Conspiracy theory, New York, 9/11
There's no doubt that there is something rather strange about what happened on 11th September 2001. If you don't believe me, have a look on youtube or google '9/11 conspiracy theory' and you'll see the extraordinary number of posts dealing with this very issue.
The fact is that a significantly large group of people in the US - and the rest of the world - simply don't buy what Bush's administration is telling us. The New York Times' poll a couple of years ago, for instance, revealed that 53% of Americans doubt their government's version of events on that fateful day.
And in another survey, a third of the Americans questioned thought that their government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.
And there maybe some justification for this conspiratorial perspective.
An argument that is advanced by a number of people on the internet concerns the third tower - the so-called, building 7 - that collapsed on that day. Unlike the Twin Towers, this 47-storey, 610-foot skyscraper was not hit by a plane. But still it came down.
The official explanation goes that ordinary fires were the main reason for the collapse of building 7. That makes this the first and only tall skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire.
Yet despite that all the thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were carted away and melted down.
The way official bodies have investigated building 7 at the World Trade Centre has made some people think they're hiding something. And - apparently - its destruction was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Another surprising element concerning this building - again if you look at the posts on youtube - is that BBC News read out a press release that building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually fell. On a couple of posts, you can actually see the tower clearly standing in the background while the reporter is telling us what is clearly a fib.
And so it was interesting that although the BBC covered this item last night, it didn't, in any way, mention its own duplicity.
What conspiracy theorists want to know - and it's a perfectly reasonable question - is how could that have happened, unless someone, with inside knowledge, was in on what was unfolding in front of the world media and perhaps even directing the events?
At the moment, I'm not sure if I completely believe that Bush's administration and/or the CIA designed this monumental pretext for a military campaign in the middle east. But the more I think of it - and coupled with my loathing of politicians and distrust of world governments - the more I'm coming round to the view that it's not as improbable as it might seem. As BBC's Panorama programme pointed out a month or two ago, there's no doubt that Bush and Cherney have personally benefited from US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
And let's face it, if the US can get rid of its own president by shooting him in public - and can cover it up for nearly half a century - how much more diificult can it be for its administration to stage an argument for its control in the middle east?
Older/Newer
« The Proms and the Class of 1980 | A school's call to prayer »
28 Comments
Leave a comment
News authors
Beijing Blog - Jo Green and Paul Phedon from Birmingham PR firm S&X Media give their account of being at the Beijing Olympics
Postings |
Feed
The Big Debate - Start the debate. Are our Young Leaders our Green Saviours? September 15, Hall 5 the ICC.
Postings |
Feed
Simon Hadley - The Birmingham Post's picture editor
My postings |
My feed
Paul Dale - The Birmingham Post's public affairs editor
My postings |
My feed
Phil Davis - Board member of Passenger Focus (rail transport passenger group)
My postings |
My feed
James Treadwell - Criminologist, Birmingham City University
My postings |
My feed
Stef Lewandowski - Owner of digital design agency 3Form and part of Birmingham's Big City Plan
My postings |
My feed
Marc Reeves - Editor of The Birmingham Post
My postings |
My feed
Emma Brady - The Birmingham Post's health correspondent
My postings |
My feed
Shahid Naqvi - The Birmingham Post's education correspondent
My postings |
My feed
Jonathan Walker - The Birmingham Post's political editor
My postings |
My feed
Roshan Doug - Writer and political commentator
My postings |
My feed
Joanna Geary - Development Editor of The Birmingham Post.
My postings |
My feed
Tom Scotney - The Birmingham Post news reporter
My postings |
My feed
Latest Birmingham Post Business blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from Birmingham and the midlands inform and entertain on all business matters.
Latest Birmingham Post Lifestyle blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from the midlands give you the lowdown on what's happening in your region and some musings on culture in the UK and beyond.
Latest Birmingham Post Sport blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from Birmingham and the midlands inform and entertain on all sporting matters.
Roshan, you have achieved the unthinkable: This latter-day Mata Hari is left speechless.
U
Thank you, Ursula - though I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about!
Roshan,
What an interesting article. So orginal... or is it?
Tut tut, Mr Doug. Has no one taught you to credit it your sources?
Emma, has anyone taught YOU how to string very few words together - correctly?
Also, stylistically, do decide whether the person you address is Roshan or Mr Doug - consistency being an art to behold.
If anyone in Birmingham needs an editor, please do let me know. I don't come cheap but it might be worth it.
U
Now, now ladies, please.
Ursula - thank you for your defence but I think Emma is right. I should have credited the BBC website for the facts I used and whose article inspired me to write this. Forgive me, Emma, I wasn't deliberately trying to deceive my readers. In fact, I should have also credited the photographer for the photo but I'm afraid I'm still trying to work out how to write a caption underneath the image!
Anyway, I've just written a piece on education which I'm posting tomorrow. So please have a read and see what you think of my point of view...
I'm surprised the Birmingham Post allowed this blog article to appear - it is not clear what Roshan is trying to say. Is he trying to say "9/11 has produced lots of conspiracy theories and there is a psychological reason for this" or "there is a conspiracy behind 9/11".....from the article it appears the later is the case.
A simple trawl through the internet will explain why building 7 collapsed even though it was not hit by a plane.
Thank you for your comments, Martin. The article was intended as a preview piece for tonight's BBC programme on conspiracy theories relating to 9/11. I'm sorry you didn't feel it reached the Post's standard of journalism and clarity... I will endeavour to write more clearly. But, Martin, ol' boy, I hope, as a local Lib-Dem activist, you weren't simply compelled to write - and put me in my place - because I have a healthy disdain and cynicism towards politicians...
Phew! I was beginning to think that Roshan's blog was going to have no comments saying "Why has the Birmingham Post allowed this blog to be published."
Thanks Mr Mullaney, you saved the day.
Conspiracy theories on the internet.. who'd a thunk it?
Steve X, I am always so grateful for anyone who has the ability to make me laugh. May I quote you: "thunk". Were you thinking of "skunk"?
Why don't you watch BBC Two 9 o'clock sharp tonight; and make up your own mind?
U
Ursula, I'm watching it now - fascinating programme. There is more to this story than meets the eye. Martin and Steve X should stop being so 'we-are-so-intelligent-and-above-anything-bloggers-like-Roshan-write-about'.
Hi David,it's 10.50 pm, bugger being that I am still none the wiser as to the conspiracy theory.
As to the likes of Martin and Steve, the X, maybe they'd like to purge and redeem themselves by writing their own blog.
U
Ursula,
Martin was writing a blog long before Roshan.
http://martinmullaney.blogspot.com/
I await your rude response.
E.
Emma, rude, moi? Most certainly not. If you felt ticked off by me the other day I apologize.
Sloppy writing is one of my pet hates, and if anyone can explain to me why anything goes as soon as people use modern technology I'd be grateful. Emma, I myself am certainly not beyond reproach and, considering the amount of words I churn out every day, mistakes are bound to snake their way in. So, no offence meant.
As to "rude": Why not go over the past few weeks of Roshan's blog. Let's leave the man himself aside since he appears to be used to soft tomatoes and foul eggs flying round his ears, but I have to say I have never encountered as much rudeness to me, a mere commentator on a blog, than I have here. Maybe it's a Birmingham thing. Let me know if you have any thoughts on the subject.
Thanks for the link; I'll check it out.
U
Ah, Emma, you're right. Councillor Martin Mullaney does indeed have a blog - but sadly, not a sole comment from a reader. That's how exciting his blog is...!
I don't usually comment to blogs but, Ursula, you are so holier than thou. Why don't you get your own blog, then you can criticise your own ‘commenters’, be as rude as you like and the rest of us mere mortals can be left in piece to enjoy Roshan's postings without fear of your tedious interference
Just to get your goat, Terry: "holier-than-thou' is spelt/spelled with hyphens; but then English is not my mother tongue, so maybe I care more for the finer details of the language than many a native.
Terry, if you want a fight you can have one - under two conditions: Give me one example of when I have been rude during the relatively short time I have been commenting on this blog; the one time I might have overstepped the mark, to Emma, I apologized for. Then count the number of times the good people of Birmingham have been offensive to me, and wanting me off their precious blog. I didn't realise Roshan and his opinions were a piece of property to be fought over.
"Tedious interference"? Don't make me laugh, Terry: You are enjoying every minute of it. Incidentally, as I have asked a couple of your fellow commentators who turned on me, what's YOUR opinion on Roshan's piece? I am sure it'd make excellent reading and be very instructive indeed.
I have recommended before: Why not just skip any "Ursula said", thus allowing you to enjoy Roshan's postings in the privacy of your own narrow-mindedness.
Oh, yes, and before I forget, I'll let you into a secret: The Birmingham Post is actually paying me for filling blank spaces.
U
I would like to take this opportunity to stress that no one is paid to comment on The Birmingham Post blogs.
All comments are voluntary. To pay someone to comment would go against the spirit of the project.
It may be possible that The Birmingham Post pays Ursula to write for the newspaper in a freelance capacity, although her name is not recognised by our heads of department.
However, as it is likely that Ursula is using a pseudonym on the blogs, it is impossible for me to confirm or deny her claim.
Joanna.
Do we add 'fibber' to the list, or was this claim to being paid to respond just a little white lie to spice things up (Roshan Doug style). And by the way (with or without hyphens) you make assumptions that you are the only non-native reader. (Several points /issues here for you to get your teeth into Ursula as you clearly have to get the last word.)
Terry, you may breathe a sigh of relief: This will be my last word.
Dear Joanna, the elusive one I have been trying to contact after your news editor told me, when phoning him a couple of weeks ago, that you are in charge of BP's blogs: Sorry if I alarmed you. I herewith confirm that the Birmingham Post does not pay anyone commenting on their blogs.
Ursula is not a pseudonym. It is my name. I don't play hide and seek, and I am happy to stand by anything I say or write.
And, Joanna, you are more than welcome to my surname, email address and telephone number. Should you ever wish for impartial advice on how to get the BP's blogs shipshape please let me know. I'll do it for free.
On a parting shot, fellow commentators - and some of you have had something interesting to say: When God created England and, in an idle moment, sprinkled the isle with its famed sense of humour, he must have been distracted when he came to certain pockets of Birmingham.
U
Ursula,
Please feel free to email me at any time: joanna.geary@birminghampost.net.
Joanna.
Why has my innocuous comment on the BBC been 'held for moderation'?
videl said:
Ah, Emma, you're right. Councillor Martin Mullaney does indeed have a blog - but sadly, not a sole comment from a reader. That's how exciting his blog is...!
and Martin then said:
I do accept that my blog is a bit dour. I focus my thoughts on the Stirrer messageboard - see www.thestirrer.co.uk
Roshan Doug said:
Thank you for your comments, Martin. The article was intended as a preview piece for tonight's BBC programme on conspiracy theories relating to 9/11. I'm sorry you didn't feel it reached the Post's standard of journalism and clarity... I will endeavour to write more clearly. But, Martin, ol' boy, I hope, as a local Lib-Dem activist, you weren't simply compelled to write - and put me in my place - because I have a healthy disdain and cynicism towards politicians...
and Martin then replied:
Fair enough about the BBC programme. With regards to a healthy disdain and cynicism towards politicians. Again, fair enough, nothing wrong with that, although I would suggest using scepticism instead cynicism. Cynicism suggests you will think ill come what may.
JOANNA GEARY: please, please don't let this arrogant woman loose on your humble but highly readable site. We can do without her sorting us out.
Good grief! What on earth is going on here? It's ego induced. And honestly, it's like some shameless reality programme! Come on, people - stop it. Let's get back to the essence of my post which was, should we take conspiracy theorists seriously? Now contribute without resorting to personality assassination. Many years ago, I used to be a teacher. If you don't behave, I will have to give you lines: make you write a hundred times, 'I will be nice to readers who don't share my view point.'
Thank you, Martin, for pointing out the difference between cynicism and scepticism. How terribly nice of you.
Roshen, I have done a lot of study on 9/11, on the role of Leo Strauss had on PNAC, Wolfowitz, and upon their amoralism. My father was Jewish and I am adopted.
Jews should not go around lining their pockets while lying to the masses. That is exactly what Leo Strauss, an atheistic Zionist taught. PNAC called for an event, and got 9/11.
Wolfowitz, a PNAC member, planned the Iraq War and lied about WMD. Vince Bugliosi who prosecuted Charles Manson has said Bush was a murderer and he can prove it. Google it. You won't see it in the cartel press, the lying mainstream press.
If you go to my site, http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com and look at the tags, like Bush Liar, 9/11, WTC7, etc you will see a lot of information about why there had to be explosives in the towers. I hope you take the time to do so. Thanks for your brave article Roshan.
"A simple trawl through the internet will explain why building 7 collapsed even though it was not hit by a plane"
I've been trawling the internet for years and more to the point trawling the hundreds of pages in the official reports for an answer to building 7 - and a hundred other anomalies relating to 9/11, but have yet to discover how it fell the way it did.
The 9/11 Commission Report which was supposed to provide a full and complete investigation of the events of that day makes not a mention of building 7 - as if the total, precipitous and symmetrical collapse of a 47 floor steel-framed tower that suffered limited asymmetrical fires and structural damage was not worthy of comment.
Even more problematic - there is no official scientific explanation. FEMA had a try but concluded they could find no probable hypothesis. NIST were then charged with the job but have postponed their report countless times and to this day it remains unpublished.
Anyone who takes the time to study the videos can see there is a huge problem here.
It is refreshing to read Roshan's post that refrains from the usual ad hominem cries of "conspiracy theorist" - the technique invariably employed by mainstream media to dissuade anyone from doing their own research. The fact that the official story about 9/11 is a conspiracy theory with almost no evidentiary basis is conveniently ignored - and of course unrecognised by those who still believe the mainstream media supplies uncompromised, objective investigative journalism.
The BBC's Conspiracy Files and Building 7 programme were carefully crafted works of yellow journalism. Their purpose was not to seriously explore the issues, but to prevent you from doing so yourself.
Turn off the TV, put your newspaper down. Believe it or not - the internet for all its reputation as an unreliable source - is the best means of access to information unmoderated and uncensored by state and commercial interests. Books come a close second.
http://www.historycommons.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/