, which may be why it has appeared unimportant. It was empty all day--even the firemen left--unless there was someone in there stoking fires. At about 4 p.m. firemen were told to keep everyone away from the building, because it was going to collapse. They were about to witness a historic anomaly: a steel-structured building collapse caused solely by fire. There's more, but I don't want to get the conspiracy analysts too excited. We're excited enough, as it is”.
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2004/537
8. If it was a set up by the government to facilitate an invasion of iraq and afghanistan, why didn't they put any iraqis or afghanis on the plane? Indeed why did they populate the plane with bitter enemies of baathism?
No, using 15 Saudis they knew their Saudi friends keep mum about them and the fact that they went agents. Saddam wasn’t likely to have stayed as quiet.
9. If the government was capable of such an unprecedented feat of conspiracy why weren't they able to conjure up a single vial of dodgy chemicals in Iraq?
This is a brilliant cause and effect argument. Unfortunately it is what’s called a logical fallacy.
“Post Hoc (ergo proctor hoc): Translation—after this, therefore because of this. Cause and effect fallacy. I washed my car yesterday, so of course it rained today. I get better grades when I don’t study (just because it happened in the past doesn’t prove that it’s the cause of your better grades). Our football team hasn’t changed our socks ever since our homecoming victory and it’s brought good luck all season. Luck? Maybe your success was due to a little nausea on the other team”.
http://www.uoflife.com/wc/concepts/fallacy.htm
10. Why are virtually none of the people who were involved in organising the global anti-war movement and the protests involved or interested in the 911 conspiracy theory?
One reason is that people like you are ready to ridicule them at every opportunity.
11. Why are the 911 conspiracists so quick to believe every word of seriously dodgy (ex?) spooks like Shayler?
“Seriously dodgy spooks”. When you make an argument you are supposed to provide reasons or rationales for your conclusions. “I say, therefore it is?” Hardly.
12. Why do so many of the promoters of these theories have books/DVDs/Videos to sell for their own profit?
Yeah everybody in the 9/11 Movement who has written a book or made a DVD is really rolling in the cash now. What with all the media coverage they have received, rave reviews etc. It hardly ever stops. It really is a get rich quick scheme. Ha. Ha, what a joke you are.
13. Was the Pentagon in on the plot? If it was, how did they decide who got blown up / incinerated by the 'bomb'? If not, why did the Pentagon or any of the armed forces just sit back and let their fierce rivals in the CIA blow up their HQ and many of their staff (including fairly senior personnel)?
Yes, the Pentagon would have to be in on the plot wouldn’t they dumbo?
Was it just "luck" that the crash happened right in the middle of the only renovated section of the Pentagon that was being retrofitted to bolster it against an attack, has a new sprinkler system, was only five days away from being completed, was right next to the Pentagon's new personal fire station with their fire truck already parked outside, and was where President Bush was going to be landing two hours later?
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/claim.html
it gets even better: the physicist turns out to be a cold-fusion looney! You couldn't make this stuff up!
Let the reader beware that it isn't us conspiracists that are spouting the loony material above, it's our detractors..
None of whom it seems are able or willing to answer the simplest of questions we pose and instead sling virtriol...
Good luck with that.
You claim the authority of a reputable physicist to support the idea that fire following a plane crash could not have taken down the Twin Towers. You are resting your argument upon his credibility. Yet your physicist's credentials appear to depend on his contributions to the highly disputed and probably bogus field of "cold fusion". He is not a mainstream, reputable physicist if these are his only contributions.
Forced underground, cold fusion has since become a cult, complete with its own cheerleaders, magazines, hats and coffee mugs, along with a regular academic conference to which few but the cold fusionists themselves pay any attention. Some cold-fusion researchers have become conspiracy buffs, sure that Dick Cheney and big oil are thwarting their efforts. One current story alleges that fossil-fuel forces killed off cold fusion’s greatest champion, Infinite Energy magazine editor Eugene Mallove, who was murdered last year during an apparent robbery.
"I am not. You are wrong. Now. Why did you say that I was an American citizen?....What information have you got that suggested I went anywhere and indeed did 'turn up' in Ireland or, as I like to say in normal English 'returned to Ireland from America.'
And please don't fob me off here again. Answer the question."
I did answer the question morgan (in fact I gave you two answers to choose from as I know you like testing hypotheses). Spy sattellite or simple deduction about the origin of disinfo agents? You take your pic.
I might as well point out that it is fairly hilarious that you are simultaneously trying to claim that I don't know anything about you and that I somehow know "too much" with your implication of shadowy sources of information. They don't make disinfo agents like they used to.
QUOTE "3) Finally, please explain to me from looking at the photograph of the Pentagon above or here (below) WHERE THE BOEING 757 IS and why the hole in the Pentagon is ONLY 16 FEET ACCROSS.
Did the Boeing 757 shrink to the size of a small washing machine, enter the little hole and disappear inside? Is that your argument?
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/claim.html"
Morgan, how big is the normal hole when a 757 hits a reinforced military building? Personally, I would expect it to be roughly the diameter of the main body (which would probably have a diameter of about 16 feet or so).
Also, neither you nor your loonspud sources have presented any evidence whatsoever that they have any idea how big the hole actually was in the outer layer (almost all the loonspud sites use pictures of the hole in the inner ring, in a typically dishonest way) Nor do any of you have the first clue about how big one would expect the hole to be in a typical 757 vs reinforced military building.
Do you really think that the over 50 eye-witness accounts on whatreallyhappened.com (itself a loonspud site) are all "agents"?
QUOTE "1) Not qualified in this area:
Jones is a Professor at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY. Three of his recent published papers are listed below. Do you understand any of the titles? And explain how YOU are qualified to talk about the WTC collapsing but this Physics Professor is ‘not qualified.’
Jones, S.E., et al. Charged-particle Emissions from Metal Deuterides. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.
Jones, S.E. and J. Ellsworth. Geo-fusion and Cold Nucleosynthesis. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.
Jones, S.E., et al. Neutron Emissions from Metal Deuterides. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org."
I understand all the titles very well thanks, but you clearly don't. They are all absolutely and completely unrelated to anything whatsoever to do with buildings collapsing. They are roughly in the field of nuclear physics, but the specific area "cold fusion" is considered to be the domain of loonspuds and the particular conference is by far and away the biggest laughing stock of any science conference that I have ever heard of. You are proving my point nicely about both his a) lack of qualifications in a remotely related field and b) proven loonspuddery.
"This is just brilliantly rational thinking. Brilliant. Mormons are loons. What an excellent defence. I wonder if I would ever have thought of this. Incredible."
Maybe you think that deciding that an eccentric polygamist, sexual predator and ardent racist is god is a sane thing to do, come to think of you probably do.
1 How did the explosives get there?
“According to Scott Forbes, .... long story about buiding maintenance snipped.....”.
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
by Margie Burns
.... long passage about bush business connections snipped...."
So there was a power outage for network upgrades a few weeks before and Bush's family is involved in security work for various things? And what was the weather like in Texas in April 2001?
In other words these are completely unremarkable and unsuprising facts which are galaxies away from providing any evidence at all for somebody rigging the WTC for demolition.
"See above."
I did and it was spectacularly poor.
" ... PNAC spiel ..."
This provides exactly zero evidence of responsibility for 9-11. Zilch, none, nada.
"Nobody has come forward? You havn’t been paying attention Badman.
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
http://nswbc.org/index.htm"
Do you even read your own sources?? Not a single one of those people have claimed that the government was responsible for 9-11, in fact they list the 911 commission report as one of the small number of key resources on their site, without the merest hint of criticism.
Once again, you have illustrated my point. There is a culture of whistle blowing to some extent in the US defence forces, these whistle blowers are mainly concerned with shoddy practices and place themselves at considerable risk to expose them. Yet you somehow believe that there wouldn't be so much as a whimper out of them when they're told to murder thousands of the citizens that they have sworn to protect.
"It’s called the US military right? They had no problem using chemical weapons in Fallujah and killing about 100,000 Iraqi’s. 3,000 International citizens seems like bargain in comparison."
Do you understand anything about motivation? Almost all of the people who voluntarily enlist for Iraq are motivated by patriotism (which I despise by the way), they are not going to be particularly happy when they are told that their patriotic duty is to blow up thousands of the citizens whose way of life the signed up to protect and to destroy one of their nations proud monuments in the bargain. To put it mildly, I can see the mission briefing being a bit difficult. Furthermore, you can not have missed the fact that a US soldier testified in the CW5 trial about atrocities carried out in Iraq. Presumably the US government really wishes he wouldn't say such things, but the thing is that most people have consciences somewhere and when people have a crisis of conscience (which happens very frequently after atrocities) there is nothing that the government can do to stop them.
"Yeah they would have went out of their way to find agents friendly with people who worked in the building. This is again brilliant logic by you. Brilliant."
Considering the type of people who inhabit offices in the WTC and pentagon, the probability that whichever shadowy military figures planned your conspiratastic plot would have acquantainces among the dead must be 1.0. For fucks sake, a few hundred of GHQ staff were taken out - you seem to believe that the US military blew up a significant chunk of its officer corp. Jesus, those guys must have pissed off their co-workers BIG TIME. I mean it would take quite a lot to persuade me to launch a plot which involved killing hundreds of my colleagues.
“WTC 7 was a treasure chest of evidence, now lost. ..."
Morgan, you go on to list all the various agencies who would have been responsible for collecting the evidence, perhaps you can see the glaring contradiction? Who exactly were the CIA/ military / lizards protecting this evidence from? I mean can you tell me just who was going to go and search the CIA office and reveal the 'evidence' to the world? Since you seem to believe that the CIA / military / fire department / port authority / Securities and Exchange Commission / several security firms / New York City's Office of Emergency Management were somehow complicit in this conspiracy, don't you think they could just have said "no" if their own members came knocking on the door looking for evidence? Seems to be a lot less trouble than blowing up their building.
"No, using 15 Saudis they knew their Saudi friends keep mum about them and the fact that they went agents. Saddam wasn’t likely to have stayed as quiet."
So the saudis are in on the plot too? Does it never trouble you when you use completely evidence-untroubled claims like this that end up drawing an entire country into the ever expanding plot.?
"This is a brilliant cause and effect argument. Unfortunately it is what’s called a logical fallacy.
“Post Hoc (ergo proctor hoc): Translation"
No it's not - in fact it's not even close to post-hoc translation. I'm arguing that there is an enormous and glaring inconsistency with the known conspiracy capabilities of the government as evidenced by their failure to manufacture a convincing reason to invade Iraq and the speculative claims that you are making about their ability to engineer plots that are enormously more complex and difficult.
"One reason is that people like you are ready to ridicule them at every opportunity."
No, wrong answer. The right answer is that we're connected to reality and understand that there is absolutely no point in indulging oneself in abstract speculation of something which is unsupported by any positive evidence at a time when the US government is publically and very openly continuing their tradition of imperialism and slaughter.
“Seriously dodgy spooks”. When you make an argument you are supposed to provide reasons or rationales for your conclusions. “I say, therefore it is?” Hardly."
Shayler has never delivered any information about Mi5 which he worked for, generally claiming that they were free of dodgy goings on and instead criticised Mi6, who he never worked for. He has made several completely and utterly unsubstantiated claims about infiltration of anarchist and socialist groups by Mi5, has changed his story several times about the details and refused to supply any information which might help the groups to identify the hypotethical moles in order to secure themselves. This looks to me an awful lot like somebody who is trying to create infighting and certainly not like somebody who wants to oppose the machinations of the secret state. He has also recently taken a quite sudden turn into 911 conspircy theorising and promotion of the movement. There is at least a fair chance that he still works for Mi5. Yet I'll bet my back teeth that you did not subject him to a single searching question about his current relationship with the security services, nor did you quiz him about the many and large inconsistencies in his changing stories. You lapped it up without a shadow of suspicion because, as long as it fuels your delusions, you will lap anything at all up.
"Yeah everybody in the 9/11 Movement who has written a book or made a DVD is really rolling in the cash now. What with all the media coverage they have received, rave reviews etc. It hardly ever stops. It really is a get rich quick scheme. Ha. Ha, what a joke you are."
Compare the protest movement against the war - millions of people, maybe one or two books, all to raise funds for the movement in some way. The 911 movement - a handful of oddballs with dozens of books, dvds and gurus (Icke, Shayler, Griffen, etc) all sold for their private profit.
"Yes, the Pentagon would have to be in on the plot wouldn’t they dumbo?"
At this stage we've got many, many thousands of people, perhaps millions of people, all miraculously keeping mum about the fact that they conspired to murder thousands of their fellow citizens.
"Was it just "luck" that the crash happened right in the middle of the only renovated section of the Pentagon that was being retrofitted to bolster it against an attack, has a new sprinkler system, was only five days away from being completed, was right next to the Pentagon's new personal fire station with their fire truck already parked outside, and was where President Bush was going to be landing two hours later?"
I thought you denied that it was hit by a plane at all? Why would they have needed to reinforce it if they were only using it as a pretend plane crash?
Morgan, you have drifted a long, long way from the reality based community. You are living in the narcissitic land of delusion.
He was on a BBC NI programme (Stephen Nolan) with his wan (sorry don't know her name).
From his blather I got the distinct feeling that he is still working for MI5 and is involved in a battle to discredit MI6.
I know that is probably a conspiracy theory in itself but all IMHO.
Guys,
Having been following your comments for some time now I felt it necessary to say a few things:
1. Neither of you can actually know for absolute certain what happened that day. What can any of us say happened for sure anywhere in the world outside of what is happening in our own lives. I know what I had for breakfast this morning, I know what shirt I’m wearing etc.... But every other thing that I think I know in the world is second hand information which is open to distortions, prejudices, Chinese whispers, disinformation and propaganda. I read a history book on WW1or a biography on Churchill but how do I actually know which parts are completely true and which parts have been subject to the kind of distortions I have mentioned above. History is always recorded by the victors, media organisations all have leanings be they right or left and biographers have wildly differing opinions on historical figures. So let’s just decide on that, neither of you two can know for absolute certainty what happened. Everything you have both said has generally been quotes from somebody else, excerpts from books (who somebody else wrote) and a hell of a lot of speculations of other peoples motives and intentions. Unless Badman was standing on the Pentagon lawn that day he can't say that a plane hit it because no such photographs exist and unless Morgan was standing beside him he can’t say that some strange occurrence or anomaly meant that the crash site and the hole was definitely not caused by a 757. So can both of you please try and think about my point, unless either of you were actually there and saw it with your own eyes, both of your minds should still be open to the possibility of the others argument regardless of how improbable it seems to your instincts.
2. Why the name calling? Why all the aggression? Why do two people have to express such open hostility just because they have different opinions? If I go for a meal tonight and suggest that the meat balls are the best thing on the menu and my partner suggests that the pizza is the best thing on the menu do we suddenly start name calling or displaying open hostility... it’s childish, unnecessary, egotistical and counter productive.
3. If a debate (which is what this should be and is certainly not) is to be effective each counter statement should be considered in light of the preceding statement. When someone makes a point any human being should take it on board, consider what new evidence or new idea the other person is suggesting and then reconsider their own position before making a rebuttal. While all the time keeping in mind “I could be wrong”, in order to audit oneself from prejudices, entrenchment and preconceived conclusions.
The correct model for debating (I BELIEVE)
• Finding out the truth of the situation or event should be the entire and only objective of the exercise.
• The debaters should only be the vehicles by which the truth is discerned.
• Each statement by the opposing protagonist should be met with an open (humble) mind and clear conscience.
The model for debating that I have just been observing
• Making the other person accept what the other considers to be the truth is the only objective of the exercise.
• The apposing debater is the vehicle by which each person expresses their distain for each and every person not of their opinion.
• Each statement by the apposing protagonist is countered by the following rebuttal strategy-
1. Hear (not listen I might add) the apposing statement and then think of the best way to rubbish the claim (regardless of what that claim is).
2. Think of the best insult to attach or incorporate into the counter statement for ones own pleasure even though it takes away from the rebuttal as apposed to adding to it.
From what I have heard so far both of you could be right or wrong to varying degrees, but I doubt that either of you are going to accept this based on the evidence of your argueing techniques.
If you were to witness the following exchange, what would you make of the Questioner?
Q. If 9/11 was an inside job or at the very least invoved complicity at the highest levels of
the US administartion then why are there no whistleblowers?
A. There are - The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition - http://nswbc.org/index.htm
Q. Do you even read your own sources?? Not a single one of those people have claimed that the government was responsible for 9-11, in fact they list the 911 commission report as one of the small number of key resources on their site, without the merest hint of criticism.
A. But whistleblower Sibel Edmonds (demonstrably on the list) has said:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml
"...I can tell you that there is so much involvement, that if they did let this information out, and if they were to hold real investigations--I'm not talking about this semi-investigation they're holding under this "Joint Inquiry"--the pure show of the 9/11 Commission that has been getting the mass media's attention. If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up. And I am appalled. I am really surprised. I'm taken back by seeing the mass media's reaction to this. They are the window to our government's operation and what are they doing?"
"Not a single one of those people have claimed that the government was responsible for 9-11"
the old 'hard of thinking slur'!
QUOTE: "Neither of you can actually know for absolute certain what happened that day. What can any of us say happened for sure anywhere in the world outside of what is happening in our own lives. I know what I had for breakfast this morning, I know what shirt I’m wearing etc.... But every other thing that I think I know in the world is second hand information which is open to distortions, prejudices, Chinese whispers, disinformation and propaganda."
If you're not going to ascribe levels of probability to evidence and discount non-falsifiable hypotheses as fundamentally uninteresting then you don't know what shirt you're wearing or what you had for breakfast. If you're accepting the low levels of proof offered for the various 9-11 conspiracy theories then the same methodology puts you in a world where anything and everything is possible and you have no means of distinguishing between ideas on the basis of probability.
It's a fundamentally uninteresting world in which there is only complete truth and complete ignorance. Fundamentally a mediaeval world.
QUOTE: "2. Why the name calling? Why all the aggression? Why do two people have to express such open hostility just because they have different opinions? If I go for a meal tonight and suggest that the meat balls are the best thing on the menu and my partner suggests that the pizza is the best thing on the menu do we suddenly start name calling or displaying open hostility... it’s childish, unnecessary, egotistical and counter productive."
I think the name calling and aggression stem from the fact that Indymedia is supposed to be a news source, many indymedias are over run with conspiracy theories. This diminishes their credibility as news sources. Conspiracy theorists should run their own conspiracy theory web sites, not coat tail on other people's work.
And speaking of name calling: "childish, egotistical" aren't exactly likely to lower the temperature of the conversation, so well done there Mammy.
Dear Badman,
About two months ago and shortly after our dispute over how you knew that I had lived in America and had recently returned to Ireland, I posted a statement/question.
I don't have the exact text because shortly after, the post disappeared.
Which had me pondering the possibility that you had a buddy with access to the Indymedia servers.
Anyway, basically, I said that my name was Morgan Stack. I said that you know my occupation and where I work.
I pointed out that I do not know who you are or where you are from. Is there some reason that you do not want to let us know your name, occupation or where you live?
Some reason why you do not want your real identity associated with your comments above, where you explain how a Boeing 757 fits into a 14 foot hole for example.
Do you live in Ireland or in Maryland?
I think everybody who reads this thread would place more credibility on your statements if you were happy to identify yourself. I know I would be.
Looking forward to hearing from you and not having to write this post out again.
Many thanks,
Morgan Stack M.Acc MBS
Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.