Mark Kermode Letters

[Pete J]

Hi All

I just joined this forum and have read many interesting posts. I notice you often post your letters to the media which is very usefull as a reference for new writings.

I just been writing this one to Mark Kermode and found myself spending a huge amount of time (more than I wanted to) raking around for good references to support my remarks. I've posted the whole thing here in case they are of use to anyone else, although most of them will be known to most of you (the references are at the end).

Peter

[Letter in next reply]

[Pete J]

FAO Mark Kermode:

Dear Mark

I'm a regular reader of your reviews and often regard them as mandatory reading before I go and see anything new, however, you seem alarmingly ill informed as to the nature of the challenges being made to the official account of events of September 11th 2001. (Observer Arts Column, Sunday April 9th 2006).

The so called '9/11 truth movement' cannot be stereotyped into a unitary, irrelevant group as you do your dismissive article.
In particular, amongst the wide range of contributors, there are 2 very distinct groups:

1] 'Conclusion jumpers' and 'classic conspiracy theorists'. There may be some justification in your 'Elvis' comparision here in the sense that this group is well disposed to the idea of conspiracy theories and may jump on any opportunity to develop one, regardless of it's substance

2] Genuine researchers, often industry or scientific professionals with some technical insight to particular aspects of the 9/11 account, who have become alarmed at it's fundamental inconsistencies and omissions. This group does not generally propose a 'conspiracy theory' (although some do) but rather concern themselves with trying to independently verify the government story

It is this second group who are exposing issues of great concern to many people. Their motivations for doing so include:

- the observation of gross technical inconsistencies in the government account

- concern over the way the US government has capitalized strategically on the events of 9/11 (to facilitate an agenda that was known to be in place prior to 2001) in a way that the terrorist organisations have not

- the upholding of a general principle that in a democracy, if a government offers a version of events to its public which seems unlikely or implausible in any way, this version should be held accountable in the public domain. The government should not be given the benefit of the doubt when it chooses to 'hoard' all the evidence for it's version of events


Examples of problems with the 'official story' include:

. . . . . . . the fact that the technical reports into the nature of the tower collapses (3 in total including building 7) propose a theory which is inconsistent with the speed of collapse, the symmetry of collapse and one particularly basic law of physics (conservation of momentum) which determines the minimum possible collapse time in the absence of pre-positioned explosives (Ref 1)

. . . . . . . the fact that the planners of the September 11 events appeared to know they could rely on the US airforce not intercepting any of the 4 hijacked planes before they reached their target (Ref 2) (4 at once would not have taxed their resources, neither should you accept the idea that they never 'envisaged' such a scenario. I acknowledge that there is debate about whether flight 93 was intercepted and how)

. . . . . . . the fact that the alleged hijackers were able to fly airliners over distances in excess of 200-300 miles and pull off extreme manoevers with almost no training or experience of flying heavy jets (8 hours in a simulator in 1 case - [Ref 3]). Handling is one thing, managing and navigating a heavy airliner over a long distance, 'off airways', with no radar assistance is quite another)

To top it all off, the background to these events is one of immense secrecy. The US government has aggressively removed from the public domain every piece of evidence that could possibly give credence to it's account. This includes:

- preventing the appropriate aeronautical bodies from publicly investigating the crashes [Ref 4]
- rapidly removing every piece of evidence that could have helped to account for the tower collapses from ground zero (shipped to China and melted down) [Ref 5]
- confiscating every known CCTV tape from civilian sites (petrol stations, parking areas etc) from around the pentagon [Ref 6]
- confiscating the 'black box' flight recorders [Ref 7]
- the destruction of taped interviews with air traffic controllers [Ref 8]
- omitting certain 'obvious' avenues of technical investigation, such as the possibility that building 7, in particular, collapsed due to pre-positioned explosives and not fires [Ref 9]

I trust I'm not the only reader bringing these points to your attention since there are now many ordinary members of the public who are not unhinged 'conspiracy theorists' trying to have these concerns addressed seriously by the mainstream media. Hopefully you'll see fit to consult a more diverse range of opinion than that of a single movie maker who may just be part of the 'accountability' problem anyway by helping the government sell it's unlikely story.

Footnotes:

*************** [1] ***************
The towers collapsed at near 'freefall' speed. WTC-7 which was not hit by a plane also collapsed symmetrically and at near freefall speed. The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report singularly avoids considering the possibility that thermite explosives were used to 'snip' the beams at each floor, even though this is the scenario which best fits all the observable data.

Ohio Deseret News
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view2/1,4382,635198488,00.html?textfield=9%2 F11,

BYU Physics
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

*************** [2] ****************
Airliners are periodically intercepted several times per year (67 scrambles between September and June 2000) for all kinds of reasons. This is automatic procedure when an aircraft strays off course. Anyone planning an operation such as 9/11 would know that the planes would have no chance of reaching their targets under normal circumstances.

ABS News (Quoted)
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/norad-faa-response/67-af-scrambles-ye ar-before-911.txt)

People's Daily
http://english.people.com.cn/200209/12/eng20020912_103051.shtml

*************** [3] ***************
From my own background as a flying instructor, UK Commercial Pilot's Licence and degree in aeronautical engineering, navigating a heavy airliner and descending it from cruise altitude to find a pinpoint target over 200 miles from the 'hijack' point is not something which is consistent with the alleged hijackers training or experience. It is possibly consistent with an pilot of several thousand hours experience or a flight under fully automatic control.

See New York Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A11FD35550C778CDDAC0 894DA404482

Nila Sagadevan provides a more developed explanation:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/EmailNews5Feb2006.html

Comparisons with Cessna:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

Maps
http://www.team8plus.org/news.php?item.32

*************** [4] ***************
All air accidents in the US are investigated by the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB). Their investigations are exhaustive and carried out by engineers experienced in accident investigation. The results are published in the public domain (See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/month.asp). In this case the FBI intervened, confiscated evidence from the NTSB and withdrew all successive investigation from the public domain. We do not know why. We are told that the NTSB is 'assisting the FBI with it's enquiries'.

Here is an example of an exhaustive investigation:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/KAL801/exhibit.htm

Here are the reports for the 9/11 flights:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00104&key=1

Here is the (fully public) Air Accident Investigation report on the Lockerbie crash. Every last scrap of discoverable evidence was retrieved, the aircraft was all but rebuilt in a hangar and the subsequent report placed in the public domain for cross examination by all and sundry.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/formal_reports/no_2_90_ 503158.cfm

We do not know why the Lockerbie report can be made public in every aspect whereas the 9/11 reports have to be 'top secret'.

*************** [5] ***************
Following the tower collapses, the debris obviously contained vital evidence as to the nature of the collapses, however, this was quickly shipped to China for meltdown and not exhaustively forensically analysed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm

*************** [6] ***************

The FBI confiscated local civilian CCTV tapes and none have ever made it into the public domain:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html - see last paragraph
"The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

*************** [7] ***************
Black boxes were recovered and confiscated by the FBI while authorities claimed they had not been.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/black_box.html

*************** [8] ***************
The Washington post report of an FAA manager destroying a tape of interviews with air traffic controllers:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A6 892-2004May6&notFound=true

New York Times excerpt of same story:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2004/070504shreddingeviden ce.htm

*************** [9] ***************
The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the WTC collapses seems to have omitted the most obvious lines of investigations based on the available data. We do not know why. For a discussion on the background to these facts, see this lecture from BYU University, Utah State Valley College:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/

VIDEO

David Shayler:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2953150409490347185

David Ray Griffin:
http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=David%20Ray%20Griffin% 20CSPAN2%20Speech%2004302005%20Part%201.wmv
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/dr-david-ray-griffin-at-grand-lake.h tml

About NORAD and Pentagon Drills:
http://tyrannyalert.com/norad.mpg

Building the World Trade Centre:
http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Building%20the%20World %20Trade%20Center.wmv

Cynthia McKinney
1] - http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Cynthia%20McKinney%20o n%20CSPAN%20-%20911%20report%20card%201%20of%204.wmv
2] - http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Cynthia%20McKinney%20o n%20CSPAN%20-%20911%20report%20card%202%20of%204.wmv
3] - http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Cynthia%20McKinney%20o n%20CSPAN%20-%20911%20report%20card%203%20of%204.wmv
4] - http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Cynthia%20McKinney%20o n%20CSPAN%20-%20911%20report%20card%204%20of%204.wmv

[Annie]

Hi Pete J

Welcome to the forum. I'd just like to say what an amazing letter you wrote to the Observer. For anyone coming new to this subject, it's a powerful summary of the case.

I hope we'll have the pleasure of seeing you at one of our regular campaign meetings in the near future. Details are always posted on the calendar on the front page of the forum.

Regards

Annie

[Pete J]

Hi Annie

Thanks for the welcome. I'll try to attend one of your meetings if I get the chance (been a while since I was in London - I live up in Glasgow).

One of the things I liked about the forum was the constructive and industrious nature of the postings with not too many 'flame wars' going on

I really hope this stuff starts to get some coverage soon - I've been firing letters into the Guardian and other's too. It must be starting to get uncomfortable for them.

Sometimes it's easier for more marginal media to do it - I don't know if you saw it but the 'Big Issue Scotland' did a good article on 9/11 last year
(http://www.streetnewsservice.org/story.html?StoryID=19158).

I met the journalist and I thought he did a good job of researching the background. He had worked in a big scottish newspaper before and confirmed to me that they 'would not touch' this subject. (Barge poles were mentioned).

Thanks again for the reply !

Pete

[xmasdale]

Hi Pete

Welcome to the forum. We do have activists in Glasgow I can put you in touch with if you PM me.

I believe our supporter Keith in Perth was instrumental in getting the Scottish Big Issue article published. That article was then reprinted in Irish Issues in time for the inaugural conference of the Irish 9/11 Truth movement in Cork last November.

Noel

[Andrew Johnson]

Pete,

Welcome to the forum - if that's your entree, can we see the main course please??!?

Great stuff

(Just one tiny horribly insignificant thing - "it's" = "it is" and "its" = belonging to it. Sorry, sorry sorry. But these columnists can be picky about punctuation - not that mine is perfect - esp when typing at speed, using a water-cooled keyboard!)

[Ally]

Re: Kermode.

Kermode took over from Alex Cox presenting Moviedrome however the gulf between the two now is atrocious. Cox should have a word with the ignorant swine.

[Pete J]

xmasdale - yes, I think your right about your supporter in Perth. He was definitely instrumental, which shows you that one person can make a difference.

Andrew Johnson - your definitely right about the punctuation. although it seems less significant when your writing stuff, it does affect the 'perceived' integrity of the writing. Unfortunately, I (like everyone else here here I assume) was trying to get this done in between my normal work. (although if I was a full time journalist I wouldn't be writing about 9/11, would I )

The great thing about forums like this (if they're constructive) is that you can just slam your stuff on here and get it critically addressed by people who really want to help you get your message across, so please don't apologise for pointing out problems either with grammar, facts or whatever else. I just want people to wake up from the trance they're in and realise that their government is at their service, not the other way around and if they want something (e.g information), they need to ask for it.

In the meantime, here's a very interesting exchange I came across while I was researching that letter (but didn't include). The contributor 'Andrew Johnson' (who may possibly be the moderator of this forum) is inviting others to consider a web site challenging the NIST collapse ('Pancake') hypothesis. Halfway down, Andrew Johnson makes a very significant point:

. . . "I am sorry, I don't agree - the steel *does* have to melt."

This is a very powerfull statement because . . .

[1] (apart from being true) it is very simple and direct and forces people to think where they otherwise wouldn't have. If structural steel beams loose 50% of their load bearing capacity, thay can still keep buildings standing because no-one ever designs a building with less than double redundancy (to protect their own 'skins' incase they made some other mistake). Usually it's 3-10 times redundancy,

[2] even if the beams were made of plastacine, the building would have collapsed but at a 'measurable and singnificantly' slower rate than if the beams were not there at all (e.g. 'freefall speed'),

[3] it throws the responsability of accountability back where it belongs - on the promoters of the 'official account'. It's not our job to account for the 'problems' we have with the official theory, it's the job of government engineers to properly explain theories which are based in incomplete science and in which the general public place their trust

Returning to the dialog, it's worthwhile reading a bit further down as AJ is constantly challenged and niggled by one 'a_ht' who doesn't address the substance of Andrew's case but continually makes 'jibing' posts until a welder puts him right about the nature of fire and metal. (See the next post for the 'welders' statement.

This solicits an admission from 'a_ht' that he is an engineer working for a NIST contractor who is under pressure to defend the NIST case and the exchange suddenly becomes constructive again.

You have to then ask yourself the question what the guy was doing making contributions to this forum in the first place - my own speculation is that he's a normal human being behind his professional 'mask' and held a genuine concern about what was going on. I know others who would say he was a 'disinfo' agent, but it's all very interesting and usefull background to the whole 9/11 saga I think.

You can read the full thread here:
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Basic-Physics_3108.html

[Pete J]

Boilermaker's Stetement on http://lofi.forum.physorg.com

Post by 'farang' on 6th October 2005

(See http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Basic-Physics_3108.html for full thread)

*********************************************************

It is heartening to see that the horrific crime of 911, for which NO ONE has been apprehended in my country, is still a burning issue for those that see a real problem in officialdom's explanation (or in the case of WTC 7, simply ignoring the issue entirely, which is cause of suspicion in and of itself for any reasonable person) of that day's events.

I wish those finding fault in Mr. Johnson's conclusions would state specifically what those are, not keep referring to something not in the reply. Damn sure would like to see ANY logical rebuttal.

In other words, I see no rebuttal to his statement that physics rules out a kerosene fire melting and collapsing three steel buildings in this manner.

That's fairly straightforward, and should be simple to refute, yet I see nothing but anger, resentment, insults and false statements about the structural strength (or lack thereof) of the two towers (the core should have stayed upright, with plane parts stuck to it). Not to mention how one poster claimed modeling a 22 second free fall, then stated a 13 second free fall, without explaining his conflicting statements.

Look, I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer.

I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, Blacksmith Forger and helper. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with @ 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning, the grounding failed, and the million gallons BLEW!!

Well, for a diesel fire that is. it simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, didn't melt squat. Tank, 1/4" steel, never melted.

Yet HUGE core I-beams, supporting the elevator and utility shafts, were VAPORISED at the WTC towers? Stop, I'll wet my britches laughing.

I've melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I 've welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it.

I ask you plainly: you know the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower?

a_ht, what caused that?

Tell me you believe, like me, it was the JP-8 (yes, I work with jet fuel daily, too) contained in the jet's tanks, correct?

Huge explosion, you say you were there that day? Your father? He see this huge fireball?

What was it?

Because, if it was the kerosene (JP-8, acts just like diesel, you can put it right in your diesel tank, works great, low flash point of 140 deg) that did explode that way, that you state so assuredly melted steel,

explain how it reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building, and THEN what?

Ran down 90 floors to melt the "uninsulated I-beams"? What? "Shook" it off by jet impact? Are you kiddin' me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below!!! What nonsense, a_ht!!

Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. About the size on one of the many offices on the floor hit. That's all, a_ht. The size of one office.

Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and only <14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see "small fires") and caused the beams to melt because the impact "knocked of the insulation".

One reply to that: WTC 7. Not hit, there goes THAT THEORY.

Melted steel bends. NEVER turns to dust. Never. No, not ever.

Say, how about this for argument: From now on, CDI never needs to use sophisticated computer analysis on where to place the explosives, amounts, sequences, no, no no. We can simply use a_ht's rational analysis, pour @ 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the basement, stand back, and watch a PERFECTLY SIMULATED controlled demolition, right? Right, a_ht? or, are you incorrect here?

a_ht, Mr. Jackson's British, I believe. Very polite, considerate.

I am not, I am just a blunt American: I believe you to be an Israeli disinformation agent.

Yes, obviously, the buildings were pre-rigged for controlled demolitions.

I never thought I would see the day my country chased the rabbit down the hole...and I would wake up in a land where black is white, up is down, liars are heroes, and criminals in charge of our government, and 19 "Arab Terrorists" could make physics stand down while they attacked.

Yet.....

Physics don't "stand down" for anyone. Therefore, I believe 19 Arab hijackers flying planes into the towers did not bring down the buildings on 911.

Obviously.

[Andrew Johnson]

Pete,

Re: the Physics Thread - I have to say - "Guilty as charged, mi lud".

It was always obvious to me, after being educated by George Humphrey's film "9/11: The Great Illusion" about the actual time of (near) free-fall collapse that to support the pancaking theory, the steel would have to melt pretty quickly (in < 1 second) - all the talk of plasticisation and buckling/bending etc etc (reach for your thesaurus) would then always trigger my bogometer (a device which measures the level of bogosity - it in fact measures the ambient "bogon flux" in a room where a debate is underway).

Cheers

Andrew