Saturday, September 01, 2007

9/11 'Truth' Correspondence

The problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories in not just that they are nonsense but that they support deeply flawed world-views that operate at different levels of paranoia and distrust. There is some evidence that these can be corrosive in themselves, but they also lay people open to exploitation by unscrupulous individuals for material gain. Hook someone with 9/11 'Truth' and then you can sell them lots of other ideas, and lots of other stuff as well. Books, DVDs, T-shirts are all grist to the mill of the well-developed conspiracy industry. So, arguing against 9/11 idiocy is not just about the ideas, it is trying to prevent people parting with their cash and chunks of their lives at the behest of charlatans.

In that context, I had an email, and since it was open and sent to many other recipients other that myself, a public response is in order:
This is an open letter.

Dear Mr Horgan,

I read with interest your article snapping at Mr Fisk for questioning the official version of 911.
Criticising, actually.
I suppose you did not study Physics at school, College or University - this is clearly evident from the Physically illiterate article you have written.
Undergraduate level physics, as if it matters.
Can I confirm that I have read the NIST report in full, from cover to cover, and you are WRONG, the actual NIST report (not the fakes) states on 911 both the 110 floor building came to ground in less than 10 seconds. Indeed the NIST report claims one building fell faster than free fall speed in a vacuum at sea level.
The US National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) says that the speed of the debris hitting the ground approximated that which would have been expected from freefall. What am I wrong about?
Indeed we have copious video evidence and seismic data which clearly proves both twin towers came down in less than 10 seconds each.
Well, NIST don't think so:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).


From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Now look here, you can play your silly little political games and lie and cheat and basically make yourselves look like clowns, or you can start to accept Scientific facts and question the ludicrous "conspiracy theory" which is the official narrative.
What political games? My party is in opposition in the UK? There are no scientific facts that support the 9/11 'Truth' industry.
For clear Physics proof of why 911 was a "False Flag" "Inside job" demolition (after jet impacts), I have enclosed a letter recently sent to the BBC , which clearly explains why 911 was a controlled demolition including the simple maths.
This calculated that a very simple model of the twin towers shows a collapse time slightly more that 10 seconds. It does not contradict the observed facts, and it certainly provides no evidence of a controlled demolition.
I openly challenge the whole of Physics, Engineering and Science to prove this physics hypothesis and maths incorrect.
What hypothesis? It is deeply flawed logic to calculate that mathematically the towers behave more or less as they did in real life, announce it must have been a controlled demolition and then demand to be disproved. If you have a theory the onus for evidence is on you, not on everyone else to prove a negative.

The claim is that the US government committed mass murder of its own citizens. I would have thought that if someone were going to believe that then they would have to have a weight of convincing evidence. Clearly, I was wrong.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Laindon Centre in new ownership

After a protracted purchase process, the Laindon Centre has a new owner, with the promise of comprehensive regeneration. If you don't know it, Laindon Town Centre is a decaying sixties disaster that desperately needs bulldozing and replacing with the quality development that the traders there and the people of Laindon deserve. This was the press release:


Press Release

28th August 2007


New plans for Laindon town centre have taken a step forward with the news that Laindon Regeneration LLP, a division of Colonnade Group, has completed the purchase of the Laindon Centre from Lakehill Investments. Currently, much of the existing centre is in poor condition.

Plans for a major redevelopment of the existing 1960s shopping centre are currently being prepared and will be the subject of public consultation with local residents and businesses on 13th, 14th and 15th September. Laindon Regeneration believes that Laindon is well positioned to take advantage of the Thames Gateway developments as it is on a major road junction, close to both the A13 and A127, with rail access to London in 30 minutes via Laindon Station.

Alastair Watson, Chief Executive of Colonnade Group said,

“We are delighted to have completed the purchase of the Laindon Centre and are committed to delivering a high quality development of new shops and homes. Public consultation is at the heart of our approach and we are looking forward to this in September when local residents and businesses can have their say.”

Councillor Stephen Horgan, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development, said:

“We are delighted that Laindon Regeneration has now formally completed the purchase of the Laindon Centre. We have been deeply concerned about its continued deterioration and the damage this has done to the community of Laindon. We are now confident that Laindon Regeneration will be moving things forward with haste and enthusiasm, and we look forward to the public consultation in September.”

Angela Smith MP welcomed the announcement, saying;

"The Laindon Centre urgently needs to be updated and improved to provide a better service for local residents. I would like to encourage as many people as possible to take part in the proposed consultation, to help shape this exciting and innovative new development."

Chris Balch, Chairman of the Basildon Renaissance Partnership, says:

“A key priority for Basildon is the regeneration of our town centres, and we also welcome the news that the regeneration of this major focal point for the local community is in the pipeline. This is another clear indication that the private sector is confident and willing to invest in the Basildon District, and can see the great opportunities that exist in the area. We look forward to supporting all parties in bringing this scheme forward and giving the community of Laindon a town centre fit for the modern age.”

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Cameron goes firm on Crime

David Cameron’s approach to the crime crisis has been thoroughly measured, but now it is detailed. Conservative proposals include building prisons, local accountability for the police, and an end to early release for prisoners, but there is also a recognition that society has to change. This means schools, parents, popular culture and most of all time. In contrast the government have popped out a couple of initiatives designed to grab headlines and then tried to spin that there is no real problem. Most interestingly, there has been almost no engagement by Gordon Brown, who is becoming a master of inactivity as far as talking to the public is concerned. While this is somewhat welcome compared to Tony Blair’s constant ham acting, the reticence that goes with being Chancellor is simply not part of a PM’s job description. A leader has to lead, and they cannot do that glowering alone in their office.

The polls show that Conservatives lead Labour by ten points on Law and Order. This is very significant because this is one of the key issues that people actually decides people’s votes. In fact, if you get Health, the Economy and Crime then that is usually the election, unless something very significant happens in the area of foreign affairs. Labour is also trailing on Health and the real economy is looking weak. Maybe there is a reason why Gordon is sulking.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Brown should hold a referendum

You almost have to feel sorry for Gordon Brown, because Tony Blair has stitched him up like a kipper. When the former PM was off negotiating the latest European Treaty the Brown camp was clearly worried, hence the muttered threats at the time that a bad deal might be repudiated when the new man came in. Then Blair came back trumpeting that his Red Lines had been held and that the new agreement was a totally different animal from the previous failed constitution. So, Brown got with the programme and announced that there was no need for a referendum, his team probably sighing with relief at dodging the political bullet. Then things started to unravel, with a series of European leaders stating that the new treaty was in fact the old constitution in a different dust jacket. Suddenly, this suggestion ceased to be the province of the Eurosceptic usual suspects and became the mainstream view. Then the Conservative Party decided to unequivocally campaign for a referendum regardless of David Cameron’s efforts to reposition the Party to be less strident on Europe. Now major trade unions and dozens of Labour MPs have also given their support to the referendum campaign, and the polls have the public at about 80% in support. Brown’s assertion that this is a matter for parliament alone looks increasingly difficult to defend, and this issue will not go away as the whole protracted process of ratifying a European treaty unfolds.

Now some newspapers are suggesting that the best thing to do would be to have an election, that Brown should use his lift in the polls to put the matter to the country along with the fate of his government. Well, I don’t think that this is good advice. Brown’s ‘bounce’ appears to be waning, and the last few weeks have not been good for the government in political terms. More importantly, an election with Europe as the main issue would unite the Right and help the Conservatives get the vote out.

The fact is that Blair’s European chalice was as poisoned as Brown feared. There is, however, one way to avoid having to drink from it: hold a referendum.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Children kill children and the Labour reaction is to lie about it

According to the Labour Party, gun crime is on the wane. They are quoting the British Crime Survey to suggest that on their watch our streets are getting safer and in particular crimes involving guns are down. The British Crime Survey by the way is a glorified opinion poll. Now, you are almost certainly scratching your head at this point because your impression from the media is probably that gun murders are happening with depressing regularity and you are pretty sure that things didn't used to be like this. Guess what, you are right. Buried on page 36 of the latest Home Office figures is the interesting fact that gun deaths and injuries have increased by more than a factor of four since 1998, that is from 864 in 1998 to 3821 in 2006. Police officers shot are up by nearly a factor of four in the same period. The Sunday Times has it here.

So, not only have Labour presided over an appalling spate of murders and woundings, that have seen our streets become so unsafe that children are being hit in the crossfire, they have been lying about it. Then they gabble on about more laws or some way for people to hand guns in, as if gangsters are simply going to go 'oh well' and give up their weapons because people in suits decide that they should. They try to lie the problem away because it is clear that they have no clue what to actually do.