The Iraq Inquiry has taken us back again to that period where the government had engaged in a massive military build up ready to invade Iraq, and was desperately looking for evidence on WMD to trigger the invasion – an invasion on which the Washington neo-cons had pinned their entire hopes for the future of the Bush presidency.
Just at that crucial time, one of the UK’s foremost experts on Iraqi WMD had let slip to the BBC that the government’s claims did not stand up. As a result, he was found dead in a wood, while the BBC journalist, Andrew Gilligan, who correctly reported that there were no WMD, was fired for telling the truth.
The punishment of the BBC for failing to unquestioningly echo Blair lies went much further. The Chairman and Director General were forced out. All because the BBC said there may have been no WMD, when there were not.
It is almost incredible even now to state what New Labour have done. God know what future historians will make of it.
The BBC was traumatised, and went through an acceleration of cultural change that prized “managers” over journalists, and stopped criticising government. A foundation stone of democracy had been blasted away by Tony Blair.
Kelly’s death was extremely convenient for Blair, Cheney and a myriad of other ultra ruthless people. It paved the way for war. We should not forget how very crucial the WMD issue was in convincing enough reluctant New Labour MPs to go along. Without the UK there would have been no coalition – most of the other Europeans would have quickly dropped out too. It is by no means clear that, despite Cheney’s bluster, the Americans would have invaded Iraq alone.
So Kelly was the first man killed in the Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq after Kelly. Arms manufacturers, mercenary companies and the security industry made tens of billions in profit. That’s a powerful motive to remove an obstacle. The Western oil companies are getting back into Iraq.
We will never know if Kelly would have gone on to repeat his – perfectly correct – doubts about Iraqi WMD, or if he would have shut up, as ordered by Tony Blair through the MOD. I do know, as many doctors have attested, it is extremely unlikely to bleed to death by cutting a wrist. I do know that the paramedics who attended said there was very little blood at the scene. I do know that the painkillers he took were a tiny proportion of a fatal dose and were not an anticoagulant. I do know that a chemical weapons expert like Dr Kelly would know better ways to kill himself.
And I do know that the government is keeping the evidence hidden for seventy years.
Glenn, with all respect, I think you also set up a strawman with your “rag-tag” Muslims. I would avoid that description too, it seems too reminiscent of the things I read on isolationist/survivalist US conspiracy sites. They seem to be of the opinion that the hijackers are purported to be primitive troglodytes. They were not. We have already discussed this that the four pilots had pilots licenses and all had trained in simulators. There is a MONEY TRAIL of documents paid to various flight schools etc…
Also, you have talked about tightest air security before and I asked what you meant. I don’t believe I received a reply.
Also, the warnings were NOT specific. “Al-Qaeda plans to attack” tells them nothing. But for our purposes, it DOES undermine MIHOP (Made it happen on purpose) theories while possibly lending credence to LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose) theories.
On Carlyle Moulton’s points, I generally agree but there is an important thing about planes flying into buildings. Les Robertson DID say that the buildings were designed to withstand a 707 impact. But the 767’s which hit were larger and probably heavier and flying faster than in the scenario Les Robertson gives. In 9/11 Mysteries, a Truther movie, Robertson is quoted saying that a 707 flying into JFK, short of fuel may crash into the Towers in fog. The Towers were designed to withstand that, but not the 9/11 scenario in which heavily-fueled (yes, they were flying domestically but were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel apparently).
The man Glenn references saying the Towers were designed to withstand multiple airline strikes was not the internal construction site manager but not one of those involved in the design of the building or its construction.
I can dig up a reference if you want, but short of time right now.
“Lots of steel-framed buildings have caught on fire. Yet this one came down in near freefall speed, in a perfect demolition. Never happened before or after that day. You could also have added the random damage from the twin towers, but building 3 was far more badly damaged but didn’t spontaneously collapse.”
WTC7 was big and heavy. It was damaged at its base by a 110 story burning skyscraper. The fire department predicted it would fall. It had lost its fireproofing.
I can show you a video of a collapsing building that collapsed from fire.
I can also show you buildigs that were demolished without explosives.
No time right now to dig them up.
“I can show you a video of a collapsing building that collapsed from fire.”
A steel-framed one that is.
As Carl Moulton points out, the sprinkler system in the WTC7 also malfunctioned.
Oops, I forgot to include the link to the ADS page referred to in my above post.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/49588
This is a steel-framed building collapsing. The fires don’t appear to be raging but it still collapses crushing the lower floors.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903
Here are some buildings collapsing. Visible “squibs”, and complete collapses with “pyroclastic clouds”.
Yet there are no explosives used in this demolition technique. Only gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
“The man Glenn references saying the Towers were designed to withstand multiple airline strikes was not the internal construction site manager but not one of those involved in the design of the building or its construction.”
I don’t know how I made that mistake in that first sentence. It should have read he WAS the onsite construction manager. But the job description is not quite what it may sound like. It doesn’t mean he was responsible for the construction of the World Trade Center but it means he was in charge of plumbing, interior modification and possibly installing phone lines etc…
Frank De Martini is the only person I know of who made the claim that the Towers could withstand multiple airliner strikes.
He was killed in the attacks and their is a memoriam page dedicated to him here:
http://inmemoriamonline.net/Profiles/Folders/D_Folder/DeMartini_Frank.html
With all respect to Mr Martini, I don’t think his assessment can be considered definitive.
I will agree that there is dispute among structural engineers about how the Towers (and building 7) actually collapsed but very, very few structural engineers or controlled demolition experts find the controlled demolition theory plausible.
On David Kelly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8481791.stm
On Tuesday, Lord Hutton released a statement explaining his decision and revealing that he had written to the Ministry of Justice.
In it, he said: “At the conclusion of my inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly, I requested that the post-mortem report relating to his death should not be disclosed for 70 years as I was concerned that the publication of that report in newspapers, books and magazines would cause his daughters and his wife further and unnecessary distress.
“Much of the material in the post-mortem report had been given in oral evidence in public at the inquiry and substantial parts of that evidence had been set out in my report.
“However, I consider that the disclosure of the report to doctors and their legal advisers for the purposes of legal proceedings would not undermine the protection which I wished to give to Dr Kelly’s family, provided that conditions were imposed restricting the use and publication of the report to such proceedings, and I have written to the Ministry of Justice to this effect.”
In the same article, Norman Baker’s not giving up the ghost:
“Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has conducted his own inquiries into Dr Kelly’s death, said: “It’s astonishing and unheard-of for material of this nature to be hidden away for any length of time, let alone 70 years.
“Coroners’ inquests are held in public. Lord Hutton’s inquiry was unique in its format and unique in requesting restrictions of this nature.
“His statement today undermines the validity of his own inquiry and gives further justification to the case being made by many for a proper inquest to be held into this most public of deaths.”
Baker appears to be wrong.
While 30 years is the standard amount of time, there can be exceptions.
http://www.30yearrulereview.org.uk/background.htm
“Is everything released to the public at 30 years?
Not everything does get released when transferred to The National Archives. The Freedom of Information Act has reduced the number of records that can stay closed, but a very small proportion of material remains closed for a defined period. Examples include murder files, which remain closed until the children of the victim are 100 years old, in order to protect them from exposure to distressing personal information. Other records which remain closed relate to current defence or security, foreign relations etc..”
Of course, I expect some “skeptics” to read the article as:
“blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, Examples include murder files, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah”
“Hey, it says “murders”. He was murdered!”
“Happier? Happier? Are you mad?”
Happier! Being murdered would make him a sort of hero. Being a suicide would bring shame on himself and his name and guilt on his family.
Are you a moron?
“Tim, take a look at those who now carry the legacy of Carl Sagan. They laugh at your conspiracies.”
You make Saganism sound like a religion. Who’s the current high priest? And what conspiracies are you talking about? I haven’t posited any on this thread or this site at any time.
“Visit the JREF sometime.”
Thanks for the invite. But there are far too many “educators” who only want to give lectures but not listen to them taking up precious server space over there already.
“Have you no shame, sir?”
Decent gives etiquette lessons.
My interjection was not directed towards Angrysoba as I don’t think him capable of understanding it, and I’m not interested in spending any more time talking past him and trying to correct his serial misunderstandings. Life’s too short. Experience teaches that when people just don’t get it when it’s explained to them clearly the first time, they are unlikely ever to do so.
My intention was to rescue Carl Sagan’s good name from association with the enemies of truth. It is one thing to quote a wise thinker in support of one’s own opinion or, indeed, agenda, but it’s quite another to ventriloquize the dead. And Carl, more than most dead folk, can speak for himself.
If you want to speculate about what Carl might have thought about 9/11 or WMD or about 9/11 “truthers” or Kelly “suiciders”, fine. But you can be sure he advised against the sort of personal snide attacks on adversaries that are the meat and potatoes of the Angrysoba/JREF crowd. In his younger days Sagan was scathing of Velikovsky’s work and he ridiculed the scholar in public, but later he publicly regretted having done so. Not because he had subsequently warmed to the man’s theories, but because he recognized that there are valid ways and invalid ways of doing science.
The DemonHaunted World is a book primarily about the perils of pseudoscience and superstition. I don’t recall that he addressed the subject of conspiracy theories or that he ever equated them with pseudoscience or superstition.
He did say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that we should always maintain our scepticism. He called pseudoscience the opposite of science: “Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principal they cannot be invalidated. Practicioners are defensive and wary. Sceptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it are deduced.”
He also warned us against thinking ourselves immune to error, saying that “if we resolutely refuse to acknowledge where we are liable to fall into error, hten e can confidently expect that error ?” even serious error, profound mistakes ?” will be our compainon forever.”
One more quote, because Carl is so often so wonderfully to the point and on the money, and because I can’t say this sort of thing a tenth as well as he can:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we?ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We?re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge ?” even to ourselves ?” that we?ve been so credulous.”
Tim Groves writes: “The DemonHaunted World is a book primarily about the perils of pseudoscience and superstition. I don’t recall that he addressed the subject of conspiracy theories or that he ever equated them with pseudoscience or superstition.”
And then quotes Carl Sagan on pseudoscience: “Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principal they cannot be invalidated. Practicioners are defensive and wary. Sceptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it are deduced.”
Sounds to me like the “controlled demolition hypothesis”.
Tim Groves: “The only suggestion of any of the above having anything in common was that you Charles and Tim share(d) a penchant for going on and on about one bloody book!”
Oh I see! So, it would be like me saying that as with Adolf Hitler and Mussolini you have a fondness for the Internet equivalent of chestpuffing, gurning and emitting great bursts of windy, flatulent rhetoric?
[Strange… I could have sworn I’d posted this message earlier…]
Comrades,
I accordance with the expressed desire of this blog’s host, I shall be making no more contributions to the debates on the events of 11/sept/2001.
No problem, Glenn.
If you want to email me, you can at [email protected]
“nausiating”, “gut-wrenching”, “sickening”, “stomach-churning”
I think you vomitted up these yourself. I don’t remember using those adjectives. Such imagery makes me throw up.
“Another commentor has only got to say the magic words “nano-thermite” and you literally fume with disgust.”
Actually, it just makes me laugh.
“I accordance with the expressed desire of this blog’s host, I shall be making no more contributions to the debates on the events of 11/sept/2001.”
Glen, there’s a time, place and occasion for everything and I think Craig has a moral right to set the tone. That’s one reason why I don’t weigh in on “the events” here. But I also think you make a very good case against kneejerk acceptance of “the official story” and I love reading your comments. But let’s leave it at that. Let’s be like the French after the loss of Alsace and Lorraine in 1871.
“I think you vomitted up these yourself.” “throw up.”
Not to mention digestive-tract verbs. Proves my point.
“I don’t remember using those adjectives.”
The stomach is a poor organ of memory. And in any case I did say “such as”, which is less absolutely all-encompassing than “including”.
“”I think you vomitted up these yourself.” “throw up.”
Not to mention digestive-tract verbs. Proves my point.”
Well, I was being faecesious, I mean facetious. I thought it was obvious.
Alimentary my dear Grovesy.
I mean elementary, naturally.
“The stomach is a poor organ of memory. And in any case I did say “such as”, which is less absolutely all-encompassing than “including”.”
So either way you’re getting out of that misrepresentation, right?
Thank you Tim, and I agree that this on-going discussion is dragging down the intent of Craig’s blog. There has been blatant trolling on this subject. (That should have read “In accordance” too…)
Glen.
I will reply to your reply to my 9/11 post on the specific 9/11 thread that Craig has started.
“Let’s be like the French after the loss of Alsace and Lorraine in 1871.”
What’s that ? You’ll still be wanting to slug it out again in forty years’ time ?
Dr David Kelly.
Who were likely candidates.
Try looking at the 4 VIP Directors of
ARLINGTON ASSOCIATES and their DIRECT association with SIMON MANN, TIM SPICER, TONY BUCKINGHAM,RUPERT BOWEN.
The Home address of LONRHO Group and over 300 other FRAUD FRONT, CASH SHELLS.
22 ARLINGTON STREET. LONDON SWIA1RD
Attached to the RITZ and DIRECTLY associated to MOHAMED AL FAYED and MOHAMED ADNAN KHASHOGGI and BIN LADEN
They are:
ORYX NATURAL RESOURCES
PLAZA 107 Ltd
EXECUTIVE OUTCOMES. SANDLINE INTERNATIONAL.
Then Read the 21 pages of:
“SECRET SOUTH AFRICAN DISRUPTION”
Including HERITAGE OIL,BRANCH ENERGY, and SIERRA RUTILE Ltd its 100% Subsidiary is TITANIUM RESOURCES GROUP and BARONESS VALERIE AMOS, WALTER KANSTEINER 111 and SIR SAMUEL ESSON JONAH, and CIA Muppet, JEAN RAYMOND BOULLE. Money Launderer, Drug Dealer, Blood Diamond Smuggler.
Yes what an Honest group of Members of the House of Lords we have.
All grabbing the “SPOILS” after the Conflict.
ADDAX & ORYX=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD and
MOHAMED ADNAN KHASHOGGI
ENI = NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
OCCIDENTAL= NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
AREVA =NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
BP=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
SHELL=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
MOL =NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
DE BEERS=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
MACQUARIE BANK =NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
MORGAN STANLEY=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
JP MORGAN CAZENOVE=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
These and 3000 others.
Along with GEORGE H W BUSH in the front of BARRICK GOLD CORP and ZAPATA OIL.
Which if you look at HERITAGE OIL’s AIM Admission Document is listed as a Subsidiary along with TOWER RESOURCES.
now, Here’s a Bummer.
So much for the Brave “HE WHO DARES” Bunch
At
22 ARLINGTON STREET. LONDON SW1A1RD
The Home of LONRHO Group
Psssst ORYX NATURAL RESOURCES
The Web site of:
ARLINGTON ASSOCIATES LTD
Has been “REMOVED”
It’s called “DAMAGE CONTROL”
or “RUN and HIDE”
Yes, Good for “DOOR SLAMMING” but then if it was made PUBLIC that OUR DECORATED HERO’s including ex SAS Commander MARK BLAGBROUGH is also a Director for LLOYD’S of LONDON in their
CULVER IRAQ.
So, how nice.
LLOYD’s of LONDON.
Directly associated to the MERCENARY outfit of EXECUTIVE OUTCOMES and SANDLINE INTERNATIONAL and the COVERT Smuggling of “BLOOD DIAMONDS” DRUGS, MINERAL THEFT RINGS, CRIMINAL WEAPONS SMUGGLING,ROBERT MUGABE’s ZDF, DRC WAR LORDS.
He took “up to 29” co-proxamol. The blister packets were found in the pocket of his jacket, a fact that Norman Lamb seems to find highly suspicious.
Has anybody paused to wonder WHY the blister packs were in his pocket? Would you not simply throw them away once empty? As for the unfinished pack….he was saving that one for later in case he had a sore head from all the other pills he did?
Willie MacRae, died 1985
This case does not ‘rest in peace’. Nor does that of David Kelly.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/special-reports/crimes-that-rocked-scotland/2007/10/19/the-mcrae-mystery-86908-19978476/
And this, about Hilda Murrell. her nephew, Robert Green, her nephew (the retired naval officer) claims that the murder conviction is unsafe:
“There is evidence that Andrew George was in Hilda’s house; however, he could not drive and did not match the description of the driver of her car. Since the trial, which I sat through, I have found evidence that would have acquitted him, and that others were involved. Meanwhile, break-ins to my home in New Zealand and continuing interference with my phone and mail suggest that the British state security authorities fear what I might reveal about the case.” Commander Robert Green Royal Navy (Retd).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_Murrell