23Feb07 - David Kelly phone in on 5 live

[Anthony Lawson]

Towards the end of his BBC Radio 5 phone in, on Monday, Steven Nolan called for those interested in conspiracies to send in their favourites (or words to that effect, I haven't time to check the recording) and that the three most interesting ones would be chosen for the 'Editor's Spot' on this coming riday.

The e-mail I have sent in response follows.

________________

Hello Steven,

I enjoy your programme, when the issues are relevant, and the events of September 11th, 2001 are probably more relevant to what is going on in the world today than anything else that has happened since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour or the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
During Monday’s programme, you developed what could almost be called a mantra, in the form of a question: ‘Why would the U.S. government kill its own people?’

I haven’t got a blanket answer, but governments have been killing their own people since time immemorial, by sending their youngest and most promising citizens off to wars, many of which could have been avoided. (See ‘The March of Folly’ by Barbara Tuchman.) Don’t ask me why killing other people seems to be the first solution that springs to the minds of so many ‘leaders,’ when disagreements arise between or within nations, because I don’t know the answer. And, with respect, I suggest that such a question is irrelevant when there is so much solid, non-conjectural evidence to suggest that either the U.S. government planned and carried out the attacks, or, at the very least, ordered a general stand down and allowed them to happen. The question: Who? needs to be addressed first; finding out the Why? should follow an unbiased investigation into what really happened and who was responsible.

You suggested that people write in with their theories as to why they believe that the attacks need further investigation, particularly since the publishing of the 9/11 Commission Report. The problem is that there are so many interwoven threads, that singling out the most compelling, as a single event, is almost impossible. So, please consider the following, and take your pick:

Regarding Whatever Hit The Pentagon that Day: The official report states that American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, struck the Pentagon and disappeared into a hole which was demonstrably too small for such an event to have happened. (See the pictures taken before the collapse of the outer wall.) No video images of such an aircraft hitting the Pentagon have ever come to light, despite a count of well over 50 security cameras in the area which should have captured the event. No reconstruction of the aircraft’s remains has ever been attempted; the first time in modern aviation history that this has happened. The official reason given was that the aircraft had been totally consumed by the fire caused by burning fuel, which, by definition, would have to include the two massive Rolls-Royce RB211 engines, each weighing over 19 tons and designed to burn jet fuel, for hours on end, at temperatures far in excess of those required to consume an aluminium airframe.

To cap all that, the official story also claims that the passengers and crew were positively identified by their DNA, using comparison samples gathered together from their homes, with help from their loved ones. The official story does not, however, explain how the DNA from their bodies remained viable, for identification purposes, in a fire which had just vaporised an entire 100-ton aircraft, save for a few bits and pieces such as a wheel hub, which doesn’t match any pictures that I have seen of identifiable 757 wheel hubs, and an engine compressor which has never been identified as having once been part of a Rolls-Royce RB211 jet engine, nor the compressor from the smaller jet turbine used by such aircraft for electric power generation.

The Alleged Crash of United Flight 93: The official report indicates that the passengers took action against the hijackers to bring UA 93 down before it could do any damage on the ground. The aircraft was said to have crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, but photographs taken less than an hour after the alleged crash show little evidence that a 100 ton aircraft had caused the crater. There are no identifiable aircraft parts in any of the photographs; unlike any other recorded aircraft crash in modern history, prior to 9/11. And, once again, contrary to normal procedure—as was done with TWA Flight 800, which was recovered from a depth of 130 feet in the waters off Long Island and with Pan Am Flight 103, which crashed in the vicinity of Lockerbie, in Scotland—no attempt was made to reconstruct United Flight 93 in order to find out what really happened.

There was also a report, later denied or ignored, that aircraft wreckage had been found eight miles from the alleged crash site. This, along with the lack of identifiable wreckage in the crater suggests that an aircraft was either shot down or suffered a catastrophic structural failure in the vicinity of Shanksville, that morning.

It was also reported, at 11:43 on September 11th, by a local TV station, WCPO that two aircraft had landed at Cleveland Hopkins airport, due to a bomb threat. One of the planes was identified as UA 93, by United Airlines. So, did UA 93 crash in Pennsylvania, leaving no trace? Or was it shot down, spreading its wreckage over a wide area? Or did it land in Cleveland? The Commission opted for the former, and ignored the evidence in the other two possible scenarios.

Other incidents worth further investigation has to do with alleged telephone calls from UA 93. Although no recordings or (to my knowledge) transcripts have been released to the public, one of the conversations, put together by a group of reporters who compared notes after an official press briefing, went something like this:

Caller: “Mom? This is Mark Bingham. I want you to know that I love you. I’m on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb.”

Alice (alleged mother): “Who are these guys?

Caller: (after a pause) “You believe me, don’t you?

Alice: “Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys? (After another pause the line went dead.)

Apart from the fact that UA93 was flying at a height of around 30,000 ft when this call was supposed to have been connected, which, according to telecommunications experts would have made cell-phone connections impossible, it suggests that the alleged hijackers were quite content to allow passengers to freely use any available air phone to call whomever they liked, because several calls were supposed to have been made by Flight 93 passengers. Strange, when one thinks of how hijackers usually behave, but look at what was said. Have you ever announced yourself to your mother, on the telephone, as Steven Nolan? Would a mother’s first, and only utterance, on hearing that her son was probably going to die be: “Who are these guys?” In such a situation would any son cross-question his mother by asking: “You believe me, don’t you?” Much mystery surrounds these alleged telephone calls, because neither their content nor their origin can be substantiated, yet they have been translated into an urban legend of bravery and heroism which has been the subject of several television documentaries and one feature film, whose director won the BAFTA award for best director, and memorials have been constructed in memory of the Americans who ‘fought back.’

October 25, 1999: When golfer Payne Stewart’s private jet lost radio contact with air controllers on a journey from Florida to Texas, an F-16 fighter and an A 10 attack aircraft were flying beside it within 15 minutes of it heading away from its stated destination.

September 11, 2001. When four commercial airliners did exactly the same thing, in the crowded airspace above the north-eastern seaboard of the United States, within minutes of each other, it was as though nothing was wrong, judging from the lack of reaction of the U.S. Air Force and NORAD. According to most reports, no military jets were scrambled until 50 minutes after the first of the twin towers had been hit, when it was known that three more passenger jets were still unaccounted for.

And the president of the United States, on hearing that a building in New York had been struck by a plane, just sat there, showing no reaction of surprise or horror, then later continued to read a story about a goat to a class of school children when standard procedure would have been for the Secret Service to immediately whisk him away, because it was already public knowledge that he was visiting that particular school.

February 01, 2003: The Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated about 40 miles above Texas, killing the seven astronauts on board and scattering its debris over four states and into the Gulf of Mexico. Enlisting the help of state and local authorities, as well as members of the public, NASA gathered together as much of the debris as it could into a vast hangar, and proceeded to find out exactly what went wrong, which they did, in less than nine months.

September 11, 2001: Estimates still vary, but in the vicinity of 3,500 people were killed in New York and Washington on that terrible day; that is 500 times the number killed in the Columbia shuttle disaster. Two of the tallest buildings in the world had been brought down, but their architects and builders still insist that they were designed to sustain the impact of a Boeing 707, an aircraft of similar weight and fuel capacity to the ones that impacted the towers that morning. There were also reports that firemen and others had heard a series of explosions, just before the towers collapsed, and some experts in the field are convinced that both collapses, as well as the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which had not been struck by an aircraft, looked exactly like controlled demolitions. Then, despite protests from forensics experts, but with the approval of the (then) New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, the steel beams from the cores of both buildings were recycled and sold for scrap, before investigators even had the chance to look at them, let alone submit them to detailed forensic examinations.

The action of selling off this structural steel, before it had been the subject of forensic examinations, can be likened to the police and magistrates agreeing that the body of a person who died in highly suspicious circumstances could be cremated, before an autopsy had been carried out. That steel was what is known as ‘best evidence’, but it was removed and stored under heavy security, until it was shipped out, allegedly to China and Korea.

General: There were many more strange occurrences, before and after September 11, 2001, but they are too numerous to mention, here. If you’d like to see the dossier which I have prepared, I would be more than happy to send you a CD of it. It takes the form of an essay called ‘A Closer Look at 911’, with hyper-linked references to photographs, sound recordings, official documents and research by others, all of which are freely available on the Internet.

Sincerely,
Anthony Lawson
Phuket, Thailand
End of e-mail to Steven Nolan: nolan@bbc.co.uk
____________

In a reply to a response from my original post on this subject, I also attempted to attach an edited version of Monday's 'phone in, which contained only the material relevant to this wesite, but I was unable to add the MP3 audio file, which is about 6 MB.

If someone can explain exactly how such a file can be posted, I will try again.

Anthony

[blackcat]

I just posted it on another thread. It is in "Events" The thread is titled "URGENT 9/11 Phone-in" or similar.

[Anthony Lawson]

Hello blackcat,

That is the file I've edited, removing everything that was not relavant to 9/11. The edited version is only 25 minutes, compared to about 3 hours.

If someone can tell me exactly how to go about adding such a file to a post, I'll do it, but it's getting close to my bedtime, here in Phuket.

Take care,

Anthony

[blackcat]

I did the same but reduced it to fifteen minutes. I uploaded it to http://d.turboupload.com which is free and easy to follow. Takes a while and there are several links to negotiate but simple enough and it gives you a link for others to click to download.

[Anthony Lawson]

Thank you, blackcat.

I hope you left in the bit about Britney Spears shaving her head; clearly the result of post 9/11 syndrome, and the kind of stuff that is sooooo important to our daily lives.

In any event, I'll download yours tomorrow.

Take care,

Anthony

[Newspeak International]

[Anthony Lawson]

‘So what happened to Flight 77?’

It is frustrating and depressing to hear interviewees being constantly tripped up by this question (and others like it), when they are only attempting point out the discrepancies between the official findings and the findings that have been reported on and developed by those who do not believe that the official verdict is consistent with the evidence. So if you do become involved in a ‘phone in, or any other kind of discussion on the subject, try something like the following:

Question: ‘Well if Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon, what happened to it and its passengers?’

Response: ‘How should I know? If the jury in a murder trial brings in a verdict of Not Guilty, does the judge say: “Well if he didn’t do it, who did?” That would be absurd, but it is an exact analogy of what you’ve just asked me.’

The same goes for the question: ‘Do you seriously believe that the government of the United States of America would kill its own citizens in order to pursue its international policies?’

Answer: ‘Yes. Don’t you?’

You could go on to say something like: ‘American administrations are renowned for sending their citizens off to their deaths, in order to pursue their international policies; policies which they say are essential for maintaining international peace and stability. So, why not kill some of them on home ground, just to get the ball rolling? I realise that it is an awful thought, but there are some awful people running the U.S., at the moment.’

Make sure you stick to the points where you feel that you are on solid ground, and, more importantly, make sure that the interviewer does, too.

For example, reports that five of the alleged hijackers were found to be alive, after 9/11, are easily countered, because identity theft is so common, these days. So don’t allow this to become a main issue.

Try to rely on what can be seen, or heard. A Boeing 757 disappearing into a hole that was demonstrably too small for it and the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 are classic examples.

With the Pentagon, ask the interviewer if he or she has ever seen a picture of the Pentagon, before the outer wall collapsed. In the case of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, ask doubters if they have seen the videos of these events. Ask them if they’ve ever seen videos or movies of known controlled demolitions. Because almost everyone has seen both, ask them if they’ve noticed any similarities with the collapse of the twin towers and a controlled demolition. They must have, but if they deny that there are similarities, terminate the interview.

Point out that the official verdict is that the structures were so weakened by the fires caused by the burning aviation fuel, that they collapsed, not just into their own footprints, but into their own basements! Ask them if random fires had caused the damage to the support columns, how could they have all given way at exactly the same time?

Point out that when controlled demolitions go wrong, the buildings either fall over, or develop an alarming tilt. Tell them to enter ‘failed demolitions’ into the Google search box, and look at some of the videos. Here is a recent example: http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1070/

Such demolitions rely on the split-second detonation of cutting charges to sequence a collapse. Even if burning aviation fuel, intensified by office materials, paper, plastics, etc. (as posited by the 9/11 Commission), could produce heat of the intensity required to melt each of the twin towers’ 49 central columns—an absurd proposition in itself—each column would have had to have melted through at exactly the same time, otherwise the buildings would have fallen over.

In the above example of a failed demolition, something went wrong and the building developed a tilt, instead of collapsing. Just imaging if the same thing had happened with the Twin Towers. Anyone who has ever played with building blocks—Lego or whatever—knows that tall structures fall over when they become unstable. Yet it appears that trained engineers and investigators have suspended, not only their common sense, but the immutable laws of physics when they have stated, without even having examined the structural steel, that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 all collapsed into their own basements, because their structural integrity had been undermined by fires. Yet we all know that random fires could not possibly have melted through each and every one of the massive support columns, let alone at exactly the same time.

Ask the interviewer how they can accept such an affront to common sense and to their own intelligence.

In the case of WTC 7, which was not even hit by an aircraft, the case is even stronger. Video’s of the collapse should demonstrate, to anyone other than a complete idiot, that this had to have been a superbly carried out controlled demolition. If so, then this building had to have been prepared for demolition long before 9/11. Let them join up the rest of the dots, but if they don’t, do it for them: If WTC 7 was prepared in advance, why not the Twin Towers?

The collapse video is stronger than Larry Silverstein’s “Pull it!” statement. Although, to some, it is powerful evidence of a conspiracy, it could be dismissed as an incorrect use of words by people who can’t bring themselves to admit that they could have had the wool pulled over their eyes for so long.

Matters of fact are strong. Matters of opinion or interpretation can be weak, and they can be easily attacked.

The same goes for the Dancing Israelis. We can make assumptions, which may or may not be accurate, but only the Israelis know why they were dancing while people were dying.

If there is a 'phone in on BBC Radio 5 on Friday, please keep the above in mind.

Anthony

[Anthony Lawson]

9/11 Not Even an Also Ran

Steven Nolan's conspiracy-theory 'phone in, this Friday, will be about the death of Dr David Kelly. Despite the fact the he said he would 'look at' the three most popular candidates, the voting was about 60% vote for Dr Kelly, and around 40% for the Moon Landings.

Although I will be interested to hear what is said about poor Dr Kelly's murder, it is disappointing that 9/11 didn't even reach the finals.

Or perhaps Steven is compelled to use Diebold electronic voting machines, overseen by the PTB at the BBC.

Anthony

[mobypaterson]

Radio 5 live's conspiracy of choice is David Kelly and they'll be discussing it in the next half hour apparently. . .

www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive and click on listen now


**edit! They're actually talking about it right now!

[TonyGosling]

Andrew, was that you?

[Jayhawk]

That was another damp squib. They had a call to Norman Baker which was good, and a call from some bod opposing the whole thing, but very few other calls from the public (2?) and shut it down rapidly, as on Monday.