Friday, June 26, 2009

This blog is not updated anymore

Please note that this blog is not updated anymore and many of the links are not working. I nevertheless believe that the information contained here is important and anybody who wants to check the accuracy can easily do so by using Google.

I started more blogs and web pages - organized around particular subjects - than I could handle and I reorganized them. Now I have one blog and links to all the other web addresses (including this one) where I published are on it. I now use labels to retrieve posts with respect to particular topics.

Thank you for your understanding.

Please visit MountPleasantNotes.

Thank you.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Conspiracy Theories

I am not some conspiracy theory nut but they do exist at times. (We wouldn't have laws against conspiracies if they had never happened.) The term itself is a loaded one, often used by right wingers to dismiss claims by lefties.

Also, I'm not saying that 9-11 was an American conspiracy, not an attack by Al-Quaeda. But there are so many unanswered questions that everybody's eyebrows should be raised.

Why The Towers Fell, done by Nova, is a non-conspiracy-theory explanation of the collapse of the towers and has interesting footage to watch.

I watched a show with the very first suggestion that there might have been a conspiracy involved before I became aware of this Nova/PBS documentary linked to in the previous paragraph. It's an episode of The Fifth Estate called Conspiracy Theories and conspiracy, or not, - just in passing - it's odd that Bush senior was in a meeting with a cousin (or brother) of Osama when the towers got hit, isn't it?

Remember, I am not convinced, just suspicious! But having watched more videos and disasters than I care to remember I have to wonder about many aspects, the collapse of No 7 WTC not being the least.

The US government relies on Popular Mechanics, better known as a geek magazine, for information to refute doubters of the official story. (There are several parts all linked to on this US government site.) I find this strange as it is not a scholarly, scientific, publication but a magazine popularising science and technology. There is a difference.

It is all truly frightening that one can even consider, because of some evidence, the possibility of such monstrous crimes and may indeed seem outlandish. But do consider the track record of Bush&Cheney et al. Many people warned about the seemingly unending human disaster in Iraq before these criminals unleashed the invasion. They did it just the same and we all know how profitable it is for lots of corporations.

Money talks and always has.

If you are interested and have a lot of time to waste, I recommend you watch these videos. (Some of them are quite long) The urls did work when I used them but might not work when you'll try; it has happened to me before. In this case just google the title and you shall find what you're seeking.

Loose Change Second ed
A must see in my opinion.

911 Eyewitness A must see in my opinion.

Listen to the sound of explosions, look at puffs of smoke indicating explosions and listen to a janitor of the WTC giving testimony about an explosion he claims to have heard on the lowest level underground, i.e. where one would place explosives if one wanted to demolish a building in a controlled way, just before he heard the plane slam into the building. The audio tape of a fireman that wasn't released by the government for years (why???) can also be heard.

Controlled Demolitions A must see in my opinion.

9-11 Official report. It does not offer an explanation for the collapse of No7. No plane hit it. Why was it destroyed?

Have a look where No 7 is located

WTC no 7

More About WTC no 7

9-11 Review

9-11 True Story

Improbable collapse claims to represent both sides fairly.

Why did it take so long for the pictures of the Pentagon to be released? Why was such a lousy image released at first where one could hardly see any detail? Why is the lawn intact? Didn't the plane skid along the ground before slamming into the Pentagon. Where the hole is certainly implies that and yet there's no damage to the lawn Furthermore, look at the size of the hole: No large plane could have passed through that in its entirety and yet no debris of a plane is lying on the ground in front of the Pentagon.

What is the explanation for this?

How Building Implosions Work

Scientific Papers And Lots Of Links

Criticism of the conspiracy nuts

Laughable criticsm because the buildings did not collapse that way:

This criticism dismissed here

Added August 13th 2006:

I attended a community dinner about a week ago, sharing the table with strangers. Trying to make some conversation I brought up conspiracy theories with respect to 9-11. That was a bad decision because of the intense reaction of a man, who said talk like this would spoil his dinner. And he did become very agitated.

It was on my mind because I had just finished writing a post about it for a chatboard. The opening post was very time consuming to put together and I linked to "conspiracist" sites as well as sites claiming to refute them.

It was always meant to be primarily for my blog and a modified, but partial, version is here. "Partial" because after I had published the modified version here the arguments started flairing up again on Bread & Roses. In that context I posted more links and, above all, I realised that webpages dealing with this are so numerous that it is impossible, or at least not very useful, to link to them all. So I shall just leave it at that. People who are interested to investigate this further will find plenty of links on the sites I linked to.

However, what puzzles me is the inability to explain the strong reactions I got at the dinner as well as on Bread & Roses especially since my opening lines were:

I am *not* some conspiracy theory nut but they do exist at times. (We wouldn't have laws against conspiracies if they had never happened.) The term itself is a loaded one, often used by right wingers to dismiss claims by lefties.

I'm also *not* saying that 9-11 was an American conspiracy not an attack by Al-Quaeda.

My first link relating to the tragedy is to the Nova episode Why The Towers Fell. It does not explain the collpase as a conspiracy but structural failure of the towers. (It does not treat the collapse of WTC no7.)

I was quickly branded as somebody who believes in a conspiracy, my opening statement notwithstanding. I was even called a liar when I wrote that all I wanted was a discussion.

Nevertheless, it is hard to believe the official explanation, hard not to have one's suspicion aroused by so many inexplicable things. Yet, it is also hard to believe that there was a conspiracy of Americans. But why do Canadians get so upset about the mere mention of the possibility of a conspiracy?

As I said in the first sentence of my post, they do exist at times and anybody who has looked at JFK's assassination in a very superficial way knows the Warren Commission did not come up with the truth. (Single assassin, single bullet theory implies that physical laws were not in effect when he was killed.)

So why the emotional distress for speaking about the possibility of a conspiracy?