Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.
----------------------------------------------

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

BEST VIEWED IN LARGE FONT
Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

Was 9/11 aided and abetted by heinous, brilliant co-conspirators in federal employ?

We think not, but distinguished commentators wish to correct us, hence this post

We challenge them to produce any remaining instance of odd circumstance unexplained by official story

Comments will start at once but we plan to advance massive rebuttal here anon

In a world where the Bush administration has been increasingly exposed as radically untrustworthy and exploitive on so many fronts, at a cost of a trillion dollar war and a multi-trillion dollar recession, excessive suspicion of officialdom in every other area is understandable. No wonder conspiracy theory has flourished on the Web, especially 9/11.

guy_fawkes-conspirator.jpgCertainly, anyone who has caught up with the true situation in HIV/AIDS and understands that it is most certainly based on a false scientific hypothesis thoroughly rebutted in the scientific literature, but kept going with bureaucratic and political support and funding at the cost of ruining many lives and causing more than a few unnecessary deaths, is going to question officialdom on other fronts.

The question becomes, is there any good reason to dismiss 9/11 theories when the global scam in AIDS (non)science is such a huge error yet so well funded and endorsed by every government and so many charities in the world, with Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Taylor, Bono and many other well known medical authorities, er, celebrities joining in?

What a priori reason is there to discount the theory that there are many fishy things about the circumstances of 9/11 and they all point to the conclusion that the destruction was aided in advance by federal personnel who helped it come off in order to allow the US to invade Iraq and further global domination by the elite who have so successfully raided the coffers of the US and the pockets of the uninformed Wall Street investor and US motorist at the gas pump under the leadership of Bush and Cheney and their friends in high corporate places and in the Saudi Royal family etc etc etc.

Science heretics are not conspiracy theorists

As far as we are concerned, there is every reason not to think the two are comparable, starting with the fact that the HIV/ADS global scam is a simple matter of a medical theory arising out of a false claim which has been thoroughly disproven in the peer reviewed literature continuing to receive funding and political support because the reviews and gathering disproof have been concealed from the public by forcibly discouraging the mainstream media from reporting on the topic, and fomenting enormous public prejudice against the reviewers, including virtually ignoring the over thirty very good books which have been published on the topic (we plan to add a long page listing these books and short guides to each anon).

The 9/11 theories on the other hand, consist entirely of imaginative alternative explanations for the circumstances of 9/11 which may have looked odd and inconsistent with the official story to begin with but which have been exhaustively investigated and accounted for since. The residual oddities are trivial, since as we recently pointed out the thorough review of the collapse of WTC 7 published last month dispensed with the last major puzzle of the event.

However, we recognize that many of our commentators here have studied the topic with much greater enthusiasm and attention than we have and so there yet may be a gigantic conspiracy remaining to be uncovered which has so far resisted being pulled into the open despite the combined efforts of a million or more Web investigators who find the official story incredible because it doesn’t fit the facts as they understand them, or for more emotional reasons.

We therefore will be delighted to host any further comment along these lines under this post, which will have the effect of removing them from the comment threads on posts on other topics, which will be beneficial all round.

We look forward to seeing what if any credible statements and evidence can be produced to justify any further attention to the topic.

But we repeat that it seems important to separate skepticism on science and its paradigms, especially HIV/AIDS, from 9/11 conspiracy analysis, because the political and social disparagement of skeptics in science can only be magnified by association with the unscientific and imaginative elements in 9/11 theorizing, when the two issues are very different in substance.

Here are the comments on this topic so far, moved from the Debate, economy distract as political road bomb awaits post:

Baby Pong Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I completely agree with TS. Conspiracy theories are silly. Everybody knows that conspiracies don’t happen. And everybody knows that a US government agency like NIST is going to produce an objective investigation of alleged government wrongdoing, because, darn, it’s the right thing to do!

Debunking NIST’s Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Truthseeker Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Almost all conspiracy theories are silly. That’s what is so damaging about them – they let the true problems sneak through under the Crying Wolf camouflage, with the guards asleep at the post.

Because 9/11 is so fatuous a theory without any credibility or the smallest scrap of genuine evidence everyone is lulled into thinking that elections don’t get hacked.

Baby Pong Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Of course, conspiracies never happen. Two guys don’t plot to knock off a 7-Eleven on a Saturday night. And a guy in a cave (a most unusual cave, which would have needed to have been outfitted with the most sophisticated communications equipment capable of executing an elaborate plot on the other side of the world with split second timing, defeating the vast resources of the world’s most advanced defensive system, and also would have needed a dialysis machine in the cave to keep the guy alive…and lots of electricity to run all this technology…this conspiracy doesn’t happen either.

Truthseeker Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:08 am

Gee, I guess the fact that they must have power sockets in the caves to run the video cameras proves beyond doubt that that the CIA supplied generators.

stevekj Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm

TS, you must bear in mind that the story peddled by the U.S. government of what happened on 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory. So the choice available to intelligent observers is not “should I believe the official account or some nutjob conspiracy theorists” but rather “*which* conspiracy theorists should I believe?” There is no reason to elevate the official story above the pejorative label “conspiracy theory” just because it happens to come from the government.

When you frame it this way, and look at the available evidence carefully, it quickly becomes obvious that the official story is a fabrication, and that whatever happened that day had a lot of inside help. It was very clearly not just a bunch of turban-wearing foreigners stealing a couple of planes. Where did that help come from? Since the government put a lot of effort into covering up and suppressing evidence, that’s who I would look at first.

Truthseeker Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Well Steve, perhaps you are in possession of evidence that some known or unknown branch of the US government gave them inside help, but it appears that the New York Times does not have it. Would you care to forward it to us or them? Not sure that the government’s “conspiracy theory” and the 9/11 nutjob “conspiracy theory” are on the same plane as far as the definition of “conspiracy theory” goes. Buncha Al Quaeda loonies hitting at the Great Satan’s new brand symbol (G’bye Statue of Liberty) on the grounds it offended their idea of maintaining the innocence of Islam from Western values is hardly the same kind of thing as officials of the US federal government assisting the assault and if so how exactly? How did they assist them? They knew about them but they let them go ahead? OK so did they know it would demolish the WTC Twin Towers so dramatically and totally? If not, was it really such a great idea as it turned out to be? Not beforehand, clearly. It was small scale in prospect, even compared with boarding and downing many more planes at a time. Any Federal Government involvement would have escalated it to a decent level commensurate with the ambitions of the dastardly planners of world domination or whatever.

They weren’t wearing dish cloths anyhow, they were in jacket and trousers as we recall. The government motives in suppressing evidence presumably had a lot to do with various understandable political motives from crowd control and avoiding blame for incompetence to trying to get the Bush friends the Bin Ladens out of town before they got lynched, etc, just as the EPA assessment of the smoke as non toxic was to avoid panic and get business back ASAP. The list of such motives is easy to imagine. The possibility of a conspiracy within the US government executive branch of aiding and abetting a very low tech amateurish attack on the symbols of American global commercial power and keeping it concealed afterwards from the bloodhound media of the world all eager to expose any such thing is by comparison totally inconceivable on any rational basis, that is all we claim.

MacDonald Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Any Federal Government involvement would have escalated it to a decent level commensurate with the ambitions of the dastardly planners of world domination or whatever.

I’m not sure what you’re gettign at here, TS 9/11 worked quite nicely for those dastardly planners of world domination. It ushered in an endless war against a phantom enemy plus Afghanistan, Iraq and soon Iran, unbridled executive powers, accelerated erosion of all civil liberties, got Buch elected twice, and is the only reason McCain is not light years behind in the polls.

Whaddaya mean it wasn’t enuff?

BY the way, why do we need somebody to come forward with evidence when the doting fools that runs the country spill the beans every time they forget to take their medicine on time?

If Rumsfeld himself told you that Flight 93 was shot down, would you believe it? If Bush told you that bombs inside the buildings were part of the terrorists’ plan, would that be convincing? Note, in the usual semantic mess that characterizes every Bush statement, there is an allusion to people trapped above not being allowed to escape. Guess which event. How about 9/11 comission testimony saying that Cheney knew that…. whatever hit Pentagon was coming, but declared that “the order stands” (obviously not the order to shoot the bugger down)? Here’s the trinity for ya:

Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was “shot down.”


Bush talks about EXPLOSIVES in building (on 9/11?)

Minetta tells 9/11 Commission Cheney knew exact flight path

Baby Pong Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am

“Well Steve, perhaps you are in possession of evidence that some known or unknown branch of the US government gave them inside help, but it appears that the New York Times does not have it.”

Did you ever serve on a jury, TS? Have you never seen a prosecutor discredit the testimony of someone who is a known and proven liar? Ah, yes, if the NYT had evidence, you imply, they would publish it, even salivate at the prospect, being part of a “bloodhound media… eager to expose any such thing…”

These really shows your disconnect with reality. First, the NYT are known and proven liars, as any good intellectual should know. The media are only eager to expose scandals that involve illicit sex by world leaders and other titillating matters that make good headlines but do not seriously threaten to overturn the established order. The media themselves are the biggest scandal of all, for most of the time they act as though they were state-controlled, faithfully parrotting government’s self-serving stories, and do not dig to get at facts that would really stir the rabble to revolution.

The list of important stories they have censored would probably stretch from New York city to Crackley Falls, Maryland, were it set in 16 point justified Bodoni with 1-1/2 line spacing and 1/4 inch indents.

Okay, now I’m sure you will change your fanciful thinking. You just needed a knock on the head.

Truthseeker Says:
October 25th, 2008 at 2:05 am e

The list stretches from New York to Niagara Falls, yet you cannot name one favorite?

Yes, prosecutors are often liars and abet lying and manage to railroad innocents into jail for ever and then when they are proved innocent, resist the correction, as my next post will record when I return from life ie Photoplus 2008.

Yes, the media are captives of their system, as we all are except the few outside any system, as are the distinguished personnel and resolute commentators of the Guardian of Science.

But what has that got to do with the price of bats flying around your belfry, my distinguished commentator?

We requested evidence, and it appears you come up short. Do we have to laboriously post a list of all the proper explanations of all the supposed mysteries of 9/11?

We are willing to do that but other vital topics must take priority. To avoid confusion of topic, since this post concerns voting integrity, after all, not 9/11, perhaps you will allow us to start the post on 9/11 rebuttal with a couple of sentences and fill in later, and this important discussion can be moved there instead of forcing those printing out the comments on this post to waste paper (in their view) on the topic that concerns you, which is apparently your unlikely belief that those who occupy the top positions in US government and its executive can organize conspiracies of an intricate nature and vast consequence without being found out by any intern reporter on a provincial newspaper in Utah, which seems unlikely a priori but hey, always surprises in store as the planet rolls on in it as yet undisturbed orbit.

92 Responses to “Was 9/11 aided and abetted by heinous, brilliant co-conspirators in federal employ?”

  1. MacDonald Says:

    TS,

    We (I am recklessly speaking for my fellow theorists) don’t really have a position other than there’s something fishy about the whole thing. It just hasn’t been explained satisfactorily.

    You may be referring mainly to the controlled demolition theory. I am following the tradition of the dear Dr. Biernbaum in straddling the fence (post) on this issue. To tell the truth, I don’t really see how an ordinary controlled demolition could have been pulled off in each of the buildings. But we’re not confined to conventional explanations here, and there’s a critical mass of unlikely coincidences, such as 3 symmetrical collapses in the same day, that needs a GOOD explanation. A MUCH, MUCH BETTER explanation than the ones we’re given.

    Instead of coming up with or debunking conspiracy theories, I would far rather that somebody here, somebody like you, presented the Gov’s story intelligibly, detailed and convincingly – and that includes the various responses. It is more mindboggling to me than two dozen free-falling pancakes that the President of the US, after having had all the time in the world to come up with a suitable story, says that the sum of his reaction to seeing an unidentified airplane explode into the WTC was to say to himself, “That’s one terrible pilot”, before he proceeded to read a story to some school children.

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, thanks MacD, so now if you would make a little list of the fishy elements in the established story, which will be posted here as best we can ie the post event reviews and their conclusions presented by the honorable and respected members of the engineering, media and architectural communities which have appeared in report form at conferences and in book form, since at the moment all we hasve in hand as far as the fishy list is concerned is the handout from the band of protesters that passed through Wall Street a while back, that we believe we posted on (though possibly only drafted same and omitted to finish off and post).

    A list of the facts and factors that you think make these narratives stink of fish is all important. In our complacent myopia we have not discovered any at all that prove out in our research, though admittedly said research has been somewhat handicapped by our prejudice against the fish detectives in this field, since we haven’t yet encountered any alternative possible narratives that make any sense.

    For example, we have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting that our esteemed President reacted to this sensational event with the “That’s one terrible pilot” remark, since even if he was involved in a grand scheme to encourage and abet the simple plot of the foolish and ignorant zealots to get on board planes with board cutters and fly them into the largest targets they could aim at, he (George W. “Who me?” Bush) would presumably pretend to be taken by surprise and unaware of how big the event would soon turn out to be.

    The Government’s story as expanded by further investigations and reports should certainly be set up here to see if our distinguished, skeptical and habitually open minded contributors can penetrate whatever cracks they can find and blow it apart with the dynamite of their logic and expertise in detecting inconsistency and paradox and general foolishness in certain scientific paradigms (HIV/AIDS in particular) which do not withstand such penetrating scrutiny.

  3. MacDonald Says:

    Haha, nice try. but it’s your turn. You present the Gov’s position.

    Now I’m going to have to ask you to do something which is apparently extremely difficult for you: Imagine you’re not living in LaLa-land. Imagine if you can that braindead presidents and Veep candidates are not par for the course. Imagine the f-ing Commander in f-ing Chief, surrounded by All His Men watching an event on TV, that wasn’t even broadcast on TV until the next dayImagine them watching an unidentified F-ING PLANE EXPLODING INTO THE WTC!!! and the only reaction is the Preznit, the Commander in Chief saying to himself “That’s One terrible Pilot”, shrugging his shoulders and getting on with his children’s book.

    If that doesn’t immediately explode, collapse and pancake your brain, you are in a parallel universe inhabited solely by you and Bill Kristol, and it’s no point trying to communicate with you. Try the Leslie Nielsen depiction of what happened next. Maybe that will drive the point home.

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    you are in a parallel universe inhabited solely by you and Bill Kristol

    MacD, this is yet another foolish statement. My predictions so far have been 100% accurate eg Obabababarama, etc.

    Bush didn’t have to see it on TV to make such a remark but in fact he was with the children on the morning when the incident involving Osama’s architectural revision of the NYC skyline was on every channel, including presumably the one in the sky that you are permanently tuned to from the region of another galaxy.

    Your link goes to Scary Movie 4 Trailer, with a fetching shower scene, but is that what you intended? Pleasantly distracting from this entirely sober investigation of less amusing fantasies, but again, are you sure you are always tuned to the right channel?

  5. MacDonald Says:

    LOL!! Try to make it through the entire trailer; it should be possible as these trailers are targeted to an MTV attention span audience. Leslie Nielsen will appear after a few seconds.

    Your observations on Bush and 9/11 TV broadcasts are extremely perceptive. Have you shared them with Bill Kristol yet? who knows they may make it into one of his NYT Parallel Universe columns.

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    Fer Krissake MacD et al let us have your razor sharp perceptions on the Election instead of this thread for now, since it is the matter of moment at this moment momentarily, and whether the Twin Towers were brought down by the notorious political and architectural revisionist Bin Laden or a crew led by a modern Mark Felt should wait as you suggested until the post above can be expanded as pledged to include irrefutable rebuttal of all tinges of fishiness detected by the eagle eyed but open minded honorary SG investigative committee.

  7. MacDonald Says:

    The neocons are imploding, pancaking. Proof:

    Mouth-For-Hire Dennis Miller is not Funny on Fox anymore, at all, at all.

    Zero-sexed Gretha van Susteren is spending 80% of her time shilling for Sarah Palin, the other 20% gossiping about Obama.

    Hollywood-Madam Dick Morris is now the most annoying person in the whole world after Sean Hannity, and the most consistently wrong-about-everything hack after Bill Kristol.

    That can’t be all bad. Unfortunately I can’t get passionate about Obama. I’m still waiting for him to show the steel-spine in the face of a manufactured international crisis. Hey Big O, how about Georgia vs Russia? Do you still agree with McSame’s Mannichean interpretation of the situation, or do you have Faith that at least 51% off likely voters are not complete morons.

    And TS, you underinformed buffon. “I saw THE FIRST WTC CRASH on TV the day before it was broadcast, several hours before anybody knew about the existence of the tape”, was Bush’s considred response to why he sat there gaping for 7 minutes when he heard about the second crash. He wasn’t jolted into immediate and resolute action because he already knew about the first one. It was just more of the same. Now is your brain exploding?

    You deserve the same moronic government as every other Yankee bimbo.

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    MacD, you are not only a “buffon” but an ass complete with long ears and tail, pure and simple, about that quote. Do you honestly think Bush said it? Do you REALLY think that he meant to say that if he said it?

    Don’t post about election politics on this thread. Can’t you even understand that was what was requested? Earth to MacD, post about the next President on the next President post, if you will. But please, something that is the product of more than slapdash skimming of the satellite dish informed by schoolboy iconoclasm directed at nonentities who seem to have been your favorites for some reason, is that right? Maybe you could then develop some passion or at least actual sense and feeling about what are in fact matters of considerable moment. If you cannot see the difference in potential outcome between an Obama win and a McCain steal you certainly don’t know what time it is or even what century. If you really can’t tell that Obama is an exceptional candidate head and shoulders above the rest then you are less perceptive than the entire Congress and Senate, all of whom show that they can see it.

    What on earth do you think this is all about? It’s not about politics so much as the quality of man we need to lead.

    And since when has the wit-challenged Dennis Miller ever been funny? Try Jay Leno, who tonight presented a clip of Larry King interviewing McCain and both of them asleep, concocted somehow from actual clips of them sleeping or if not, then brilliant computer adaptation of very great skill.

  9. MacDonald Says:

    Obama may be an exceptional candidate. He just doesn’t turn me on. Sorry.

    The non-entities are all Foxian analysts and investigative reporters – you can add Neil Cavuto, who under normal circumstances try to to cover themselves with a fig of fair and balancedness
    Their increasingly vicious partisanhip, victim mentality and messianic McCain Campaign Resurrection myth creation is a reliable indicator of the increasing desperation of the Right, which in turn is a reliable indicator of Obama’s increasing popularity.

    My method of election prognostication should not appear odd in Bill Kristol Land.

    And no, no, no. I’ve already told you the above was Bush’s considered and rehearsed answer to his peculiar behaviour on 9/11. He is giving details including dialogue/monologue of an impossible event. But even if it did happen that way, it is brain-meltingly impossible to imagine such a reaction from our otherwise superparanoid Commander in Chief to seeing the WTC being blown up.

    You, Mr. Science Gatekeeper, will as always apply the soft bigotry of infinitely low expectations to explain what is yet another piece in the critical mass of total incoherence that makes up the official conspiracy story, and Bill Kristol will no doubt quote you in his La-La Land column.

  10. Truthseeker Says:

    Not infinitely low expectations. First like any hack we apply an ordinary common sense filter to speculative revision of the 9/11 tale, asking merely that the alternative interpretation put forward at least has some semblance of reason and credibility in terms of motive and the known facts which surround the admittedly concealed ones.

    Secondly to expect human behavior in this context to be slow witted is not really blind prejudice is it? We simply have a realistic view, in accord with the known facts and record, of the performance of people in the established governmental and media order, low and high. Is it not realistic to acknowledge that membership and participation in large systems handicaps the mind? Apart from the general burden of group psychology to do with how people behave differently in groups, which anyone can see operating in extreme cases such as lynch mobs, not to mention the intellectually paralyzing effects of sharing a paradigm seen so vividly in the case of HIV/AIDS and many other scientific fields before a paradigm is finally overturned, isn’t it common sense that membership of a large social system within the larger society handicaps performance by introducing all kinds of demands to fit in and influences that have to do with keeping one’s position and protecting the system against ridicule from outside observers who can often see very clearly how poorly the system responds, compared with individuals who are free of such fetters? For example the well known incident where the delightfully unfettered but well grounded physicist Richard Feynman sat on the Challenger investigation panel and refused to be handicapped by said pr requirements for NASA to maintain its reputation and demonstrated with a glass of iced water that O rings shrank and/or became brittle at the temperature matching the Challenger takeoff.

    Anyhow you know very well that the performance of the Bush administration in Iraq has suffered from massive mistakes such as sending home Saddam’s army with their weapons and no pay to become resistance fighters quite apart from Al Quaeda, although that was admittedly a shining example of how one individual can make a mistake of giant consequence by NOT taking advantage of the resources built up in the system he was trying to lead ie Bremer not taking advice from the Army and others who knew better. All in all, when you spell it out it seems that the kind of leader you want is an individual who can still think for himself while taking advantage of the huge resources built up by the system he takes over, which is why we are excited about Obama as someone who seems to be precisely that type.

    A page with some material of the kind which fits our criteria initially is Mainstream Press Begins To Home In On Suspect 911 Events etc which in clips from the Independent reasonably speculates in a sober tone that just maybe Flight 93 was brought down not by passengers fighting their way into the cockpit but by Air Force interceptors who had plenty of time to reach it, but again by the time one finishes inspecting the entire page one is mired in Maharishi kookiness which tempts one to move on to more useful activities, since after all why would it really matter if Flight 93 was in fact intercepted?

    Interestingly the Dr John Hagelin featured on the page as offering a better solution to terrorism than attacking foreign countries is a one time Presidential candidate who mixes scientific enquiry with his advocacy of peace and harmony through meditation. He headed up a company making very fine audio equipment for a time, and he once experimented with group meditation to see if they could influence a whole city and claimed that they lowered the crime rate in Washington briefly.

    We interviewed Hagelin once after making an appointment to meet for lunch at a restaurant and arriving half an hour late to find that the restaurant had permanently closed and the great man waiting outside without the slightest sign of impatience. He explained that he had simply taken the time to carry out his daily half hour meditation.

  11. ren Says:

    I thought that the article was pretty interesting, we need more information about HIV/AIDS out there.

    http://www.aidsdrugsonline.com

  12. Baby Pong Says:

    What does TS have to say about the remarkable coincidence that, on Sept. 11, 2001, the military and CIA were running multiple war games that simulated planes being used as missiles and crashing into buildings?

    http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

  13. Truthseeker Says:

    That it was a coincidence, among the billions and billions of coincidences that happen everyday and which are unerringly detected by the keen nose of the conspiracy theorist if they occur anywhere near the event whose backstage he/she is investigating, and which are then produced as evidence of the suspected mischief, while entirely ignoring the statistical likelihood of such coincidences occurring close to any event, which approaches 1.

    Forgive this non-conspiracy theorist if we wonder how credible it is that plotters should arrange for Pentagon wargames to occur the very same day as their planned event, and what possible reason they could have had for arranging this catnip for conspiracy mavens?

  14. MacDonald Says:

    Ah the critical mass of coincidences will never be reached, that is clear. The host is once displaying the scientifically vital belief-defying ignorance of the various details surrounding this latest in an endless series of coincidences crowding every aspect of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

    It is undoubtedly par for the course that the same administration which cooked up the –

    “I had already watched the first plane hit the day before the tape came out and thought nothing of it, so why should I think anything of it when I heard a second plane had hit the same target within minutes?”

    – Bush explanation for inaction would also claim that not in their wildest imagination had they ever thought to prepare for an event where hijackers woud fly planes into the Pentagon and WTC.

    Now why would they say a thing like that? Why would they repeatedly rehearse the very event which unfolded, then deny that they had even thought of it hmmmmm… ? And why would they think to make an attack under cover of drills that had disabled all normal, well-rehearsed responses to these well-rehearsed scenarios hmmmm…..?

    Prepare, rehearse and execute, and at the same time deny knowledge, preparation and participation hmmmmm. . . Nope never heard of that one before. It must all be those billions of daily coincidences that just happened to cluster that particular day.

    Once again the incomparable independent thinker hosting these pages has shown me what real intellectual rigour looks like. I now believe that tornados assemple boeings in junkyards the world over, and that Shakespeare’s Collected Works are frequently rewritten by chimpanzees with quill pens. Only one question remains, to sate forever my intellectual curiosity: where can I sign up for the Obabababama Junior Fan Club?

  15. Truthseeker Says:

    Believe you should contact the Obama team as soon as possible, MacD, with a worked up resume, since your level of credulity is so high, that you must believe as we do that Obama is the Second Coming, Yea, the Lord hath spake by anointing Our Brother to save the world and possibly even GM, though we doubt it.

    Bush didn’t watch the first plane hit on TV at the time and nor did anyone else, though you can find people who say they did, as someone did at dinner last night, until they were corrected, as reason indicates, even if faulty memory or inability to formulate coherent thoughts in the Bush manner does not. Exactly what you are saying above is not clear either, but that fact stands. TV cameras were not trained on the WTC at the time the first plane hit, since no one expected the event. Your paraphrase beginning “I had already watched…” doesn’t even make sense as it stands. Perhaps you imagine that the CIA group that planned this amateur coup had cameras ready and supplied a tape to the White House … no, it is not worth speculating as to what you mean. The sentence is meaningless as it stands.

    The essential point about 9/11 speculation is clear. The official story makes sense and fits the facts except for tiny little often inaccurate, eventually debunked or simply unbelievable fringe claims from the assiduous archaeologists of the Establishment is Always Lying club. This matches the Kennedy assassination debate, the Martin Luther King debate, and the debates about extra sensory perception, flying saucers, ghosts, and all else of this ilk – the evidence that contradicts common sense is flimsy, ephemeral and highly speculative. Upon close inspection it doesn’t pan out – as in the last round of experiments which proved the power of prayer, until debunked by the rigorous analysis of a Columbia professor.

    MacD, you are sufficiently skeptical not to have swallowed the already scientifically debunked HIV/AIDS claim and you found you were right. Don’t let it go to your head and entirely corrupt your faith in establishment claims. It is an exception which was and is enabled by unique facilitators such as the hysteria of gays, the shameless bureaucrats and false scientists who ran the field, the impossibility of proving a negative, and the politics of blame.

    We are talking of conspiracy theory here and need to note that HIV/AIDS is not even an alleged conspiracy at this blog, unless you count idea sharing at the unconscious level as a conspiracy. We are not talking of the tendency of bureaucratic, corporate or governmental systems to induce lying and cover up among their officials. This tendency is rife, admittedly, and unfortunately feeds conspiracy suspicion, for example, the EPA claim that the smoke from the WTC pyre was not harmful to health, exposed later as a mistake or lie to avoid public panic.

    Neither coincidence nor cover up justifies the conspiracy theory it provokes. You need something solid. In the WTC case, where is it?

  16. stevekj Says:

    TS, your faith in establishment claims is entirely groundless. The establishment has a long history of lying to you; the only lie that you personally happen to have discovered so far is the one about HIV and AIDS. There are many more, but you will find essentially none of them printed in the New York Times. You will need to expand your research horizons a bit.

    You probably swallowed the line about “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. But that hasn’t been the case for a very long time, if ever. It’s more accurately described as “government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporate elite”. And the mainstream media are deep in the pocket of the corporate elite, so they’re not going to tell you this.

    The first part of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory that makes no sense is that jet airliners simply cannot destroy steel-framed concrete skyscrapers. They never have, and they never will. Something else is required to bring down a structure like that, particularly inside its own footprint – usually explosives.

    The second part of the official theory that makes no sense is that the purported perpetrators had neither means, motive, nor opportunity to pull that stunt off – not without a lot of inside help. The Bush administration, and its backing controllers, did have all three of those characteristics, and didn’t make any particular secret of it, either.

    The third part that makes very little sense (not quite no sense whatsoever, but very little) is that the administration did everything in its power to suppress any outside investigation of the event. Structural materials were instantly chopped up and carted off to China; video evidence was confiscated; official investigations were hamstrung. Why, exactly, would they do this? The usual motivation for going to that much trouble to hide something is that you actually do have something to hide. The next most common motivation is to distract attention from other things you’re trying to hide that are even more nasty.

  17. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS,

    You wrote, “The question becomes, is there any good reason to dismiss 9/11 theories when the global scam in AIDS (non)science is such a huge error yet so well funded and endorsed by every government and so many charities in the world, with Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Taylor, Bono and many other well known medical authorities, er, celebrities joining in?”

    You say yes because, “It is an exception which was and is enabled by unique facilitators such as the hysteria of gays, the shameless bureaucrats and false scientists who ran the field, the impossibility of proving a negative, and the politics of blame.”

    You ignore economic interests which I find quite astounding given the financial collapse caused by …. conspiracies. But different from what the propeller-beanie types proclaim. I’m talking about techno-conspiracies hidden in plain sight so-to-speak, and 9/11 is partly that. Certainly HIV/AIDS and the banks use of exotic instuments are “techno-incomprehension” conspiracies.

    I write what I write to bring the “exotic” to the light of day.

    The newly minted fairy tales of “HIV’s” discovery for Nobel Prize propaganda strikes some of us as oversimplified pablum that typically induces conspiracy mongering. What a few “science guardians” are up to these days is attempting to unravel the conspiracy facts associated with Gallo’s remarkable testimony at Parenzee.

    It should be clear from the record that those first four Science papers were a rush job. Margaret Heckler wakes up one day and says to assistants “I wonder … tell me what papers by our scientists are in press? – I need to give a press conference.” Why would this suddenly be urgent? Orders from the White House? Naaaah, that would make me a conspiracy nut.

    In your response to MacD, you say, “It is an exception which was and is enabled by unique facilitators such as the hysteria of gays, the shameless bureaucrats and false scientists who ran the field, the impossibility of proving a negative, and the politics of blame.”

    What exactly compells us to accept your version? Given the “Gonda and Popvic documentations” they very likely were ordered by the White House to back up the Secretary of HHS, notwithstanding the objections from Gonda and Popvic that they really had nothing as of April 23, 1984.

    As far as 9/11, please – it’s as convoluted as the tales of Gallo and Montagnier, legitimately subject to varying interpretations.

  18. MacDonald Says:

    You need something solid. In the WTC case, where is it?

    I don’t know, how about steel frames duuuhhh!

    Friends, I have twice linked the video, THE VIDEO, where Bush says that he didn’t react to plane number two hitting WTC because he had already watched number one hit before he went into the classroom!!!!! However, the truthiful one claims the grammar of this statement – yes, my friends the grammar! – does not make sense, therefore it was never uttered.

    Admittedly this expanation was only offered by Bush 3 months after the fact. The highly revered, even more highly informed, investigative journalist in residence will now tell us what Bush’s account of himself was once he had had an additional couple of years to gather his thoughts on the subject.

    Surely a brillant 9/11 debunker like TS would be able to demonstrate the solidity and enormous depth of his knowledge about the subject by providing this piece of trivia.

    And Steve, who gave you the idea that TS didn’t swallow the official HIV story? He is the only person in the whole world, Duesberg, Gallo and Robert Houston included, who still believes an immunodeficiencey virus has been satisfactorily purified and isolated.

    Why do you think he has turned to. . . . hmmmprrreephhbwahaha!!! political blogging?

  19. Truthseeker Says:

    The problem with 9/11 is that there is nothing substantial to respond to.

    Whatever Bush said you know very well that given his mastery of the language (not) it is evidence for nothing other than his own fumbling grasp of reality.

    MacD we don’t know what you are smoking with such profit but on the contrary we join the people you mention in recognizing that Montagnier was able to mail Gallo something which served very well as an isolated and purified retrovirus of consistent character, though only Gallo would maintain it was an “immunodeficiency” virus.

    If you deny this fact you will have to provide some alternative explanation for what everyone took to be the proof that Gallo was caught red handed in appropriating what belonged to Montagnier as a discovery, whatever it was.

    In three years you have been unable to suggest such an alternative, so may we suggest that just as in 9/11 your conclusions are unfounded?

  20. MacDonald Says:

    if you could persuade your unspeakably lazy self to visit the Perth Group’s site, you will find the point, the exact point that so puzzles you, treated of at length and with great substance and clarity.

    You seem not yet to have grasped that I am not in the business of determining if the planes were planes or missiles, or if the heat from burning desktops cut through the steel beams, or if it was a secret earthquake ray from an orbiting space station that did the job. I can only say with certainty that the official story is incoherent, contradictory and incomplete.

    For you it is easy: Bush is a incoherently babbling moron, Cheney and Rumsfeld apparently suffer from late-stage amnesia; further, they’re all pathological liars and Mineta might be a disgruntled employee on crack. That’s all possible, but even so there is little reason to take their many stories at face value. I am therefore willing to examine alternative explanations. It’s called Truth-seeking,and taht’s what I have applied to the field of viriology as well. You cannot keep holding everybody else responsible for your aversion to visiting original sources.

    .

  21. Baby Pong Says:

    MacD,

    I hear that the Boeing Union, the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, is quite upset about Boeing’s plans to use tornados to assemble their jets. They see this as a threat, no doubt, but we know that science must not be hindered in its quest to turn quadrillion to one probability odds into useful productivity tools.

  22. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS,

    Please forgive me it’s not that I want to pile on here but all MacD is asking is that you not keep taking the “easy” way out of these difficult questions.

    How about “institutionalized hidden agendas”, instead of conspiracy theory? How about looking at the entire record before making “easy-way-out” pronouncements on the origin of “HIV’s” molecular signature?

    It’s not that hard, you can go here: http://www.sciencefictions.net/documents.html

    And find 100+ documents with correspondences between all the principle players including Gonda’s letter of March 26, 1984 where he tells Papovic in response to, “Dr Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication”; “I do not believe any of these particles are HTLV I, II, or III”.

    This can be combined for narrative purposes with the first of the published papers (pg 497) where the only thing Gallo had was a high count of RT activity published for the H4 culture. The fraud is in the title, “continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV III)” which is a misrepresentation of the kinetics portrayed in Figure 2. We can check this with the Levy Group’s Figure 1 caption*, properly labeled, “kinetics of reverse transcriptase activity”, while Gallo’s Figure 2 caption reads, “continuous HTLV-III production from H4/HTLV-III”.

    Interestingly, H4 may not have been “accidentally” contaminated with LAV since the later extraction of retroviral genomic “pieces” was from H9, which is where the 3 prime half of LAV was documented in the Nature paper of 1991 or 2 (which I don’t have handy but posted here in the Legally Blind Thread?).

    Thus it’s possible that the “French virus” was not necessary for the “continuous production” claim.

    Additionally Andy Maniotis has recommended a focus on, “the nature of Montagnier’s Patient one sample. The theft issue or concealmentof the source of Gallo lab “LAV-HTLV-III-HIV- sample, was debunked when Gallo and Montagnier co-published in NEJM their recollections of their early experiences … so why beat a dead horse …” He continues, “Sinoussi and Luc’s Nobel prize is based on a sample from a man who had been treated for syphilis, had two bouts of gonorrhea, had had herpes I and II, Epstein Barr virus, and of course CMV. This is what the Nobel is based on, as proving that ‘HIV’ causes AIDS? Patient One never had AIDS in the first place. He had lymphadenopathy, and a long history of STD.”

    Given what we now know (or should know) about HERVs, is it that difficult to “see” a retrovirus from this individual “taking over” cell cultures that don’t have an immune system after the requisite stimulations?

    Dr Maniotis concludes, “Gallo thought he had the first AIDS patient survey, in which only 1/3 to perhaps slightly less than 1/2 of the patients ‘HIV-positive’ using a culture system employing a slight amplification of the ‘LAV’ signal using cancer cells that don’t show any evidence of being infected by “an AIDS T-cell-killing virus.” Later (1986) of course Gallo did come up with a cell-line model of “HTLV/LAV” cytopathic effects that would be debunked by Duesberg.

    The devil, as always, is in the details.

    *Science, V225, (24 August 1984), 841

  23. Truthseeker Says:

    What nonsense, MacD, we have visited the Perth site long enough to get past its initial impressiveness and analyse what they are saying, which is now obsolete, since the work it criticizes as not proving a specific retrovirus was found contradicts what both Duesberg and the HIV defenders agree upon, which is that you can mail this stuff around without it losing its characteristics.

    You have been asked to provide an alternative explanation for this and have always proved unable to come up with one so your skepticism is nothing more than an attitude, which we happen to share but go on to TEST by seeing if there is any alternative explanation offered for what is presently established as a fact and the explanation people deduce from that fact. You have none so we conclude that the current universal interpretation stands, especially since it accords with all kinds of work done since 1984.

    The HIV-as-cause-of-AIDS situation is entirely different since not only did Duesberg’s initial analysis blow the idea skyhigh but the flow of research results since then albeit all of it carried on on the assumption that HIV causes AIDS has continually come up with results that contradict the premise and thus dictate that all honest scientists and others should vacate it immediately.

    Sitting around and being an endless questioner is not particularly useful unless the data is analyzed properly and independently and the answers to skepticism are taken into account and a proper conclusion reached, that is, if the clouds of smoke can be fanned away from the bleary eyes of the analyst who is supercharging his/her imagination with unusual substances.

    Everyone knows that Gallo’s lab work was unreliable if not downright fraudulent which is why he temporarily suffered official reprimand although able to wriggle out of it later on a legal technicality. All this came out clearly in the wrangling over credit for discovering HIV. What was not at issue was whether he was working with the very same virus as Montagnier had sent him Fedex twice – in fact it was the identity between the two that finally prised Gallo’s death grip off the credit for the discovery and in the end off the Nobel that came with it.

    Whether whatever Montagnier found and mailed was really a retorvirus or some collection of other things which miraculously kept its identity through mailing and lab work carried out in different locations is the issue that seems to be debated, but how it would keep its identity in this way seems to be unexplained, so at the moment the accepted explanation suffices.

    What always needs to be explained is how any phenomenon which is challenged could be interpreted in some other way. For example, if HIV is so incredibly uninfectious as Nancy Padian established, how come all these studies talk about the expanding prevalence over time of HIV in the many communities studied, eg uncircumcised Africans, different national populations, US blacks, etc etc?

    It is this kind of glaring inconsistency which tells us that something is fishy at a fundamental level. But what? At the moment everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.

    You presumably say that the situation is exactly the same in the 9/11 case because the official line doesn’t make sense, but where are the irreconcileable inconsistencies? Saying that Bush is compos mentis and we can rely on precision in his statements doesn’t work for us. Reading mystery into officially unexplained facets of the official account doesn’t work for us if they can be easily explained in other ways eg incompetence, desire of systems to conceal incompetence, political motives of a predictable nature such as shielding the bin Laden family from lynching, etc.

  24. MacDonald Says:

    Not only did you ignore Mr. Naylor’s futile efforts at holding your hand through this – an effort I had advised against for the very reason that is now manifest; you wouldn’t go near any original and/or tech stuff with a barge pole – you also persist in clinging to the only half understood senseless straw, provided to you by the discredited science gate keeper, Robert Houston, that because something can be moved from A to B without “losing its characteristics”, whatever that means, it must be a novel, exogenous retrovirus.

    You may have confused the puzzled silence from your adoring fans with the effect caused by the delivery of a knock-out argument, but rest assured that was all echoes in your mind.

  25. MacDonald Says:

    ARRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!

    I didn’t see this at first:

    What always needs to be explained is how any phenomenon which is challenged could be interpreted in some other way. For example, if HIV is so incredibly uninfectious as Nancy Padian established, how come all these studies talk about the expanding prevalence over time of HIV in the many communities studied, eg uncircumcised Africans, different national populations, US blacks, etc etc?

    WHAT ALWAYS NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED???!!! Have you ever heard of a certain Prof. Henry Bauer, his book and his blog, all devoted to showing why this is not consistent with the work of an infectious agent????!!!!

    AAAARRRRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!

  26. Truthseeker Says:

    The comments like the posts are written for people who have not read Bauer etc MacD, Sometimes you really appear foolish to us with your inability to understand why this is all being discussed and what level of transparency in aimed at. But then we realize that this kind of problem is exactly why those who do explore the details and work out what is really happening so rarely seem able to convey their wisdom to the masses and the untutored influential without whom they will achieve absolutely no shift in public opinion at all. If you did have the ability to work both sides of the issue then we could all count on the correction within a week or two and go home, but Alas! such is not to be.

    Your understanding of what is going on above the details is surely not so limited that you are not aware that Peter Duesberg is the one who has long shown that the Perth group and anyone else who challenges the “existence” of the virus is standing on the quicksand of out of date objections, but if you want to credit Houston as being someone who also sees this feel free. That Bauer has exposed all the inconsistencies in the epidemiological picture and its specious testing is a separate issue entirely though much more important and relevant in rejecting the conventional wisdom and the mirage of global pandemic which it supposedly supports.

    Meanwhile your inability to produce any major paradox or inconsistency in the 9/11 story stands as exposed as the phallic monument in Washington, and as inert. When are you going to produce something more interesting than empty cynicism in that regard? Only when we wheel onstage the armor plated refutation we promised? We will do it, but our motivation is weaker every time these challenges are posted, since they are all so revealing in their vagueness and minor scale.

  27. Baby Pong Says:

    TS, I realize that there are no major paradoxes or inconsistencies or improbabilities in the government’s explanation of 9-11, and it is very credible. I personally admire our government’s quickness and accuracy in establishing the facts of the case, and I pray every night that they finally catch Bin Laden and bring him to justice. It is quite amazing how he has eluded our bloodhounds for 7 years when we have satellite technology that can spot a smashed mosquito on a baseball at a distance of 300 miles.

    However, in the interest of fairness, some loudmouth troublemakers have suggested that there were some suspicious inconsistencies, so I will link some of them here.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8937
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8788
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8555
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8352
    http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/22/02147.html
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/14269

  28. MacDonald Says:

    As one of those irresponsible Troublemakers I wholeheartedly concur with Pong, and I humbly apologize for my stubborn failure to see the Light. After all, is the glaring Flaw in all our loudmouth arguments not revealed and amplified by a mere glance at the vague and intellectually puny list of references supplied above, not a single of which makes mention of Duesberg? In fact, closer scrutiny of the logic of 9/11 theory reveals neither the sacred initials, P. D., nor any of the mystical anagrams of the Name, by which otherwise uninitiated readers can satisfy themselves that an argument is clear, comprehensive and comprehensible.

  29. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS, your responses indicate “patience of a sort” and a willingness to reopen these vexing-to-us-all issues, and I appreciate that. As I requested in the Nobel thread, the pressing need is to look at more of the record before agreeing with any “universal interpretation”. Beware of “false-flag” operations, as the conspiracy buffs like to say.

    Hence, “recruiting” careful investigators from outside of retrovirology, but capable and most importantly INTERESTED in these “bottom lines” – the cause of so much sound and fury – is the point of engaging as best we can the boring technical details that may transform into points of excitement once the implications of “retrogenomics” are realized.

    Let’s dispose of the virus in the mail issue first. Easy, because addressed elsewhere and precisely analyzed by Nature, V363 (3 June 1993), 466-469: the “contaminated culture (M2T-/B was sent to LTCB (Gallo’s lab) in September 1983”. This paper also reveals the reason for the “provenance” of LAV in this culture, “the contamination of a culture derived from patient BRU by one from patient LAI was responsible for the provenance of LAV ((original name substituted)).”

    Two points of evidence for recombination in the H9 culture between the 3 prime half of LAV with LTR gag-pol of HTLV variants is 1) the “similarity” of HTLV III/LAV* with “Montagnier’s virus” was detemined with measurements of the “env V1/V2 region” and 2) “We conclude that the pool (HT), and probably another LTCB culture, MoV, were contaminated between October 1983 and early 1984 by variants of LAV* from the M2T-/B culture.” (There’s more besides these two points for a chimeric HTLV/LAV.) H9 and H4, of course, were derived from HT pool. One can say that Popovic/Gallo “massaged” (words fail here) Montagnier’s “isolate” in a manner not unlike the “isolates” from those 48 patients.

    From “Popovic … Gallo et al; Detection, Isolation and Continuous Production of Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and Pre-AIDS. Science V224, (4 May 1984), pg 499” we get “As shown in Fig. 2b, the highest RT activity was shown at a density of 1.16g/ml, which is similar to other retroviruses. The highest RT activity was found in the fractions with the largest amount of virus, AS DETERMINED BY ELECTRON MICROSCOPY ((emphasis added)). The actual number of viral particles determined by this method was estimated to be about 10^11 per liter of culture fluid.”

    Thanks to the now available Toplin paper, we can better understand the “working standards” of retroviral isolation that guided experiments 1970 to 1986. Essential details of the great AIDS-virus swindle in May of 1984 can be gleaned from primary-source publications.

    The reference of Popovic/Gallo and Toplin for viral particle count is the SAME (1). Alas, Toplin gives more precision in description: “We adjust the viral level to 2 x 10^11 particles per ml using rapid quantitative negative stain electron microscopy to MEASURE the concentration”. The paper includes type of EM that can be used to determine particle count based on ”double sucrose zonal centrifugation”.

    Thus, the EM Gallo et al refer to is clearly not Fig 1 which includes “cells”. Thanks to the Gonda letter, this fraudulent misrepresentation of virus “continuing production” is confirmed. Nothing else in the paper justifies that particle number.

    Additionally, it helps and is constructive, I think; to answer Mr. Houston’s reasonable question of 7/24/07with more on-the-record stuff finally brought to bear. He said, “But surely in the laboratory mass production was achieved. Or are “viral stocks containing 10^9 to 10^10 [1 billion to 10 billion] physical particles per milliliter” too little to qualify?” He means, surely Mr. Naylor this is mass production. Who cares what Gallo did.

    The point here is what was established in the public mind by continuous production claim transmuted to “mass purification” at Parenzee – certainly not “harmless passenger”. To back up his bosses on a bona-fide AIDS virus, frenetic activity in a cell culture was indicative of anything but harmless in vivo.

    So just like with the retroviral “kits” sold to experimenters, Moore, Lane et al were using “viral stocks”, by 1990 a standard Biotech product thanks to the earlier efforts 1970-1986. This use of prepackaged viruses has nothing to do with any kind of original experiments which would include “detection” of putative virions before clones are manufactured. Of course technologists can mass produce viral titers with cell “packaging lines” (2) such as H9 by inoculating clones into the culture.

    In his eagerness to demolish me, Mr Houston ignores the very common sense he’s wisecracking about. But all this is correctible. The H9:HTLV III/LAV clone was produced at the end of a chain of experiments and therefore could not be used to inoculate the culture at the beginning of the series without a time machine.

    1. Monroe and Brandt; 1970. Rapid semiquantitative method for screening large numbers of virus samples by negative staining electron microscopy. Appl. Microbiol. 20: 259 –262

    2. System Bio: http://www.systembio.com/express/?gclid=CI3p54yuypYCFQNaFQod5W2tzg

    Clontech: http://www.clontech.com/products/detail.asp?product_id=10526&tabno=2

  30. Truthseeker Says:

    Greetings O Pong, and our salutations to your brethren on the Planet Conspiracy where all good men and women detect and examine every minute possibility that devilishly cunning puppet masters in secret government cabals are hiding behind the smooth surface of official explanations for apparently simple events, such as one involving 20 men all identified and backgrounded who merely managed to get onto planes and hijack them with box cutters, after training to fly the planes into large targets.

    Pretty impressive, we’ll admit. Such brilliant government manipulation behind the scenes concealed from a global battalion of hungry investigative reporters but detected in its trivial uncertainties and meaningless inconsistencies void of specific alternative explanatory claims but spotted by the eagle eyed Planet Pongers as unerringly as hawks from 200 feet up are able to see a field mouse shiver the leaves of a compost heap as it moves through the mound of misinformation bulldozed by the government of the US, is that right? (Stop these metaphors, please! – Ed.)

    And who is the leader of the intergalactic group? None other than the not very celebrated Prof David Ray Griffin, with his silly smile but ultra detailed hawk eyed sifting of the detritus of 9/11 to see if everything holds together, or do we have the smallest uncertainty about massively relevant suspicious facts such as the ETA of Dick Cheney into his underground bunker, Mahamed Atta’s luggage itinerary, Bush’s classroom dawdling, and Barbara Olson’s cell phone call to her husband Ted Olson Solicitor General?

    Fair enough, we have a bundle of inconsistencies and contradictions. But are these worth the sophisticated attention of Pong, MacD and their respectful host trailing in the wake of their leadership? Are they worth poring over and pondering? Do they yield an alternative scenario which solves the puzzles and withstands equally persistent analyzing? Apparently not. And that is to be expected. Every account of events involving many people will have contradictions and inconsistencies, you betcha. Our reference: any court case you care to attend. The more dramatic, the more of these narrative mice and rats (see experiments on the appalling inadequacy of eye witnesses).

    The indications we would look for before devoting expensive attention to David Ray Griffin’s efforts in his book which appears to have gone nowhere, from which all these instances are drawn, are 1. Significantly hard to believe inconsistencies, paradoxes and suspicious peculiarities not explained by the standard story. 2. An alternative narrative which makes sense ie fits the rest of the facts which are established 3. Evidence that anyone responsible is taking David Ray Griffin extensively detailed book seriously.

    Repeated efforts to read this stuff keep triggering the Crackpot Alert Meter with which we have been armed ever since entering science reporting and which has been refined to ever greater levels of sensitivity over the years, whose needle tends to swing over the dial and hit the stop pillar every time it encounters one of David Ray Griffin’s efforts. Shades of Pierre Salinger! We once were forced to read John Mack’s book on his flying saucer witnesses and the flavor is exactly the same, mainly because it is riddled with the mistake of taking people literally when they are reporting memories of story events. Anyone who doesn’t understand that all recollection in the mushy precincts of the human brain is self organizing from partial clues is not equipped to be a detective of the past, in our opinion.

    MacD, your last post is not up to your usual high standards of sarcastic wit, since you seem to be confusing two exposures of false claims which occupy opposite ends of the spectrum of credibility, namely 9/11 and Peter Duesberg’ s analysis of the unfounded claim that HIV causes AIDS.

    In the former case we have small inconsistencies without necessarily great import and lacking alternative scenario which not even CNN takes seriously.

    In the latter case we have peer reviewed articles in the top literature of science setting the record straight by demonstrating that the current unproven story (that HIV causes AIDS) doesn’t accord in any particular with established science, or with laboratory results or epidemiology before or since, and contains major internal inconsistencies, while at the same time all can be explained by the alternative scenario that HIV causes nothing at all as usual for a retrovirus and all symptoms of AIDS sufferers are caused by standard diseases and ailments and the wrong drugs and treatment, and are simply relabeled “AIDS caused by HIV”.

    Upon the latter misunderstanding a global structure of misapprehension and mismedication has been erected, and because Duesberg’s analysis has been swept under the carpet everybody is under the impression that it is a valid scenario. Ironically this is precisely what happens with all successful conspiracy theory; it is taken as valid by large numbers of people who sustain an alternative scenario in their minds. But what is the alternative scenario in the case of 9/11?

    Please enlighten us.

    If you would like an example of conspiracy theory which seems valid on the surface ie smacks of genuine miscarriage of justice to us, how about Lockerbie? According to Wikipedia, Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University who was the “architect of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial”, told the Scotsman that it was “the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice in Scotland for 100 years. I won’t let it go.” At least all the doubts make sense a priori.

    Certainly official enquiry and famous convictions can be exposed as wrong. Viewers of PBS in NYC have just learned the notorious case of Dr Hawley Harvey Crippen on which all British children who visit Madame Tussaud’s are raised, the American who supposedly dismembered his wife and ran away with his girlfriend to be apprehended on a liner to America, was a miscarriage of justice. Apparently Crippen was innocent!

  31. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS,
    You said to MacD,

    “Your understanding of what is going on above the details is surely not so limited that you are not aware that Peter Duesberg is the one who has long shown that the Perth group and anyone else who challenges the “existence” of the virus is standing on the quicksand of out of date objections, but if you want to credit Houston as being someone who also sees this feel free.”

    Let’s make it clear that above is not the “whole story”. It can indeed be consistently brought “up-to-date”. They sold a signifier without a signified: HIV, which is the point of counter-speaking clearly and knowing what we’re talking about. It is an insult to language to say an immunodestructive virus is a harmless passenger, thus we banish this faulty map from “existence” as guardians of science.

    Nor can I warrant that when “the clouds of smoke can be fanned away from the bleary eyes of the analyst who is supercharging his/her imagination with unusual substances” the above techno-points will make sense. Maybe the opposite? ;o)

    There are still endless experiments with retroviruses that cry out for re-interpretation in accordance with the “new genomics” paradigm. (Professor Strohman, Howard Urnovitz, etc.)

    So surely, “Sitting around and being an endless questioner” IS “particularly useful” when “the data is analyzed properly and independently”. Those dissidents who’ve provided “answers to skepticism” should be “taken into account” so “a proper conclusion” can be “reached” because EVEN IF THEY’VE MADE ERRORS their contributions are valid progress according to many who’ve taken a closer look.

  32. MacDonald Says:

    Aided.

  33. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, Nick Naylor, you can define the valid progress for us, right? What is it? Please formulate it in a sound bite that can be included in the briefing to the Obama aide who will brief Obama.

    Hope that is not beyond your powers of non technical expression :-)

  34. Baby Pong Says:

    Well, it’s settled then. TS’s overwhelmingly rational reasoning has humbled me, and I am ashamed of my conspiracy-theorizing past. It is very reassuring to know that our rulers are good and decent men who would never concoct such a devilish plot.

    I now eagerly await the reign of President Obama, whose administration is beginning to be filled up with the wise men and women of the CFR, persons of courage and dignity who want equality for everybody. And I am heartened that Obama has promised to make tackling the Hiv/Aids pandemic a priority for his administration. We really must concede that it is essential to test everybody, and then to provide medicine for those who cannot afford it. Not to do so makes us evil beings ourselves, truly deserving of the term “denialists.”

    I, for one, am transcendently blissful now that i have discovered the truth. We were wrong. Sit down, brothers, and stop rocking the boat.

  35. MacDonald Says:

    Comrade Pong, you are far too modest in your praise of the Reformer Elect.

    Obama has shown the value of his hard-earned Harvard Law degree by voting to retroactively immunize blatantly lawbreaking telecoms, thereby immunizing the entire Bush admin as well – an admirably bipartisan gesture that shows he understands the need in a democracy for corporations and government to become one, only separated at most by a revolving door.

    Obama has also shown that he is is not a vengeful man by allowing Joe Liberman to retain his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Comittee. Among the countless admirable qualities Obama sees in a Joe Liberman, these no doubt top the list:

    Lieberman is a vehement supporter of one of the most unpopular wars in American history; a
    vigorous campaigner for the McCain/Palin ticket that just lost in something close to a landslide; a champion of reform policies we can believe in, such as the abolition of habeas corpus, waterboarding, refusal to negotiate with Iran, bombing Syria, remaining in Iraq indefinitely, prohibition against criticizing Bush while at war with “taorists”.

    This wise decidion also shows Obama is no mere populist since Lieberman is so generally disliked that no Democratic presidential candidate even wanted his endorsement; and he is deeply unpopular in his own state.

    Of course the pragmatic and centre-seeking revolutionary Uniter of Mankind can be expected to balance his endorsement of the worthy Senator Lieberman by making his own chief of intelligence policy, John Brennan, the new Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan is known as a big fan of various direct and indirect illegal torture policies, such as the life-saving so-called “rendition programs”, whereby terror suspects could be kidnapped and flown to nice places like Syria for a little friendly questioning before Lieberman starts bombing the region.

    Obama’s concept of “spreading the wealth” instead of relying on trickle-down economics has also been clearly demonstrated by his support for Paulson’s $700 billion bailout scam providing tax-payer funded relief to needy kingpins in the financial sector, as well as the $25 billion so that the Auto Maker CEOs can maintain their private jet fleet.

    To some this dramatic departure from the policies and practices of the last 8 years might seem reckless and extreme, but fortunately we can expect the Xavier to become more conservative and elite friendly in his approach once he assumes Power.

  36. Truthseeker Says:

    Shock horror! Are you suggesting that the new Messiah has clay feet? This is indeed worrying. However since these comments are recorded in the wrong thread, perhaps we can head them off with our new post, slightly delayed by Bill “I have $65 billion of your money but this does not necessarily mean that your PC will work” Gates, celebrating the many indubitable outstanding personal qualities of this fine President for the 21st Century which suggest that even though he may worry the congregation with strange choices for disciples, he is really arranging to further democracy and justice for all by drawing his enemies near. At least remember that his finest quality is that he can get people of diverse views into one room and find common ground. He told us this himself when Steve Kroft asked him what made him a good selection for the Presidency. Perhaps you didn’t hear it?

    Anyhow when we get through troubleshooting our sixteen weeks old HP and restoring its ability to access the Web at light speed from its current speed of zero we shall proceed to enlighten you as to what is really going on in the heroic psyche of one of the greatest politicians to step forward and run America since Lincoln, whose style he has adopted.

  37. MacDonald Says:

    Hehe… much obliged.

    We Report You Spin.

    As they say.

  38. MacDonald Says:

    Eh why so silent? Hillary got your tongue? You know Hillary”the Iranian National Guard is a terrorist outfit” Clinton.

    Hey I got an idea, let’s approach the world with some diplomatic subtlety; let’s make that woman Secretary of State.

    That would be SS Hillary. No regrets, KiSSinger is too old anyway und Herrn Lieberman is buzy maintaining ze purity of ze Tribe of Zion.

    Get people of different views in the same room and find common ground? I’ve already found the common ground: Surveillance, Torture, Aggression, Corruption, and that most important attribute of any responsible American politician passion for Israel, as Joe Biden poeteically expressed it.

  39. MacDonald Says:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) yesterday delivered the following remarks to the Christians United for Israel Conference:

    “Thank you for that kind introduction and that warm welcome. May I in turn greet you with the ancient words of welcome offered to pilgrims in Jerusalem – “Bruchim Habaim B’Shem Hashem” – blessed be those who come in the name of the Lord.

    That greeting is especially fitting for you because you have come to Washington not just as men or women, Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. You are here as Christians United for Israel. You represent a powerful force of people of faith in America who have pledged to never forget thee, O Jerusalem.

    And I know, as a Christian friend likes to remind me, that there are a lot more Christian Zionists in America than Jewish Zionists. And, I know the support of Christian Zionists today is critical to Israel’s security and strength, and to America’s security and strength.

    So I am honored by your invitation to speak tonight, to thank you for what you are doing, to exhort you to continue to do more — which is God’s work, and to pray with you that you are successful.

    I begin by thanking your founder, Pastor John Hagee. I would describe Pastor Hagee with the words the Torah uses to describe Moses, he is an “Eesh Elo Kim,” a man of God because those words fit him; and, like Moses he has become the leader of a mighty multitude in pursuit of and defense of Israel.
    ——————————————————–

    “Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Democrat congressman for the 5th District of Illinois in Chicago is the son of an Israeli terrorist. Rahm’s father, Benjamin, was a member of the Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organization that coined a new word as they blew up hotels, train stations, and other buildings in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s.

    Rahm was an Israeli citizen until he was 18 years old, when for obvious reasons he hid his Israeli passport in his underwear drawer. In 1991, however, he pulled his Israeli passport out and went and reportedly joined the Israeli Army to defend Zion from Saddam’s Scuds. “

  40. MacDonald Says:

    Pardon me, Joe Biden is indeed “passionate” about Israel:

    “no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion.”

    But the poetry effused on a different occasion and was related to various part of his anatomy:

    “My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head .. I promise you, I guarantee you, I guarantee you, I would not have joined Barack Obama’s campaign as vice president if I had any doubt, even the slightest doubt, that he shared the same commitment to Israel that I share.”

  41. Truthseeker Says:

    The Cabinet too Clintonesque for you? Oh ye of little faith.

    You now have a nice new post to target (not here please – this is the 9/11 conspiracy debate). Just remember that Kroft told Rose that Obama had a spine of steel. He makes his own decisions. See you there.

  42. Nick Naylor Says:

    “Please formulate it in a sound bite that can be included in the briefing to the Obama aide who will brief Obama.” – TS, this thread

    For HHS policy implementation purposes, review Howard Urnovitz’ 3 testimonies to Congress on human genome project and what has held up progress in AIDS, Gulf War Syndrome, etc. – “square pegs in round holes”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 117 access attempts in the last 7 days.