The General Discussion Thread

[Publish Date updated to restore to front page]

Okay as an experiment here it is. Discuss your favourite generals here!

Well perhaps… Really this is simply the place to post news-items, fun-items or whatever takes your fancy. In short just post what you want here.

It’s just another wee experiment – comments welcome.


[Image: General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett (Stephen Fry)]

17,284 thoughts on “The General Discussion Thread

  1. With the Thames flood barrier going up and down like a yoyo at the moment, I noticed this.

    Future use of the barrier

    As sea level rises, the Thames Barrier will have to close more frequently to prevent overtopping of the flood defences upstream of the barrier.

    The risk of the barrier failing is increased the more it is closed, and frequent closures will affect the maintenance regime.

    The current recommendation of the Thames Estuary 2100 project is to set 50 as the maximum number of times the barrier should close each year. This will reduce the chance of it failing to UNACCEPTABLE levels. This is a key constraint in the Thames tidal defence system and reaching this figure will mean we will need to intervene and improve the tidal defence system.

    The page hasn’t been updated for a few weeks so doesn’t have the most recent closures. The Thames flood barrier was raised this morning, is open now and will be raised again this evening. They can’t keep up two closures a day for ever…

    But rest assured the Environment Agency is working to reduce the risk of failure to UNACCEPTABLE levels. Freudian slip?

  2. Mary,

    Yes WordPress thinks the comments are on page 2 when they are actually on Page 3. usually gets back in sync after a few comments on the new page. It is some interaction between the spam filter and comments initially queued for moderation I think that causes it to get confused about the page later comments are actually on. I haven’t really tried to track it down. Let’s see if this comment is enough to convince it we are on page 3 now.

  3. 11 February 2014, 22:01
    UK nuclear clean-up guilty of weak management – MPs

    The Public Accounts Committee of Britain’s House of Commons has issued a scathing report into the companies cleaning up the country’s biggest nuclear plant, Sellafield.

    The PAC says the consortium that includes American company NMP, has missed targets, let costs escalate to “astonishing” levels and is guilty of weak management.

    VoR’s Vivienne Nunis spoke to John Large, an independent nuclear consultant.
    Read more:

  4. AlcAnon, 3:16 pm

    Commercial companies beefing up their encryption and going dark to routine monitoring might be what really has TPTB furious with Snowden.

    Yes, that seems likely.

  5. Mary, Sellafield:

    “The total cost of decommissioning, which will be borne by UK taxpayers, is now considered to be in excess of £70 bn”

    You know the story, I suppose. The UK developed Magnox and the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGR), and exported the technology across the world. The fuel assemblies were to be supplied by Britain, and the “spent” fuel returned for reprocessing at Sellafield. This was supposed to make a profit; critics claimed it turned the UK into the world’s “nuclear dustbin”.

    £70 bn, but they’re not prototyping one single Molten Salt Reactor, the device that potentially digests nuclear “waste” while producing electricity:

    Wow! I Googled “amster concept” (“AMSTER” = Actinides Molten Salt TransmutER) and the .pdf on my own web space came up as the second entry! Unfortunately, the link is broken as I’ve tidied up my web-space, and Google presumably hasn’t crawled my site since then:

  6. “Web search engines and some other sites use Web crawling or spidering software to update their web content or indexes of others sites’ web content. Web crawlers can copy all the pages they visit for later processing by a search engine that indexes the downloaded pages so that users can search them much more quickly”

  7. Mary, that paper was presented at the Physor 2000 conference, Pittsburgh USA in May 2000. Development of the AMSTER concept was begun in response to a law passed by the French parliament in December 1991. EdF and the CEA had studied the Molten Salt Reactor in the ’70s, using Weinberg’s results obtained at the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the late ’60s.

    There was never any need to produce nuclear “waste” – I know I keep banging on about this, but how can it be called “waste” when the whole disposal problem is due to this “waste” in fact being 98% unused?

    According to that paper AMSTER can even burn U238, otherwise known as depleted uranium. Had Weinberg been listened to instead of sacked, MSR technology would have developed alongside PWRs and BWRs, burning their “waste” and quickly rendering them redundant altogether. Instead, half a century later, we now have hundreds of PWRs and BWRs, hundreds of tonnes of “waste” and not one single MSR, not even a prototype.

    Commercialism and Short-termism. All that was ever lacking was the political will.

  8. Mary, I don’t think I can say what a Google Crawler looks like, but Squonk might be able to tell you what sort of tracks it leaves in the server logs.

  9. The Davey Crockett nuke was one of Ted Taylor’s designs. Together with the backpack variant they are normally listed as the smallest nukes the US ever made. However Ted Taylor went on to design scalable nukes for the Orion nuclear spaceship project. In at least one interview he appeared to confirm that they actually manufactured and tested a miniaturised. design based on the Orion work (Taylor went to work directly in the Pentagon after leaving Orion). Although there has been much obfuscation since it seems to me that available evidence suggests that practical nukes very., very much smaller than the Davey Crockett or backpack nukes do actually exist.

    Ted Taylor left the Pentagon in the mid 60s and went on to become strongly opposed to further nuclear weapons development and later also civilian nuclear power. He believed there were many ways he knew of to create catastrophic situations with civilian nuclear plants and that building viable small nukes was a far simpler thing to do (using civilian fuel cycles) than much of the open literature suggested. He spent a considerable part of his life trying to come up with a “safe” civilian fuel cycle and came to the conclusion that there wasn’t one. The only place for nuclear he said was out in space away from the planet.

    I recommend The Curve of Binding Energy: A Journey into the Awesome and Alarming World of Theodore B. Taylor

    Towards the end of his life Taylor campaigned against the National Ignition Facility fusion research. Taylor also claimed that it was possible to build pure fusion bombs (he claimed to know how) and that civilian (and/or dual purpose military) fusion research was in serious danger of stumbling upon something, perhaps already known but most highly classified, with extremely dangerous ramifications. As Taylor was the chief designer of US fusion boosted fission bombs he possibly knew exactly what it was he feared and wasn’t just guessing…

    Freeman Dyson On Ted Taylor

    Freeman Dyson said of Taylor, “Very few people have Ted’s imagination. … I think he is perhaps the greatest man that I ever knew well. And he is completely unknown.”

  10. A 1996 article by Ted Taylor calling for a renewable energy based future.

    Personally I’d like to think Taylor was wrong and that we can come up with “safe enough” fission or fusion power given resource constraints. I remain highly dubious however but I am sure we could at least do a lot better than current operating designs. Sadly Taylor never answered in full detail (as far as I know) why he rejected certain proposed reactor types and fuel cycles as he said there were things best left unsaid (or he couldn’t say if not already in the public domain).

  11. Mary,

    Actually there’s a specific Pugwash transcript of his I was trying to find. I know I saw it on the net at one time but search engines are drawing a blank just now.

    Taylor had his own web site and blog starting in the 90s but he shut it down after 9/11 and it doesn’t seem to be archived anywhere. Taylor had previously described how terrorists could use mini nukes to bring down the twin-towers. When the twin-towers fell in reality he pulled his website never to return.

  12. Clark, Mary Here’s a log entry for the Google Bot – – [12/Feb/2014:19:37:12 +0000] “GET /blog/2014/01/20/the-general-discussion-thread/ HTTP/1.1” 200 12479 “-” “Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +”

    So it just looks like any normal page access, identifying the browser as Googlebot.

  13. Flood Prediction Nonsense.

    Even though Homeland Security would probably prefer it be not public, the US still produces flood forecast maps from weather models for public consumption. The UK will also have maps with reasonably reliable projected river levels from Met Office models at least up to 4 days ahead.

    So where are they (at least for public consumption)?

  14. A595 northbound between Sellafield Visitor Centre and A5086 | Congestion

    Lovely weather I imagine they are having there.

    So nobody else wonders? I guess so many people just decided to visit the UK’s biggest nuclear mess “Visitor Centre”, during one of the UK’s forecast most damaging storms impacting the site, that it overwhelmed the roads then?

  15. Yeah I wondered, but I only just got here. Where the Hell do you find enough traffic to form congestion in that bit of Cumbria?

  16. Hmpf. Well the Twin Towers didn’t appear to be brought down by mini-nukes. I suppose the similarity between Taylor’s idea and the actual collapses just freaked him out.

    If there is something really dangerous lurking in classified nuclear physics, it’ll be rediscovered by civilian academia eventually.

    I found this, deleted from Taylor’s Wikipedia page in 2007:

    He’s credited with the coolest use of a nuclear weapon after using the reflected thermal pulse of a nuclear blast to light a cigarette at one of the atomic bomb tests.

    Someone repeatedly vandalised his page in 2006 and 2009, replacing sourced material with insults. The page was nominated for deletion at one point. It’s a very short page for someone Freeman Dyson called “the greatest man that I ever knew well”.

  17. Clark,

    The strange thing about the towers was that he described in advance in the book how to make them collapse down on themselves pretty much exactly as they did after the planes hit. He returned to the subject (still prior to the attack though) in more detail in a Pugwash talk (I can no longer find) IIRC. Something about heat transmission through the supporting cylinder – heat pulse demolition nukes.

    No I’m not saying that’s what happened on 9/11. Fission product and other measurements after the event rule out a fission bomb (but appear to just leave open the possibility of a pure fusion, or near enough, bomb though interestingly enough).

  18. Btw yes, Taylor did famously light a cigarette using a nuclear bomb. No idea why that has been deleted from Wikiepdia as it is documented in several sources.

  19. Clark,

    If there is something really dangerous lurking in classified nuclear physics, it’ll be rediscovered by civilian academia eventually

    . (Asimov)

    Araman reveals that the government chronoscopy agency, far from suppressing scientific research out of blind authoritarianism, was trying to protect the people in the only way they knew how.

  20. I thought about the collapses of the Twin Towers a lot, and read a whole lot of web pages, before I finally decided I didn’t have a problem with the way they collapsed. A “tube within a tube” design, relatively lightly connected between the inner tube and the outer by the floor structures, with several storeys-worth of debris falling onto those floors, accumulating, effectively pushing outwards on the outer tube, stripping it outwards so that the outer sections would fall, just like we saw. That it all ended up in two fairly compact piles I attribute to the relative slender shape of the buildings.

    I have more of a problem with Building Seven, for various reasons. But the main event was over by then anyway.

    But I have big problems with non-detection of the alleged hijackers (or rather the blockage of the reports about them from higher levels), and the non-interception of the airliners, and the utter vulnerability of the entire USA while most of its air force was up around the Arctic Circle. Who the Hell authorises a decision like that? What if the Russians had attacked? You just don’t send nearly your entire air force away on manoeuvres simultaneously; what a crazy decision.

    And I have big problems with the internal ructions within the 9/11 Commission (Acts I & II), Cheney and Bush’s unsworn and secret testimony, and those redacted pages concerning the Saudi princes. And in any case, Saudi Arabia is a US ally and the alleged perpetrators, Al Qaeda, are effectively proxy US forces.

    9/11 was an “inside job” all right, but that doesn’t mean the US government did it. It was an “inside job” like a bank robbery aided by a small group within the staff. Add to that what we’ve learned since about the outrageously lax security of US government and corporate computer systems (Booz Hamilton etc., key-logger malware at Drone Control Virginia). I reckon it was mainly a corporate operation.

  21. Mary, grief, you wouldn’t think it would be too complicated just to open the fence a bit and let them go, would you? That’s not a cull; culling is to control population, not a mere convenience measure. It’d be far better to just let them out. As soon as they shoot the first one the others will panic, and they’re all trapped within the fences.

    Probably the authorities are actually worried that the deer might be contaminated but they don’t want to admit it.

  22. “A “tube within a tube” design, relatively lightly connected between the inner tube and the outer by the floor structures”

    Don’t understand this remark. What makes you think the inner and outer tubes were “relatively lightly connected”? They were very strongly connected by thousands of steel supporting beams. They had to be in order to withstand the enormous wind load on buildings of that size. Perhaps you are confusing the supporting beams, which maintained the structural integrity of the building, with the lightweight floor trusses, which provided no structural support whatsover and only had to bear the weight of people and office equpment. FEMA’s Building Performance Study of 2002 first introduced the floor truss distraction but this has long since been discredited.

    If WTC had relied on the floor trusses for lateral support the buildings would have collaped after the first decent gale. In fact they were designed to withstand a 120-year hurricane.

  23. “…with several storeys-worth of debris falling onto those floors, accumulating, effectively pushing outwards on the outer tube, stripping it outwards so that the outer sections would fall, just like we saw”

    We didn’t see anything of the sort. What we saw was the whole building – concrete and steel alike – being converted to dust, floor by floor, top to bottom, at almost freefall speed. That dust was projected outwards and upwards forming the vast plumes that could be seen from space.

    Ground Zero did not comprise “compact piles” of rubble; it comprised a vast pit of dust. Workers involved in the clear up reported finding no piece of rubble larger than a house brick. It was just dust.

    If you’re looking for evidence of micro-nukes or some other high energy explosive it lies in the dust. Think of how much energy would be required to transform all that concrete and steel uniformly into dust, within the space of 15 seconds or so. Consider whether a few thousand litres of kerosene and a bit of gravity could provide enough.

  24. I know it’s Winter but it is so depressing.

    Met Office UK forecast
    Day 1 to 5 Turning wet and windy on Friday with snow in places.

    This Evening and Tonight: Winds will ease and showers will clear except from western Scotland leaving plenty of clear spells. This will lead to a slight frost and ice in places. However, rain and strong winds will reach southwest England by morning.

    Friday: Heavy rain will move northwards across the UK giving some snow in parts of the north. It will become very windy again too, with severe gales later in the south.

    Outlook for Saturday to Monday: Strong winds, with severe gales in the south, and rain will gradually ease on Saturday leaving a drier day on Sunday with sunshine and isolated showers. Further rain on Monday.

    UK Outlook for Tuesday 18 Feb 2014 to Thursday 27 Feb 2014:
    Although some rain may affect the east at first, Tuesday is likely to be largely dry and settled with some sunshine. Similar conditions should persist into Wednesday before more rain reaches the west later. It will be rather cold with the risk of frost and ice, although winds will be generally light. Thereafter, there is likely to be a return to more unsettled weather as rainbands spread east but conditions are not expected to be as stormy as recent weeks. With temperatures near or slightly below normal generally, snow is possible at times, mainly across northern areas. Winds will increase to strong, with gales around western coasts. Between frontal systems, it will turn more settled with a greater chance of frost and ice.

    UK Outlook for Friday 28 Feb 2014 to Friday 14 Mar 2014:
    Current indications point towards unsettled conditions persisting for much of this period but not as extreme as recently. The most likely scenario would see northwestern parts of the UK affected by the most frequent spells of unsettled and windy weather. Meanwhile southern and eastern regions should tend to see longer spells of drier and brighter weather than previous weeks, although still with some periods of rain. Temperatures are likely to be close to or slightly above the seasonal average, but with some colder periods possible, and the risk of local frost and ice, and hill snow, especially in the north.

  25. One thing that still puzzles me about the the towers was the excess tritium found at the site afterwards. The “official” theory is that it came from illuminated signs on the two planes and possibly night-sights for weapons stored on site. I’ve never really totally bought that as the measured concentrations seemed too high. The tritium discovery was announced fairly early on IIRC.

  26. Squonk, I’ve no idea about tritium concentrations; can you expound a bit? Like, what sort of things result in what sort of concentrations?

    Tritium is associated with nuclear fusion, of course, and its a minor reaction product from nuclear fission. But it has the same chemistry as hydrogen and fairly similar physical properties – so I’d expect it either to combine with oxygen or to diffuse away pretty swiftly.

  27. Interesting debate Guys…. i’ve read up a lot on all of this… but for sure i agree with MJ … none of the three towers came down Pan-cake style… the speed would have been much reduced if so…and also there may have been a very real toppling sideways of one or both Twin Towers… its also well documented that the towers were designed to withstand Larger jetliner impacts – more fuel – fires, traveling at higher speeds….

    also there is evidence of nano thermite in the dust, and molten metal for weeks after 9/11.

    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, are among some great sources of info

    and one of my fave sites on it all –

  28. MJ, there were big sections of the outer structure falling; I’ve seen it on some of the videos. But yes, a lot of dust was produced almost instantly. I’ve just watched a few videos looking for the falling debris but there are lots of clips, and in the ones I watched you wouldn’t have seen the falling pieces because of all the dust. But in the clip I remember you could see these big lumps precisely because they were falling faster than the building was collapsing*, and thus keeping clear of the descending dust cloud.

    * I think it might have been a clip that Angrysoba linked to, to make his point that the collapse wasn’t as fast as free-fall.


    “the speed would have been much reduced if so”

    I don’t think there was much margin for such a possibility. A collapse could either accelerate leading to complete destruction, or decelerate in which case it would have stopped short of the ground. OK, there is a range of critical collapse rates between uniform velocity and decelerating to a stop just at ground level, but my guess is that this is a pretty narrow window. It seems inevitable that a slow collapse would stop short of the ground.

    I don’t think there was much chance of toppling, either. Remember, the towers were mostly hollow. As soon as the top disconnected from the bottom, the steel beams were no longer supporting the top, so there was no fulcrum for the top to hinge about – the top was falling, and things don’t fall sideways unless thrown or pushed. The top essentially fell into the (mostly) empty space beneath it, rather than the top falling onto the rest of the building. It’s very easy to think of buildings as solid, but they’re mostly just full of air.

    Whatever. There were only two buildings like that and they’re both gone. The only way to really convince the public would be to build a significant sample of identical buildings and simulate the impact damage and fires. If we thereby discovered that explosives or whatever were necessary, that still doesn’t tell us who set the charges. We’d still need to know how the Hell two aircraft remained unintercepted. Cheney and Bush would still have avoided sworn testimony, there would still be pages redacted from the 9/11 commission report, and Sibel Edmonds would still be legally gagged.

  29. I went to a talk in London at the RIBA headquarters given by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers which was amazing for the amount of fact and information he provided.

    In the back row was Aaronovitch scribbling away and working on his smartphone. You know how he labels dissenters and disbelievers of the NWO doctrine as ‘conspiracy theorists’. I never checked to see what he wrote afterwards.

    All I know is that following 9/11 the evil of Afghanistan and Iraq flowed and think how many times you hear of it as justification for removing each of our freedoms and liberties one by one. Terrrrrrrism is the watchword.

    PS Remember how fast the debris was removed to a waste dump and disappeared.

    Just a little hole in the ground for the missing flight and the crash at ground level into the Pentagon was literally unbelievable.

    Clark I have never understood why Craig virtually squelched an open discussion about it. Similarly Medialens who diverted it to some forum which when I went to look yesterday, is not available!

  30. I agree Mary, I can only explain it in a way that Craig might have wanted to keep out some of the more conspiratorial adversaries, but now, after 13 years this should not bother us anymore, or should it?

    I think the evidence removal and instant disposal, claiming that they had get NY back to normality, was a sop of sorts, if the ‘event’ was really was that ground breaking and history changing, then all efforts should have been made to understand what happened, grief does not come into it.

    But thats what is was initially, all grief and poor us, whilkst two plane’s full of Saudi were flown out of a national no fly zone. Everything about the event stinks, the signs beofre it happened were ignored, despite the hightened alerts, thdespite them knowing for ten years that flying airliners into skyscrapers was on the radar, the Bojinka plot made that obvious.

    Why did General myers, when the event was reported tol him, go back into a meeting with a lower ranking officer talking about a manouvre they were undertaking? why did he not order the fighter jets at Edwards AFB to scramble? Did he knew what was going to happen to the Pentagon?

    I have no doubt that the evidence will eventually be out and that this event was planned, an inside job to bring the whole world out behind and in support of a wider resource war in the middle east, a spreading of chaos, a division of territory, so aptly reported by Gen Wesley Clark.

    Building 7 should have been damaged, but not explode and burn down, holding all the evidence of US fraud that ever occured and was recorded there.

    What were those lorries delivering in the early mornings, some days before it happened, have the CCTV pictures showing them unload tons of equipment been analised or have they disappeared as well, all unanswered questions, but the digging continues.

  31. “there were big sections of the outer structure falling”

    Yes, there seemed to be but it was all dust by the time it hit the ground. There is one remarkable shot where we briefly see a sizeable section of the steel core still standing as the building collapses around it but it just seems to evaporate to nothing before our eyes. It’s as though it had aleady been turned to dust but was briefly retaining its form, like a sand castle or a block of talcum powder.

    “A collapse could either accelerate leading to complete destruction, or decelerate in which case it would have stopped short of the ground”

    The dangers of a pancake style collapse of tall buildings have been well understood since the outset. That’s why, by law, all tall buildings have reinforced layers every few floors whose purpose is to arrest such a collapse. That’s why buildings never collapse like that other than by demolition. Those reinforced levels have to be disabled otherwise the collapse comes to an abrupt halt.

    Given that in the case of WTC we see each floor in turn being turned into dust and sent outwards and upwards into the air, it is particularly difficult to explain, without recourse to explosives, what made the lower floors (which had suffered no damage) give way in the manner that they did. The load bearing down on them was diminishing by the second as the floors above them became airborne. Even without the reinforced sections the collapse should have soon run out of steam.

  32. Amazing that they want to find out about the creation of the Universe on the one hand, yet on the other create mayhem on this part of it, Planet Earth.

    ‘UK backs huge US neutrino plan
    By Pallab Ghosh
    Science correspondent, BBC News, Chicago

    US researchers have given details of a plan for one of the biggest physics experiments ever built.

    Scientists at Fermilab, just outside Chicago, want to fire a beam of particles called neutrinos through 1,300km (800 miles) of rock some 30km below the surface.

    The experiment’s aim is to learn more about how the Universe was created.’

  33. Not mentioned by the BBC Mary is that the experiment will be of interest to the military. Nuclear reactors emit neutrinos and you can detect nuclear submarines with appropriately placed detector networks. You can also potentially signal a submarine using neutrinos. Both sending data and detecting nuclear subs have already been demonstrated.

    There was a proposal in India by two of their leading physicists (I’ve linked their names to their current positions below so you can see what I mean) that they should build a neutrino detector network to principally look for nuclear submarines. Intriguingly the paper also suggested that India was aware of some kind of extremely stealthy vehicle that sometimes crossed Indian air-space at great altitude. For reasons not explained in the paper it seems it was known to emit neutrinos and they could track it with the detector network as well. Most peculiar.

    Neutrino Radar

    Prasanta K. Panigrahi and Utpal Sarkar
    Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad 380 009, India
    School of Physics, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, 500046, India

    We point out that with improving our present knowledge of experimental neutrino physics it will be possible to locate nuclear powered vehicles like submarines, aircraft carriers and UFOs and detect nuclear testing. Since neutrinos cannot be shielded, it will not be possible to escape detection. In these detectors it will also be possible to perform neutrino oscillation experiments during any nuclear testing.

    …Since the range of these detectors are expected to be few hundred kms, any nuclear powered aircraft will be within the range of these detectors when they enter our atmosphere in the vicinity of the detectors.

    Even more peculiarly India is now building a neutrino detector but there’s no mention of submarines or neutrino emitting spacecraft now though!

  34. Thanks. I am always amazed at how much information you and others here have stored in your noddles.

    PS Where is Ben?

  35. In one day here the barometric pressure has fallen from 1001mb to 970mb which is the present reading. I have just been out to check on the hens. The moon was out from behind the scudding clouds and suddenly there was a roaring noise through the trees at the bottom of the garden which sounded just like an express train going through. One of those gusts. Majestic but scary. I wish I had a weather station with an anemometer and all the works.

    It has stopped raining!

  36. Clark… Sorry to be so late getting back here on this 9/11, i feel stimulating Debate…

    i believe you are correct that the collapse speed with pancake may not have been much reduced … but only if the core columns were to remain intact…. otherwise ..??? certainly the towers were designed to with -stand larger aircraft…. hotter fires ect

    Here is a video where expert Jim Hoffman talks of such matters

    Nevermind, Mary,… that i must say was the one thing that really sruck me hard about Craig’s views on 9/11…. i always put it down to personal safety….NOW We all Know that Craig is Brave… but always thought that.

  37. Nevermind, February 14, 12:30 pm:

    What were those lorries delivering in the early mornings, some days before it happened, have the CCTV pictures showing them unload tons of equipment been analised or have they disappeared as well

    I never encountered this piece of the puzzle. Please link the most solid evidence you can find.

    Mary, February 14, 10:58 am

    Clark I have never understood why Craig virtually squelched an open discussion about it. Similarly Medialens who diverted it to some forum which when I went to look yesterday, is not available!

    Mary, Craig has a lot of important stuff to say, and 9/11 had a nasty habit of hijacking every thread it touched. So Craig set up the 9/11 thread and said “you can discuss it there, nowhere else”. That seems fair to me.

    Also, read Craig’s 9/11 original post carefully. The only things he explicitly ruled out were “false flag and controlled demolition”. I expect that Craig knows next to nothing about explosives or demolition (not really a diplomat’s field), so he just asked bomb-disposal Frazer and accepted his answer.

    Regarding “false flag”: You have to remember that Craig was a government insider; to Craig, “false flag” would mean that 9/11 was a US official secret. What most people would call “the US government” is not what Craig would mean by the same term. To Craig, government consists of policies, documents, memos, telegrams, scheduled meetings, etc.. Members of the government carrying out non-government activity doesn’t count; compare the Fox and Werrity matter – that’s not government in Craig’s view; he accused Fox and Werrity of “running their own foreign policy” or something similar. In the penultimate sentence of the 9/11 original post, Craig points out that he “doesn’t rule out any number of nefarious actors” or something like that.

    Craig did explicitly describe 9/11 as “blowback”, and I agree. There are these militant Islamists that are called “Al Qaeda” by Western government and media. I sometimes describe these people as “the Western power bloc’s proxy forces”, which in effect they are, but they don’t even know that themselves. They hate the “Great Satan USA” and get their orders from Saudi mullahs, and off they go to fight (or fly planes into buildings) just where it happens to be convenient for “the West”. It’s perfect “plausible deniability”, so perfect that most people never even question it. Look! The West’s enemy, “Al Qaeda”, is currently doing exactly what the West wants done in Syria while the West continues to look innocent. I can’t help but admire the genius of this utterly evil strategy.

    As to Medialens, their media analysis is brilliant, their humanity is humbling, but their technical competence is minimal; maybe they lost the thread by mistake, or someone like Larry from St Louis cracked their server and deleted it out of spite. And remember they’re Buddhists; if the argument got really unpleasant they might have just deleted it to prevent it polluting everyone’s karma.

    MJ, February 14, 1:11 pm

    Given that in the case of WTC we see each floor in turn being turned into dust and sent outwards and upwards into the air, it is particularly difficult to explain, without recourse to explosives, what made the lower floors (which had suffered no damage) give way in the manner that they did.

    I’m guessing, but it seems at least as difficult to explain how you turn that much of a building into dust even with explosives. What’s the range within which an explosive charge can pulverise concrete? Can a charge pulverise steel at all?

    It’s no help telling the public that something completely unknown happened. What everyone saw was that two buildings collapsed, and that’s something people can believe. It doesn’t matter what the physics says. How far are you going to get if you say “the thing you think you saw is actually impossible, and in reality something completely unknown occurred”? You won’t get far trying to convince the general public that the apparently mundane was actually a miracle.

    It’s the direct opposite of stage magic. On stage a clever, hidden process makes it look as if something impossible has happened, but “seeing is believing”. In this case, a clever, hidden process made it look like something expected happened*, how much stronger is the “seeing is believing” effect going to be? (*I realise that the collapses weren’t what you would expect, but the average person does believe that buildings can fall down.)

    Mike Ruppert was right all along. He said “forget the physical evidence. They control it. You’ll never prove anything that way”. He spoke from experience. Here we are, over a decade later, and he’s been proven right. And so is Craig. Remove “Al Qaeda’s” motive, and you stop the ongoing process. That’s what matters. Foreign policy.

  38. Observe Craig’s wisdom. He wrote in his 9/11 post that the construction of the buildings might never have been as good as their actual specification; he cited corruption in the building industry, missing or below-spec components. As soon as the buildings had collapsed, there was no way to prove that one way or the other.

    Craig didn’t say what some people wanted to hear. I suggest you go back and read his 9/11 post again, very carefully. Craig is one of the most intelligent people I’ve ever met. I’ve learned masses from him. Respect.

  39. And what’s the biggest and best thing that could happen to foreign policy?

    Scottish independence.

    Why? Where is the Trident nuclear weapons system? Answer – Scotland. How come the UK has one of the five permanent seats on the UN Security Council? Answer – nukes. Remove Britain from the grouping [USA, UK, France], and suddenly it’s two against the other two – [Russia, China].

    How big a propaganda campaign are we seeing against Scottish independence? If the subsidy to Scotland costs as much as Westminster government says, why the Hell wouldn’t they want rid of Scotland?

    Foreign policy. Nukes. Global power.

  40. Or am I completely wrong and Israel is being groomed as a UNSC member as a replacement for the UK? Nah, unthinkable – I fucking hope. But they have the nukes.

  41. “it seems at least as difficult to explain how you turn that much of a building into dust even with explosives. What’s the range within which an explosive charge can pulverise concrete? Can a charge pulverise steel at all?”

    Very high temperatures can pulverise steel, hence the significance of the thermite discovery. Agree that it ‘s still difficult to explain the collapses even with explosives but it’s not quite as difficult because at least you’ve identified a source of the extra energy required.

    “Observe Craig’s wisdom. He wrote in his 9/11 post that the construction of the buildings might never have been as good as their actual specification; he cited corruption in the building industry, missing or below-spec components. As soon as the buildings had collapsed, there was no way to prove that one way or the other”

    That’s not wisdom, that’s just stating a truism. Anything may not in reality be as good as its specification. Simply citing the possiblity of shoddy materials or workmanship is not proof that that was the case, it’s just speculation.

    One piece of evidence that suggests this speculation may be off the mark is the fact that there was a minor scandal at the time of construction because the builders insisted on importing expensive Japanese steel for the job rather than buying cheaper US steel. This decision was based on quality considerations.

    The suggestion that, once the buildings had collapsed, there was no means of proving how they collapsed is startling. In fact there were very well-established procedures for proving that very thing. It is required by US law that when a building in excess of eight storeys collapses accident investigators must have full access to and control of all the rubble for the purpose of forensic analysis. There is only one occasion in US history when that law has been disregarded and we’re talking about it now.

  42. MJ, it isn’t Craig who has to prove shoddy construction. The buildings went down; it’s those who say that it couldn’t have happened as it seemed to who have the case to make. Sorry, that’s just how it is. OK, so if you’ve proven that the steel was up to the job, then next you have to do the same for the welding, then the concrete, then the fire cladding, on many different sections of a building of thousands of components, on and on and on.

    There is also simple thermodynamics; states of disorder are more likely than states of order. If humanity had just left the Twin Towers unmaintained for enough centuries or millennia, eventually they wouldn’t be there any more. You’re up against the Third Law – forget it.

    Now, if a legal law was transgressed about forensic investigation, that leaves a paper trail. Someone had to make that decision. Many such inconsistencies will have had to be covered up. Wasn’t there a first incarnation of the 9/11 Commission that cried foul, and the Commission had to be reconvened?

    It looks to me like there’s been far too much effort put into studying the collapses, and not nearly enough into fleshing out who would have had to have done what to make it all happen. Who’s done the best research on that?

  43. MJ, that Third Law really is your biggest problem. Everyone knows that if you hit something hard enough it’ll break. You can argue as much as you like that it couldn’t have happened that way, but there are infinitely more ways that things can go wrong than them continuing to go right, and everyone knows that from their personal experience. Everyone knows that things can fail in ways no one had thought of – because if they had been thought of, they wouldn’t have failed, and everything fails eventually. Everyone knows that most things are less reliable than they’re claimed to be. Everyone knows that those buildings were built as tall as they possibly could have been at the time of construction, that they were up near their theoretical limit from the start, so after the initial shock no one is that surprised that they came down.

    You need to find who done it.

  44. “it’s those who say that it couldn’t have happened as it seemed to who have the case to make”

    On the basis of precedent it seemed like a controlled demolition. There are no examples of buildings going down like that that are not controlled demolitions.

    “there’s been far too much effort put into studying the collapses, and not nearly enough into fleshing out who would have had to have done what to make it all happen”

    The reason so much effort is put into studying the collapses is because accident investigators were denied the opportunity to do so. I would have thought it’s useful to know how something was done before you start pointing the finger. It narrows down the list of potential suspects.

  45. I have to say that I think the official collapse story is “plausible” and in that I agree with Clark. I still don’t like the tritium and other oddities though.

    Clark – btw what did you make of the Indian Neutrino radar UFO detector?

  46. Squonk, I haven’t looked at the the Indian Neutrino radar UFO detector yet; won’t be for a while, off dog-walking tomorrow.

    a> Anyone? It’s out; I left half, couldn’t finish it.

    There were a lot of young deer on the road through the woods on my way back; I had to stop and let some cross. The ditches are full up to road level, and there were big puddles, bits of fallen branches everywhere, trees down (most of them hastily cleared to the side), one tree across half a main road, lots of holes in the road surface (some coned-off) and lots of surface water. One dead animal; a badger, probably. Night night.

  47. Can anyone recommend resources
    describing science based climate change predictions? Surprisingly difficult to find via search.

  48. Regarding the weather: The drains are full to the brim and sewage being pissed into the Thames like there’s no tomorrow. Power cut going on now. Cutting up fallen trees with wood working tools cause nothing else available in central London.

    p.s. The rumour down the pub is that central London buildings are collapsing lately because of lead robbing!

  49. Clark, weed and 4am is a heady combination for gentlemen of our age. I’m also walking the dog. But it’s a ten minute job when you have an old chihuahua sized mongrel with three legs.

  50. Mornin’ Phil! I like your new frog. I won’t go looking for climate change data for a while, but I’d start at Wikipedia and follow links; there are several climate change articles on Wikipedia, all extensively referenced. You could also try the Open Directory Project (I think), but I haven’t looked there. You could try CRU, Anglia University. There are also lots of climate science blogs. Try Tallbloke’s blog; he’s a climate contrairian, I think, but he comments on and links to the stuff he’s contrarian about, if you see what I mean… Still a bit early for me after last night…

  51. Thanks for the response Clark. I am starting to trawl through the links from your suggestions. It might take some time. The possibilities from Wikipedia and DMOZ will take weeks to look at just by themselves.

    Considering the amount of web space and arguing dedicated to climate change, I had assumed a site collating science based predictions into a bite sized meta-study summary type of thing would be readily available. I find it bizarre it is not immediately to hand. If anyone has such a resource (or anything they consider reliable about predictions) please post it. In such a propaganda ridden subject of which I know little any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

    My question was sparked by a comment from Glenn_UK on CM’s blog. He linked to “Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet” Wikipedia page. If you are not familiar with this here is a summary article. The predictions therein claim to be well researched and science based, and are truly terrifying in an end of the world type of way. They must be nonsense because no one seems at all concerned.

    So I am surprised there is not a world of prediction data nicely summarised for us plebs.

  52. Thanks Squonk and Clark, will look at those climate change links tomorrow. I’ve just popped by to add to the 911 discussion. My first ever 911 comment. I know sweet fanny adams about 911 but in most matters I find Robin Ramsay credible:

    Ramsay writes about a recent US judgement that may see Saudi involvement discussed in court. He reports the speculation is the Saudis did a deal with Bin Laden and then tried to double cross him but were not taken seriously.

  53. Phil, yes, named, powerful Saudis involved in 9/11 – but it repeatedly gets covered up. There were law suits in the US; were they settled out of court or something? There were suits going to happen in London, but were somehow put to a stop. There’s a book, and at least one thread at educationforum somewhere-or-other. And some people are betting that the same names appear in the material redacted from the 9/11 Commission Report.

  54. I said earlier that the NWO evil flowed from 9/11 (Iraq and Afghanistan, The War on Terror) which says to me that it was a false flag. Remember the Liberty and also what is now being said about the truth of Pearl Harbour.

    9/11 is continually used as a reminder that we have terror and terrorists. Never any mention of who is creating the real terror. 2,000 people died in NY. How many millions have been killed by the US and its allies since in the name of the so called War on Terror?

    A case in point. Just now on BBC1, we heard Frank Gardiner, the Spook of Spooks, say ..’We just don’t have hijacked aircraft any more since 9/11…..’ speaking with incredulity of the Ethiopian Airlines jet which has now landed at Geneva.

  55. An Anthology of American Exceptionalism
    by Ludwig Watzal / February 16th, 2014

    “Today no American is safe from his own government”, writes Paul Craig Roberts in his introduction to his new book on How America was Lost: From 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State (Clarity Press, 2014). To anticipate the essence of the book: The greatest threat to the freedom of the American people comes from their own government and not from an imaginary terrorist threat. This alarmist rhetoric serves as a pretext for America’s wars of aggression.

    In his anthology, Roberts provides convincing arguments that the US has become a rogue state. According to him, “America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media.” Without the willful collaboration not only of the US media but also by its international outlets the fabricated 9/11 narrative could have never become so widely believed, despite its obvious flaws and innumerable contradictions. According to Roberts, this could only happen because “there is no free press in America (except for Internet sites)”.


    We will never know the truth on 9/11 of course.

  56. I have been looking at those links and am even more bemused.

    There is Masses and masses of info telling me climate change is really happening. Quite a bit explaining how great models are at projections. But no projections.

    The IPCC 2013 report boasts that it contains projections of global and regional climate change for the 21st century in a format suitable for a broader audience. This is said on many articles about the report. But where are these projections in an easy format?

    So what have I found?

    -One IPCC prediction is a 90% chance that the earth will warm by 1.7° between 1990 and 2100

    That’s it. That’s all I could find. And what does even this one prediction mean? What are the possible consequences of a further .7° rise (we have already done 1°)? 90% chance sounds reassuring if it means that there is only a 10% chance of anything more catastrophic. Does it mean that? Almost certainly not. But I can find nothing about projections for greater rises in temperature.

    ‘Six Degrees’ seems to be the only easily digestible summary of the scientific projections out there. If the projections therein are hysterical why has no one produced a counter argument in an “easy format”? As they claim they have!

    Now I think I am OK at searching for information. I am amazed clear information is not readily available. What is going on? Am I simply failing to find this stuff? Please let me know what you find.

  57. Mary February 17, 2014 at 8:34 am
    “We will never know the truth on 9/11 of course.”

    Can we be certain we know the truth about Pearl Harbour or the Liberty even now? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Not the detail that is craved. But maybe we know enough. You and I know Mary, and everyone else who cares to look, we all know our leaders are lying killers who need dethroning. How much do we need to know?

    When does craving detail and repeatedly arguing detail become a distraction from acting upon what we already know?

  58. Continued form above…

    I ask sincerely after reading the comments on CM’s blog. An endless circle of a small number of people bickering amongst themselves as if it mattered. Intelligent, caring folk bogged down in a trench warfare that no one else cares about. No one is listening to each other. No one is changing an opinion. How many times do you want to argue about the Dresden body count?

    What if you are all trapped by one troll? What a waste of time and energy.

    I know I have done it as well. But like a tv soap opera maybe we only recognise it’s stupidity once we have distanced ourselves a little.

  59. Continued from above…

    How many times do you want to be insulted by a wanker you do not know?

    Sorry for sounding off. But I have no idea what the reasonable commentators at CM’s blog think they are achieving. Really no idea. I suggest the internet can be a trap of inaction. Caught indignantly trading insults instead of doing something useful. I notice even John has resorted to endless insults. John! Sofias genius surreal humour has become tired. Clark’s unbelievable ability to be reasonable is laughed at. Mary’s one woman information service is buried under insult after insult. And of course most interesting commentators have simply ceased. All of this is understandable. But it seems the lack of willing to accept a troll (with, I suggest, Craigs complicity) has trashed commenting on that one blog stops people from moving on to something productive.

    Perhaps we have become digital crack whores*, on our knees sucking the digital dick of one smug troll.

    * No offence to crack whores intended. Some of my best friends are crack whores.

  60. Maybe it’s just in the nature of people to bicker, and insult, Phil. Particularly when it can be done with near anonymity. It always surprises me that the left/right lean of an individual can so neatly predict their position on just about everything, even when it’s not obviously a distinction between an item being in the interests of the rich/ the common man.

    But basically I’m forced to agree – why would reasonably intelligent people waste so much time and mental effort, arguing the toss with others who will never be convinced of the time of day? The argument back in the Usenet days was that there existed a vast army of “lurkers”, studying all the BS, blather and slanging with great interest, picking through this dubious wisdom in order to arrive at their own conclusion.

    I never believed that for a moment either.

    All the same, it can help test one’s own positions, give it a sanity-test (of sorts), and help develop writing style – which certainly takes a lot of practice. People need something to do, too – look at all the slushy romance and boring “adventure” novels that are read for absolutely no good reason. At least this is interactive.

  61. Glenn_uk February 17, 2014 at 1:20 pm
    “People need something to do, too”

    This is exactly what I found for myself. Commenting had become a hobby. A distraction. A matter of pride.

    While you’re here Glenn. Can you comment on my inability to find easily digestible climate change projections? You presumably trust the “Six Degrees” predictions but don’t you find the lack of clear projections elsewhere odd? Or perhaps you know where they are!

  62. Glenn_uk February 17, 2014 at 1:20 pm
    “…a vast army of “lurkers”, studying all the BS, blather and slanging with great interest, picking through this dubious wisdom in order to arrive at their own conclusion.”

    Good point. I can believe that is exactly what drives many of the reasonable commentators. But there is no need to wonder, the internet can easily answer that question very well. Craig, as an exponent of transparency, should publish the visitor count for comment page 17. Put us all out of our misery!

  63. Phil,

    I’m no climate scientist but here’s my best understanding if it helps.

    It is not actually possible to provide especially detailed forecasts (particularly regional) of climate change projections because we can’t know for certain how major weather systems will be modified (for example possible jet stream collapse, percentage cloud cover). What you can do is say that the earth will warm until incoming solar energy is back in balance with planetary heat loss. Exactly what proportion of that warming ends up in the lower atmosphere, the oceans etc. is a developing science especially as changes to ocean wind patterns change the percentage of heat transferred into the oceans.

    We can also look back through history and calculate the average planetary air temperatures at specific levels of CO2 and use these as a first degree estimate of what will happen in future. In addition It is possible to calculate with some physics the increased heat energy trapped inside the atmosphere by the increased CO2 and use that as a sanity check against historical records.

    It gets very tricky looking at historical records when we are now at CO2 levels which haven’t been seen since the Pliocene millions of years ago when average temperatures were 2-3C higher than today and sea level was 25 metres higher than today. CO2 continues to rise at a rapid pace. But barring some huge new evidence to suggest otherwise it would seem that a 2-3C rise may now be locked in as a minimum response to human created CO2 increase. As we continue to increase CO2 levels there is the risk of creating warming sufficient to release huge amounts of frozen methane which could cause a runaway heating which wouldn’t stop until the planet warmed by perhaps 6C or more. And that would be totally catastrophic.

    And then there’s relatively long term changes such as the gyroscopic precession of the Earth coupled with the positions of land mass. Not to mention relatively short term changes due to fluctuations in solar output. However whatever way I look at the available evidence human forced climate ultimately wins over everything else because it is such a huge forcing. If we are lucky it can be contained. If unlucky we may already be beyond the point of no return for a runaway increase.

  64. Cheers Squonk. Difficult and uncertain as it may be I thought the 2013 IPCC report made such projections. Temps will rise between 1.7-4° and sea levels will rise between 28-98 cm by 2100.

    I guess I am surprised at the seemingly near universal unwillingness to spell out consequences for us plebs. Imagine the UK coastline mapped after 98cm sea level rise. That might focus some minds. Maybe an idea for!

    Squonk, do you think the disastrous consequences as laid out by “Six Degrees” hysterical?

  65. These IPCC projections have quite a wide range and most climate scientists believe them to be likely conservative estimates. The last formal publication was in 2007 but the 2014 report is being prepared now and the first part of the report just released a few months ago. I have to admit I haven’t read these September 2013 releases yet (“Summary for Policy Makers” and “Physical Science Basis”).

    If we were to get runaway warming from feedback loops taking us to 6C or more increase over the course of this century then I do believe the result would be apocalyptic for humanity.

  66. If I am reading it correctly, the 2013 IPCC report also includes regional projections for ‘Policy Makers’. Although I’ll be buggered if I can find them.

    We must also account that the IPCC reports are to be universally agreed by all signatories before release. This must be a bureaucratic and political night mare that guarantees conservative projections.

    EDITED – x posted with your comment Squonk. I found this summary from your link earlier:

    ps I appreciate the time restricted edit function here.

  67. Yes that’s 209P/Linear that could be responsible for an excellent shower – think I mentioned it back on Craig’s blog as being one to watch if we didn’t get hit by something first 🙂

    However given recent disappointments I’m not getting my hopes up too high in advance!

  68. Trying again. I have been busy with several things, AA but have started to make a comment or two @ CM when I can stomach it.

    Do you have any expertise in pure sine wave inverters or 6 volt battery banks?

    I sold my generator to pay for going off-grid on my wind turbine and the tech is daunting for me; a regular mine-field of contradictions with little consensus.

  69. Ben, I have three 500W modified sine wave (really modified square wave it should be called) inverters and a couple of 12v batteries in parallel which I keep topped up throughout the year (trickle charge small solar panel and car battery charger boost occasionally). Every thing in my house runs on the modified sine wave inverters if it is within the power rating. That includes my gas central heating electronics and pump. For my purposes I couldn’t justify the cost of a pure sine wave inverter. My purpose is simply to have power over several hours to a day (or a bit longer than that if I ration it) or so in case someone digs up the incoming underground mains at the end of the street again or to tide me over rolling load-shedding blackouts if they should occur. I wouldn’t expect to survive long off grid unless I started stealing more car batteries…

    Why do I have three inverters? One I bought and the other two I ended up getting for free. (legitimately!)

    Try me with any questions you have. Is it a grid-tied inverter or just a standalone inverter?

  70. What brand and model? Modified, i’ve heard it’s hard on electronic devices, and causes lines on tv. I plan on using it for grid power issues (refrig and freezer and some lighting and electronics) and figure I want something that won’t top out at surge or continuous, so 2000 watt C and 3000 surge is sufficient. I don’t see that much diff between units as to features (most have 2-3 plugs, but very little in the way of read-outs, but vast differences in retail price.

    Battery choices also baffle. 12 v system 24? AGM golf cart 6-volts or reconditioned Caterpillar 24 volt monsters, which are cheaper, but are the others that much better in terms of holding charges and life span?

Comments are closed.