philh

Why would anyone bother to spend time, money and effort creating something new if they couldn't profit from it? Sure there might be some charitable activity and some government investment. but the private sector would stop being a source of innovation. Getting rid of patents not only strangles innovation as comapnies wont invest in new technologies , but it also encourages secrecy of information. There's no problem putting your technology out in the public if people have to pay youto use it. But if they dont you keep it secret and then its harder for people to build on it.

Am I misunderstanding ? I would have thought it would be 50% on the marginal amount above £1500,000. So for example someone earning £200,000 would only pay 50% on the last £50,000 so their total income tax burdone would still be less than 50%. Have I got that wrong?

Of course the great example is also veggie: the chip butty. Ingredients: Chips (in the USA french fries) Bread Butter Voila a chip butty.

Shropshire, you need to try the bacon flavoured tofu butty

Gq Jumper you say we should be upset that obese people may be worsening the climate problem by the increase iin fuel loads they demand. This is a good point. Another good point is that vegetarians should feel the same way about meat eaters. As a vegetarian myself I certainly do. Pound for pound meat produces 36 times more C02 equivalent production than say aspargus. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger Physics world recently published an article claiming we could drastically reduce green house gases by simply switching to a veggie diet. http://www.physorg.com/news4998.html So I can onlly presume you feel just as strongly about these selfish meat eaters, am I right?

"Obesity is not something that randomly chooses 34% of Americans and decided to ruin their lives, it is a life choice. I understand that some people have medical conditions that make it difficult for them to maintain a healthy weight, but these people are in the minority of the obese population. Genetics is another BS excuse, your body does not miraculously create fat tissue out of nowhere because your mom was overweight, as hard as that may be for some people to believe. If you don't put things into your body that can be converted to fat then you won't become grossly overweight. " You are creating a ridculous straw man. Obesity is likely a lot more complex than you think it is. There have been several genetic mutations that are linked to obesity. Two I can think of, off the top of my head are: 1. The regulation of leptin production. How full you feel after food depends partly on how much you eat and partly on the bodies production of leptin. Genes determine how well your body regulates leptin production and if your body is not good at leptiin regulation you may not feel full, no matter how much you eat. You are right here that obese people's over eating is making them obese, but you are not addressing the issue: why do some people over eat when others dont? your bodies ability to regulate leptin production helps determine this and that could just be bad luck for the obese and good luck for you.So maybe you should be a little less judgemental. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=21729 2 Lets look at the otherside of the equation :excercise. Some people get more fatigued than others when they excercise , why? Again genetics explains at least some of this difference. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060907102347.htm these are just two example I can think of straight away, Im sure I could find others. Thats not to say the enviroment (inlcuding pressure from tastier flavours of ice cream) is not important as well. But as a well respected skeptics once said (I Think it was Ben Goldacre) "i think you''l find its a bit more complicated that".

Scares sell papers, everything=ok doesn't.

My beef with Jenny Mccarthy is that she is stupid, ignorant and dangeorus. Her campaign against vaccines is not based upon science and it will put peoples lives in danger. No I don't work for a pharmaceutical company, do you think that everyone that cares about good science and peoples lives has to work for a pharamaceutical? You are right Jenny is not a scientist. Thats doesnt matter so much, what matters is her passion for substiuting good science for nonsense. You dont need to be a professional scientist to require proper evidennce before accepting or promoting a claim. You just need a basic education in ciritical thinking, which she seems to lack. As to her treating her sons autism, this just demonstrates the lack of critical thinking skills buy her and her followers. You cant assume a so called "cure " is effective without a proper study. How do you know the path of the disease would not have improved without the treatmen?. Correlation is not causation; you should learn that as a mantra. Real scientific sutdies can help us determine what is a causal factor with two correlated variables and what is not. Anecodotes cannot do that. The scientific literature is clear, the re is no link between vaccines and autism. As to your court case. did you read the case notes? The specail master specifically stated that Bailey did not have autism. A court award is not the same as a scientific conclusion. Thats not to say there are not rare cases of harm from vaccines. But anyone who thinks this means vaccines are danerous is being disengenous. Rare reactions can cause harm from almost anything you put in your body. Some people even have averse reactions to sunshine. Lets put the number in perspective. There is a danger of say AEDM from vaccines. Its estimated .1. to .2 per million vaccinations . Compare this to cases of ADEM after measles , the incidence rate here is 1 in 1,000 . To isolate a case of vaccine caused injury out of this context is plain stupid and thats one of the many things I have against Jenny Mccarthy.

Globalisation.. this has been promotes by a capilaist agenda for the very good reason of comparative advantage. Trading with each other benefits all. Mass population extermination.. well this has happened Hitlers gernmany, Pol Pots Cambodia and Rwanda are example. As far as I can say this hhas no connection to globalisation. It seems in fact the reverse, they tend to be nationalistic philopshies that pursue this. martial law in the USA. Ive heard plenty of conpisracy nutters saying this is being planned, but they never present any credible evidence. Rantings of the paranoid if you ask me. One currency, well there is only one currency in the USA , would you prefer 50 of them? A cashless soceity, this might happen if technology improves, so what?

Why are the considerations of ancient cultures a relevant concern? That argument could easily be used to defend slavery ( and was ). A quick bible verse might do the job: lev 25,44 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Why is there so much bullshit in the world? Perhpas because people dont challenge it . The king of letting Bs artists get away with their nonsense is Larry King. He didnt bother to challenge Rick Warren when he lied about his stance on Prop 8 and much more importantly he let Jenny Mccarthy get away with murder. That metaphor is not far from the truth as her ridiculous pseduo science is putting lives at risk. I suggest anyone who cares about truth might want to email CNN http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form.sound.off.html For more on Larry King and Rick Warren read here: http://www.americablog.com/2009/04/apparently-you-have-rick-warren-scared.html for more on Larry King and Jenny Mccarthy read here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=445

It looks bad on video but without the audio its hard to say for sure . Also the press reported he died of a heart attack, I would hope they would re examine the cause of death in light of the video . A heart attack is not likely to be caused by a shove like that, but another look is certainly warranted.

As far Im aware the NISt report was commisoned by the US government and hence was delivered to them rather than a journal as is always the case. I dont think the Warren Commision was published in Nature or Sceince either. But that doesnt mean there was no peer review process. If you look at the list of names who signed off on the report, you'll see the 13 lead investigators: S Shyan Sunuder Sc.d Richard G Gann Phd William L Grosshandler Phd HS LEw Phd Pe Fahim Sadek Phd Frank W Gayle phd John L Gross Phd Pe Therese P McAllister Phd Pe Jason D Averill J Randall Lawson Harol E Nelson Stephen A Cauffman And thats just the lead investigators. There are 60 Nist tecnhical staff with their names on the report and another dozen experts and consulatnts . Are you seriosuly suggesting all of these poeple were paid off by the government to lie about the murder of almost 3,000 civilians and not one has blabbed? As said above the NIst report was paid for the governenment and so the appropriate forum for its distribution was back to the government, the press and the people . But you fail to care that there are many many peer reviewed articles that agree with the official version of events. Meanwhile there are 0 peer reviewed articles that back a conspiracy. Seems like you are clutching at straws. The question I posted are relvant because in issues of both science and law its the totality of evidence that counts. Not the desperate search for one unexplained anomaly. The big picutre is incredibly obvious: AQ hijacked 4 aircrafts on 9/11 and crashed them as part of a suicide mission against the USA. Ok you said you think one story is more plausible than the other, so which is it and what evidfence do you have? You are right the Bush regime was succesful in painting "the ragheads" with the same brush, but they were not as succesful as they would have liked.Im sure they would have liked UN approval, they didnt get it , Im sure they would have liked a multi naitonal coalition like the 1st gulf war, they didnt get it. We know in retrospect they got the support of the US people. But at the time, why would they have risked it ? Why not just put a few iraqis on the list of hijackers and secure everything they wanted? The answer is incredibly obvious becuase the Bush regime did not plan 9/11.

Whilst I think all pyshics are full of shit , probably not all are liars. It wouldnt suprise me if many of them end believing their own nonsense via confirmation bias. They remember their hits and forget their misses, they mistake their ability to cold read people for genuine pyshic powers and they end up convincing themselves of their powers. I think those of us whoa re skeptics need to be a bit more understanding of these people. if we call them all liars, those that go to see them and feel they are trust worthy will not pay attention to us. The problem is often that pyshics are too trustworthy, they trust in their powers without skeptically examining why they often do get hits . Critical thinking education is our only hope hear. Skeptics guide top 20 logical fallacies and similar issues should be taught in schools everywhere: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx My favourite pyshcic incident by the way was when Sylvia Brown told worreid parents that their child was dead , she went with the odds becuase he had been mising for many years, he turned up alive but that didnt dent her blief in hher own nonsense.

My understanding of the paper simply implies that once the supporting structure can no lonegr hold the wait of the higher structure then it falls through and the speeds described. Maybe my udernstadning of the paper is flawed but if you would like a more detailed dcisussion of this in peer reviewd sites try: Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. "Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf) Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370. Brannigan, F.L. "WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150. Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001. "Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108. Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135. "Dissecting the Collapses" Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12. Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A. "Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48. "Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103 Marechaux, T.G. "TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17. Monahan, B. "World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135. Pinsker, Lisa, M. "Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site" Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). The print copy has 3-D images. None of which agree with the conspiracy version. You wanted peer review , you got it. Now perhaps you would return us the favour ? Thanks for ignoring all of the question posed to you bar one. You say you dont think the Aq involvement is a hoax. So what are you saying ? That AQ and the US government are actually in it together? Is there no limit to the depth of this fantasy? You say the hijaking scenario was paramount , why? Surely it was the number of deaths and their dramatic nature that would be paramount? you say the explosives were not timed with the impact but were ingited afterwards. Do you have any evidene of these explosives? You also say that the failed previous attack on the building (by Ramzi Yousef, nephew of OBL'splanner Khalid Sheik Muhammed ) shows that truck bomb would have minimal impact . Thats funny becuase Ramzi Yousef said he was not succsful in bringing down the buildings simply becuase he diddnt have a bigger bomb. He had a 1310 lb bomb which cretaed a 98 ft wide hole. Before 911 the US miliatrty had conventional bomb with more than ten times that power and shortly after they developed developed a bomb that had 18,700 llb of high explosvies and could create a balst radius alsone of 450 feet and a blast yeild of 11 tons Maybe they could have brought down the towers witha few of those, I dont know but I presume you have done the calculations? Whats interesting is that you insist the planes alone didnt bring down the buildings and that it had to have been explosvies , but yet you want us to believe that they had to hijack the aeroplanes becuase no one would believe explosives could have brought down the buildings. Spot the contradiction in your argument? "This would allow the heavy handed use of military might in countries that played absolutely no role whatsoever in the incident using semantics around the term 'Terrorist', with the consent of the majority of the US and global population. " Yes but if the Us planned the attacks why not put at least one hijacker from Iraq given that was the big war they wanted? if they can fabricate the whole attack and the cover up afterwards, dont you think they would fabricate some evidnece linking it to Iraq ? The fact they didnt implies they were not behind it plain and simple.

I found this an excellent read: http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/ 15 questions 9/11 ‘truthers’ now need to answer One of the standard claims of 9/11 “truthers” is that they are merely sceptical individuals with a healthy and understandable desire not to swallow US government propaganda at face value. The mantra “just asking questions” allows them to pose as wary and intelligent souls too accustomed to the concept of duplicity in high places to accept the “official story” of Al Qaeda’s role in planning and perpetrating the largest mass casualty terrorist attack in modern history. It also allows them to adopt an indignant tone when dealing with their critics, and to conflate attempts by debunkers to undermine their claims with both unquestioning acceptance of an “official cover-up” (irrespective of whether the debunker happens to be a supporter of the current US administration or not) and a systematic effort to deprive them of freedom of speech. It goes without saying that in the process the “truthers” set up two straw-men for them to knock down, but then they’re not very good at dealing with tougher critics. The “just asking questions” approach has three further advantages to those of a paranoid mindset and a less than scrupulous approach to evidence and facts (if George Orwell were alive today, he’d appreciate the irony of serial disinformation merchants like Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin posing as members of a “truth movement”, given their fast and loose approach to the historical record and scientific fact). Firstly, conspiracy theorists know that mud sticks: if you can make an accusation against an individual or group through innuendo and sly hints the latter has the hard task of proving the calumnies against them to be false. Film buffs will no doubt recall George C. Scott’s performance as the malevolent prosecutor in Anatomy of a Murder, and his repeated question to the defendant Ben Gazzara: “Exactly when did you stop beating your wife?” This approach sums up “truther debating tactics nicely. Secondly, the claim that one is “just asking questions” is liberating, as it frees the truther of the obligation of actually constructing a coherent alternative theory - based on the evidence at hand - which is more convincing than the “official theory”. Why worry if the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions or not? Why worry if the hijackers were patsies or ghosts? Why worry if the Pentagon was hit by a missile or a jumbo jet piloted by remote control? Why worry if the passengers of the four planes are alive or not? With one or two exceptions (notably Michael Ruppert), 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their supporters do not actually outline a scenario which explains how and why the US government (in cahoots with the Israelis, or the military-industrial complex, or whoever else) slaughtered nearly 3,000 people - most of whom were American citizens - in a co-ordinated series of attacks which were then blamed on Arab Islamist terrorists. Most truthers lack sufficient moral courage to produce a real theory about 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ which combines motive with method and which can be tested against the evidence. Deep down, they know that once they venture into specific claims their case will be torn to shreds, and they will be exposed as ignorant frauds. Thirdly, it makes the task of a truther an easy one: all he or she (there seem to be few female truthers around, which hopefully means that they won’t reproduce) has to do is google to get the appropriate “story” from Prison Planet, 9/11 Blogger, What Really Happened or a similar website. Hey presto, they get what they want: “The FBI said there were no phone calls from AA77!”; “4,000 Jews didn’t turn up to work at the WTC on 9/11!”; “Silverstein ordered the demolition of WTC7!” And so on and so forth. Any genuine sceptic dealing with truthers - whether online or in the flesh - then has to (1) work out what the hell his or her interlocutor is talking about, and (2) ask themselves how exactly they made this claim, and if it has any substance. Anyone lacking either patience or detailed knowledge of the events of 11th September 2001 may be tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Debunkers are left with the time-consuming task of researching the historical background, and trying to assemble the relevant technical and scientific information, before they can actually verify the facts for themselves. In short, the truther can throw out a red herring or an outright distortion in a matter of minutes, leaving it up to other net users to take the time and trouble to verify their origin and accuracy. Fortunately, yeoman work has been done by scores of individuals to actually put the record straight. Pat and James from Screw Loose Change, Mark Roberts, 9/11 Myths, Debunking 9/11 and 9/11 Guide in particular provide a valuable resource. The James Randi forum is particularly useful in that it provides commentators with specialist knowledge - military veterans, pilots, flight engineers, physicists, architects, forensic experts etc - with a platform to expose the anti-scientific claptrap and historical illiteracy of the truthers. This is the main reason why the JREF and its commentators arouse such hatred from the 9/11 conspiracy ghouls. It’s time to turn the tables on the truthers. Rather than accept a situation in which the nutjobs and kooks who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracies can make their accusations willy-nilly, it is high time that their critics decided that they can “just ask questions” too. This particular debunker has decided that maybe, just for once, the onus for actually demonstrating the validity of their theories on the basis of systematic and critical analysis of the evidence belongs to the truthers, not to those who wish to expose their fallacies. As someone whose academic bias is based on history, I would like to pose the following challenge to the conspiracy-mongers: Let’s take your thesis (that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration, and covered up by a coalition of US government agencies, allied powers, big business and the media) as read. The following questions point to logical and factual gaps within that thesis. It is now up to you to answer these questions and explain why your theories are still valid. For your answers to be credible, they need to be detailed and based on verifiable evidence. No suppositions, no speculation, no unsupported assertions, just the facts. Stop “asking questions”, and provide answers. These fifteen initial questions will do for starters. (1) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington? (2) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA? (3) Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA? (4) In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand? (5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter? (6) Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran? (7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban? (8) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed? (9) Following on from this, assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension? (10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb? (11) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown? (12) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true? (13) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine? (14) If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators? (15) Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?

"Have they (BL/AQ) not stated on numerous occasions that their primary reason for attacking the USA and any other nation for that matter is the support those counrtries give to Isreal? Has that point been made clear to the american people? " Bin Laden has made a lot of noise about Isreal but if you read numerous biographies of Bin Laden what you find is that his real anger and real motivation was created by the presence of Us troops on Saudi soil. Moreover in his letter to the US people in 2002 , he said: "The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam..it is the religion of jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supeme... we call on you to reject the immoral acts of fornicaiton, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and trading with interest." So clealry Isreal is not his only beef. I agree with that you that the is no connection of the 9/11 attacks to Iraq. That the Bush admisntration implied a link in the run up to the war was a disgrace. But that does not mean there is any eivdence of a conspiracy . In fact it means the very opposite. As I have explained, the Bush adminstration tried to use 911 to justify an attack on Iraq. If they had planned 9/11 they would have put a few Iraqis on the planes. I dont knwo what review process the NISt report went through , but other pieces of research which have been published in well respected journal confirm their findings. A real scientific process is done in serious journals and conferences. According to your own heroes they have only published two articles in what they consider respectable journals and we have seen, one is a letter of what they agree with the Nist on and the other is in a journal which welcomes pure opinion pieces. So it seems to me there are 0 serious piceses of research publsihed in proper jounrals backing a conspiracy. Sure you find a few people who feel empowered by beleiving they've uncovered a conspiracy. Lawyers, scientists , engineers are not above this process. If every path a researcher followed turned into success wed have a lot more advanced society than we do now. There are many dead ends for every genuine discovery. But there are no shortages of anomaly hunters; and why would a lawyer have any special insight on this topic? Wow you managed to find just over 30 lawyers that agree from 6 countries. Lets put that in perspective there are over 1 million lawyers in the USA alone. What are the chances that a unimaginably small percentage of them wouldnt like to ifnlate their egos by thinking they've uncovered this great conspiracy? and why should we care what they think? As regards to the free fall speeds, have you read this? http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

"I'm interested in how this detailed analysis of small points of possible contention obviates the hundreds of eyewitnesses on location at the time of the event and the hundreds of thousands who watched it live on TV? " it doesnt

This is what the NIST says on their web site: "Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface." Thats pretty consistent with what the metalurgist said the aluminuim oxidesed and combined with other debris to create the orange glow .

What you are doing is what all conpiracy theorisst do. You anomaly hunt. On dramatic events such as 911 and the moon landings things arent always what one might intuitively expext them to be . So one looks for anomalies and unsuprisingly there are many. That doesnt mean these anomlies dont have a mudane explanation, but its fun for a fantasist to think they have uncovered a conspiracy. I would highly reccomend you look at this on the moon hoax to give an example: http://www.clavius.org/ I am not mettalurgist but I know of a guy who is Stephen Chastain , has written many books on foundaries and this is what he had to say: "The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum. The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8 Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible. Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up. The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them. THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron. Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling. I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely. Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color. " An anomaly? Perhaps but a connspiracy , i dont think so. Its a typical trick, look for the anomalies but dont show any evidene to back up a conspiracy. Please dont cofnuse our views on Bush with your views on a conspiracy. Im pretty sure most people (and Im sure of myself and Ill bet on Bilvon) who think the conspiracy is paranoid fanatsy do believ Bush misled the Us public on the Iraq, I never supported him or his war. Most poeple in the Uk (where I live) opposed the Iraq war, but do not believe in a conspiracy. IF YOU LISTEN TO ONLY ONE THING I SAY, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS, GIVE YOUR MONEY TO A GREAT CHARITY LIKE (my personal favourite) MEDCINE SANS FRONTIERE: http://www.msf.org/ You will save lives by giving to the above charity , you will achieve nothing by giving it to the tin foil hats .

3/4 Americans suspect the government of not telling the truth. Not telling the truth and planning the atack are not the same. Nice way to distort the real picture. Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls 15% of people believ the US government was behind it , the vast majority of the rest (71%) think it was either Aq or are dont knows.

According to the US 2001 census there were 3.413m scientists and engineers in the US alone. And you managed to find hundreds , maybe thousands of them who have a tin foil hat , sorry if Im not impressed. Just like the anti evolutionists have done the same with hundreds of them supporting ID, wow. I have to show how the scientific community in its entirety have refuted their claims? What every cell biologist, every astronomer, every particle physicist, evey animal behaviourist? You are being silly now. I have alreayd told what I thought of your article and provided links to their refutation. Saying you are a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it so. A serious peer reviewed academic journal is published regularly by scholars in the field, does not start with its conclusion, does not have the majority of its articles written by its editors, does not desclare they have the "truth" about their conclusion, and is accepted by scholars as a reliable format for said process. Your journal of 911 studies is a complete joke, even they admit that the scientific community doesnt take them seriously. According to their own blurb they only have two articles in proper journals . One of them is actually a letter entitled "14 points of agreement with Official Government Reports", the other is an Enviromental Journal showing high levels of organic chemcials in the months after the attacks. A little look at this journal sheds some light, their own description: "The Environmentalist publishes the critical but constructive views of both industrialists and ecologists, through challenging guest editorials, in-depth articles, interviews and news and comments columns." This is a journal publsihing view points, not exactly Nature is it? if you dont know the difference then you are seriously lost. So lets be clear according to their own web sites there are the only two artciles in in what they themsleves consider as respectable journals. Neither of them present any evidence of a conspiracy. lets contrast this with Structure Mag, a joint publication of the NAtional Council of Strucural Enginners , the Council of American Strctural Engineers, and the Strucual Engineering Institute. they concluded WTC7 fell due to fires caused by debris from WTC1 and WTC 2. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf anothe paper in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, conlcuded "In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural. The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed. It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings." http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html

How high are your academic standrads when you think the journal of 911 studies is a peer reviewed journal? This is a journal set up by three guys committed to a particualr conclusion.They right most of the articles themsleves. They dont publish regularly. Infact they have now said since their is so much evidence in their favour they have stopped publishing and ask contributors to "Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust".. HHmm, so they've got all the facts, so much so they don't publish anymore , yet haven't won over the scientific community. See a discrepecancy? notice how many articles they publish that don't agree with a conspiracy theory? even though the vast amount of academics dont subscribe to a conspiracy theory. They even admit their "journal" isn't trusted, yet you want to come on here and say "here is a peer reviewed jounral". Maybe now you can see why no one is buying your paranoid fantasy.

Im lumping the claims together becuase thats what most conspiracy web sites claim, if you have a different view perhaps enlighten us with what you think happened. You give too much respectability by labelling your conspiracy nuts engineers, scientists etc Real scientists present thei ideas in serious peer reviewed journals. your guys dont do that . Instead your article relies on an argument from ignorance, he doesnt have the images of the damage to WTC 7 so therefore it didnt happen. feel free to find them here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction and find a proper peer reviewd journal here: http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf or read this you may find it illumiating: http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Its still hard to get over how easy it is for the SCAm (Supplements, Complimentary and Alternative Medicine) Industry to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public. I recently read these fantastic books throughly exploring (and mostly debunking )alterntive therapists and nutrionists and the like ). Anyway here they are , in case you are interested: http://www.trickortreatment.com/ and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/3561272/Review-Bad-Science-by-Ben-Goldacre.html