Open mike 03/08/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 3rd, 2011 - 181 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

181 comments on “Open mike 03/08/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pete George 1
    3 August 2011 at 7:19 am

    Key is not the only one at fault here, Goff is playing his game, and the media chase ratings rather than fair democracy. But he can lead on this or he can diss us and try and do his own thing.

    Dear John

    Several things lately have made me wonder how genuine you are in representing the people that elected you. Your ordinary blokeness seems to be deserting you, and that could lead to my support deserting you.

    Key and Goff can pick and choose who they will debate with. And we can pick and choose who to vote for.

    • travellerev 1.1
      3 August 2011 at 7:34 am

      One thing is for sure: Neither one of them is interested and in full support of MMP.

      • The Voice of Reason 1.1.1
        3 August 2011 at 8:05 am

        Er, no. Both have obviously got their heads around MMP, Labour formally and National by virtue of their electorate deals with ACT and United Future. Goff has said his major reservation is coat-tailing. National’s major reservation is that Labour might win.

        • freedom 1.1.1.1
          3 August 2011 at 1:02 pm

          MMP does not mean coalition deals or whoring and supply agreements.

          It is not a de-facto FPP agenda driven race to do as much damage as possible before the next election. We have not yet had a MMP government and i hope to see at least one before i shake loose this mortal coil.

          What is a MMP government?

          It is so simple. A group of people who a whole bunch of electorates said represent them,
          sit in a big room. Nominations are put forward for PM. A vote is taken. continued untill resolved. The PM nominates a cabinet, votes, objections, votes etc for a week or so maybe then reality transpires, things settle down and just like that we have a MMP Government.

          It is a group of elected people in a room, drawing bills from ballots and debating them untill consensus is achieved and the process of Parliamentary Democracy is implemented fully.
          If it takes eight months to agree on a tax cut it takes eight months. If your pet roading project gets suspended due to the Country’s sudden desire to assist the victims of , i don’t know, say an Earthquake, then the Government presents a choice for the Parliament to decide.

          it is not the agenda of a Party but the decisions of a Parliament that should dictate a Nation’s future,

          • MrSmith 1.1.1.1.1
            3 August 2011 at 2:33 pm

            Couldn’t agree more freedom.

          • Pete George 1.1.1.1.2
            3 August 2011 at 2:52 pm

            I’d like to see something like that too. It won’t happen, unless the current status quo is given a big shakeup, and that will only happen if voters initiate it.

            • freedom 1.1.1.1.2.1
              3 August 2011 at 3:07 pm

              It is up to us. It is up to the people! It is that simple. Some wise words were said in a cheesy movie many many years ago “no-one said it was going to be easy, at least no-one said it to me”

              We must take control of our own Democracy and stop allowing the dictatorial manifestos of bankers to populate the stromwaters of history with our children’s futures

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.3
            3 August 2011 at 4:39 pm

            The switch from aggressive oppositional politics to representative politics. No single party leads and the bills are determined by the populace and actually debated upon their merits rather than the closed ideology of a party.

            • freedom 1.1.1.1.3.1
              3 August 2011 at 5:05 pm

              yup, sounds good doesn’t it ?

              -and this from, according to TVOR, a rabid right wing nutter. Nutter? well that depends on which of my friends you speak to. But if i am right wing either the left is really in a lot more trouble than any of us ever realised or the right is getting desperate for membership 😉

    • mickysavage 1.2
      3 August 2011 at 8:15 am

      Key is primarily at fault.  Goff said that he would debate with the others of Key would.  It is Key’s insistence that means it will not happen.

      Stop trying to blame Goff.

      Is this the new diversionary meme of the day?

      Shall we now spend all day debating how “being prepared to debate with the others” means “not prepared to debate with the others”? 

    • joe bloggs 1.3
      3 August 2011 at 9:00 am

      thisis remeniscent of the Clark-Key arrangements in 2008.

      The more thiungs change the more they stay the same…

  2. travellerev 2
    3 August 2011 at 7:31 am

    Yesterday, a friend send me a link to a doco called Defamation. It is a film made by a young Israeli Jewish director called Yoav Shami and in the film he poses the question; What is Anti-Semitism today?

    And I found it to be an honest journey into one of the most controversial subjects on our planet today. From young Israelis travelling to Poland to confront the horrors of the concentration camps and the anti Defamation league, Rabbis in New York and Russia to the Anti Zionist Uri Avnery, and Norman Finkelstein the entire Scala of emotions such as a sense of exceptionalism, pain, anger, grief and the need to progress into the future are being addressed in a thought provoking manner.

    Well worth watching!

    • Morrissey 2.1
      3 August 2011 at 9:39 am

      …young Israelis travelling to Poland to confront the horrors of the concentration camps

      Young Israelis are going to Poland? Why?

      Why don’t they travel a few kilometres and visit the modern-day equivalent of the Warsaw Ghetto?

      • travellerev 2.1.1
        3 August 2011 at 9:41 am

        Good question and one which is actually addressed (Or rather their lack of empathy) in the doco.

        • Morrissey 2.1.1.1
          3 August 2011 at 9:54 am

          their lack of empathy

          Actually, many young Israelis do feel empathy for the victims of their government’s crimes. Thousands of them refuse to “serve” in the IDF, and many Israelis (young and old) go to the Occupied Territories to attempt to prevent some of the depradations of the “settlers”—such as uprooting of their olive trees, burning their crops, and harassing and beating children on their way to school.

          It’s not easy, especially when the IDF “soldiers” just stand by, doing nothing, and let bullies like this do what they like…

  3. logie97 3
    3 August 2011 at 7:42 am

    Would like to watch yesterday’s parliamentary messages of condolence to the Norwegian people. Is there a replay link?

  4. joe bloggs 4
    3 August 2011 at 8:49 am

    I recently read that Labour MP Grant Robertson describe National’s candidate selection for Epsom as a “stitch-up” at the “expense of the people of Epsom who deserve some respect”.

    Anthony Robins hasn’t had a strong opinion on the topic, but he commented recently that he’s starting to come down on the side of “if you can’t beat them, join them”.

    Evidently Jim Anderton endorsed the “stitch-up” approach.

    I look forward to Grant Robertson withdrawing his scurrilous comments about National’s Epsom candidacy announcements and acknowledging the practices in Eppsom AND Wigram as politics as usual.

  5. Morrissey 5
    3 August 2011 at 10:30 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45jpTqjtC5Y&feature=youtube_gdata

    “There is no press more shameful than the Canadian press.”
    —Norman Finkelstein, at the University of British Columbia, 12 January 2009.

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    3 August 2011 at 11:13 am

    So far, this is all I’ve seen in the MSM about Steven being reported to the Speaker of the House for lying.

    Two years ago, responding to the written question on whether he had had any such correspondence on the issue of structural separation, Mr Joyce categorically denied it. Now it transpires he “overlooked” a letter sent to him by Mr Reynolds.

    And it’s an opinion piece by Simon Cunliffe

  7. travellerev 7
    3 August 2011 at 11:15 am

    Did I mention I’m in bloody good company where it concerns my doubts about the official conspiracy theory of 911?
    Here is the first trailer of a doco which will be released in honour of the tenth anniversary of the 911 attacks! 1500 Architects and Engineers speak out. Oh and chemists, Chemistry professors and physicists too!

    There will be opportunities to watch the doco in Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Auckland as we mourn those lost as a result of those attacks

    • vto 7.1
      3 August 2011 at 11:58 am

      What was in building 7 ?

      • The Voice of Reason 7.1.1
        3 August 2011 at 12:07 pm

        Lots of high grade explosives and a crack team of CIA black ops demolition experts according to the voices in my head.

        • Tiger Mountain 7.1.1.1
          3 August 2011 at 12:23 pm

          I am finally quite intrigued by all this building collapse stuff, and admit to not having looked at it in detail before and in fact skated over the long discussions on this blog. Time to catch up a bit.

          Who? and Why? are the big questions. Were explosives used to enhance the actual demolition while the planes were what got everyone’s attention, the ideological hit so to speak. People with explosives had been apprehended in the basements of the WTC years before I do remember.

          It is so counter intuitive to consider that even the yankee imperialists would pull such a stunt in their own backyard.

          • travellerev 7.1.1.1.1
            3 August 2011 at 12:33 pm

            Funny that you should mention the 93 attacks! Turns out the FBI wanted to bomb the buildings then too. Here is a doco with regards to that event.
            They have done it multiple times TM.

            Here is Northwoods which was called of. There is the gulf of Tonkin incident which started the Vietnam war. The sinking of the Maine which started the American Spanish war

            And yes, it took me about three months after I started reading up on this before I could even begin to contemplate the evil involved in these events if the official Conspiracy theory could not have happened. It was terrifying.

            Four years of ridicule pales to absolute insignificance to having to admit to myself that what the US government tried to sell us could not have happened the way they said is did.

          • freedom 7.1.1.1.2
            3 August 2011 at 12:38 pm

            i recommend to begin at the beginning
            http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Building%20the%20World%20Trade%20Center.wmv

            this is a publicly available documentary made during the WTC construction. it falls outside of all agendas from any parties involved. It existed unchanged and is the most accurate vehicle to fully grasp the intense construction methods employed in a project designed to withstand multiple strikes from aircraft. Familiarise yourself with the structure. Then re read the official story, and the simple fact that planes, fire damage and jetfuel cannot bring down hundreds of thousands of tonnes of welded and riveted steel.

            here are some of the earlier docos on 9/11
            http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

            there are many recent doco’s, see Trev for current lists, i recommend anything by A&E for 9/11 truth and also the recent doco called Zero. The more recent ones deal purely with the science for that is where the answers lay

        • freedom 7.1.1.2
          3 August 2011 at 12:23 pm

          TVOR
          do You even know what Building 7 was?

          Are you aware of what was housed there?. Can you stop shitting on the graves of innocent people, it is not funny. There is no conspiracy theory, there is a mountain range of incontravertable fact which destroys the potholes of an official story a thousand times over. If you were told the official story in any other context than the nightly news you would have asked for your money back from the ticket office. Do some research for yourself on one of the most heinous crimes ever perpetrated on the free world. Or do like the look of blood on your hands?

          • The Voice of Reason 7.1.1.2.1
            3 August 2011 at 1:00 pm

            I love the look of blood on my hands, freedom, and I hate it when my stigmata heal. I’m sorry I don’t buy the rightwing 911 fantasy and that upsets you so much. Building 7 collapsed because a larger building fell on it. That’s the story, right there. No domestic conspiracy, no CIA, no black ops, just the most succesful guerilla attack in modern times.
             
            I appreciate that there are some lefties whose anti-americanism will always make them suckers for this kind of immaturity, but the fact remains that the only people shitting on the graves (as you so diplomatically put it) are the Tea Party types and their dimwitted or wilfully naive overseas followers. 
             
             Ten years on and still not a shred of evidence. And this in the country where even a simple hotel burglary can’t be succesfully carried out without bringing down a government.

            • freedom 7.1.1.2.1.1
              3 August 2011 at 1:14 pm

              TVOR
              To make such an ignorant statement only declares to the world that you have not even begun to investigate for yourself any of the data you have been supplied on numerous occasions. Your willingness, and that of many others, to swallow the story is a trauma that societies never fully recover from. Those that remain deaf to the screams of the murdered, will still have to face their own conscience when truth finally defeats the hate.

              • The Voice of Reason …
                3 August 2011 at 1:23 pm

                As I said, not a shred of evidence in 10 years. No emails, no phone calls, no whistleblowers, no proof what so fucken ever.  Nobody amongst the vast army needed to pull off this Mission Impossible who has ever dobbed in the rest or tried to sell his story to the media. Indeed, not one story in the media of any merit whatsoever in a country where a President can’t even shag the help without it being a major constitutional crisis.
                Get back to me when the coppers start making arrests and I’ll take an interest. Till then, it’s just pants and more fool you for being a tool of the frothing right.

                • travellerev …
                  3 August 2011 at 1:42 pm

                  Manhattan project

                  130.000 employees most of whom only found out what they had been working on when the news broke of the bombings in Japan.
                  There are many whistle blowers who have come forward with regrds to 911 but people like Barry Jennings and Danny Jovenko the demolition expert in the trailer have either had car accidents or died under mysterious circumstances and there are several Whistleblowers who only want to talk if and only if there is a formal investigation with independent investigators and protection for them.

                  Anthony Shaffer was a high clearance intelligence officer testified to the 911 Commission about how his investigation was stopped into the alleged hijackers during operation able danger and it cost him his career. He was one of many officers and other people who came forward but whose testimony did not appear in the final report.

                  Many members of the 911 commission have denounced the final report because they felt they had been lied to by the military and other high officials

                  • The Voice of Reason …
                    3 August 2011 at 2:50 pm

                    So no evidence at all, then? It’s so strange that among the cast of thousands who perpetrated this crime, not one has dropped a dime, either publicly or anonymously. It’s almost like it never happened, but then, that’s what they’d like us to think, eh.
                     
                    You’re dead right that a lot of Manhatten project workers were kept in the dark about the true aims of the project. That’s one of the reasons it was so succesful. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy though, it’s just routine in the military to keep stuff on a need to know basis, particularly in wartime.

                    • freedom …
                      3 August 2011 at 3:22 pm

                      first up, it only took a few dozen to pull this off as the level of authority gave all the cover for any technical or logistical aspect to be implemented.

                      One example: When a team is hired to paint fireproofing onto steel and told they are applying a new fire retardant, they do not get told they are painting a high tech thermade agent that will result in the pulverising of hundreds of tonnes of concrete into pyroclastic clouds of dust.

                      you just said why are there no whistle blowers blah blah–then go on to say how the military in war keeps things quiet, what the hell do you think is going on today…if you do not see we are in a state of war then you are absolutely without hope. Perhaps what you do not realise is who the combatants are?

                      what did Dubya say?

                      ‘ you are with us or against us ‘

                      you really think you are one of the us? good luck with that

                      Pick your side very carefully tvor. Your grandchildren will be watching.
                      You only get to choose once and history will be the book-keeper, not your back slapping, trade chomping, soul swilling mates

                    • travellerev …
                      3 August 2011 at 3:25 pm

                      Jeez TVoR do you actually stop and read what you write sometimes?
                      People (Nowhere does it say that if the military does something in secret it isn’t conspiring) who organise something in secret are conspiring. Period.

                      Conspiring is the most common crime. Banks do it, the military does it (In covering up friendly fire or other war crimes), out leaders do it and the common criminal at the street corner who decides together with his mates to rob a liquor store does it.

                      The Manhattan project can arguably be called a conspiracy. For those of us who think Nuclear weapons are an abomination it sure is.
                      Second; were do you get the “rabid right” from. If we are right it was the rabid right in the form of say the neocons (New American Century) and the military industrial complex who had both the means, the motivation and the opportunity to organise it.

                      If we are right it was the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld whom even by the easiest of standards can not be called left wing who were involved. If we are right the Americans are no longer in control of their own country because most people who voted fro Obama did so because he promised to stop the wars but instead he started 4 additional wars: Pakistan, Libya, Soedan and Yemen. Black or white is not the issue here but the fact that he lied and that he follows the same disastrous path as his so called right wing predecessor!  
                      Most 911 truthers are vehemently anti war. Especially the wars started in the aftermath of 911 and want a return to a peaceful coexistence with the rest of the planet and be able to rebuild America in peace with their fellow man. What is so right wing about that?

                      If we are right and the US has been hijacked by very dangerous greedy people I can’t (Although I’m a pacifist myself) really fault a lot of Americans for wanting to be able to arm themselves against these idiots destroying the planet with their Depleted Uranium weapons. So what is so rabid right wing about that?

                      Alex Jones whom you might call a red neck right wing Texan loud mouth is the only one who will have Cynthia McKinney on his show and she is a black ex congress woman standing for the Green party of America when she is in Libya reporting on the many sorties and bombardments of NATO and the US. So how is that Rabid right wing?
                       

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      3 August 2011 at 3:45 pm

                      Cheers, guys. As I said earlier if you ever come up with any proof, let me know. Ten years and counting …
                       
                      Without wanting to rub your nose in it, freedom, you are buying into a right wing fantasy, perpetrated by people who think Cheney is a softy liberal. The same people who have just been in the news trying to bankrupt America to stop that uppity Kenyan from helping the poor. 
                       
                      It’s entirely your business whether you want to waste time on something that has no credibility or substance and serves the ends of the enemies of everything else you appear to believe in, but every time this reactionary bollocks is aired here, it wastes a shit load of bandwidth and time, including my own. But I’m happy to continue to mock the madness and I’ll still ask the same question every time it does come up. And that question is, where is the proof?
                       

                    • vto …
                      3 August 2011 at 3:56 pm

                      tvor, which building did you say fell on building 7? I just can’t see it anywhere.

                    • travellerev …
                      3 August 2011 at 4:53 pm

                      TVoR,
                      see you choose to ignore my request for an explanation as to why 911 truth seekers equate with rabid right while lashing out unmotivated by reasonable arguments it seems at to why he or I are from the Rabid right!

                      Added to that VTO request you tell him what building fell on WTC7 so how about it?

                      And before you go into bullshit mode let me point out that NIST after 7 years came up with a scenario that even they thought was not very likely to happen and that they dismissed the damage from other buildings caused the collapse scenario.
                       

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      3 August 2011 at 5:13 pm

                      vto. here’s popular mechanics summary of the NIST report on WTC7:

                      “The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,” NIST’s Sunder tells PM. “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.” NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7’s upper stories and its southwest corner.

                      NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST’s analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of “progressive collapse,” a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or “kinks,” in the building’s facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

                      According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building’s failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” Sunder notes, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.”

                      There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building’s other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

                      Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. “There was no firefighting in WTC 7,” Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: “Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time.”

                      WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building’s unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

                      You’ll note that PMs description of what NIST says differs from how truthers regularly describe what NIST says. I haven’t read the full report, but I have my suspicions about who is misrepresenting it.

                      http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center#wtc7

                    • travellerev …
                      3 August 2011 at 5:46 pm

                      In response to Pascal’s bookie here is a link to a thorough debunking of the popular mechanics articles. It’s only part 1 of 9 but you can find the other parts on the same page.

                      Here is an analysis the collapse of WTC 7 of Tony Samboti engineer and listen to him thouroughly debunking NIST and Popular mechanics.

                    • travellerev …
                      3 August 2011 at 5:48 pm

                      Popular mechanics… FFS!

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      3 August 2011 at 6:07 pm

                      Predictable eve. But the question remains, and it’s a simple one. Is PMs description of the NIST report accurate/

                      That’s what I linked to, a description of the NIST report.

                      Youtubed ‘debunkings’ aside, what does the NIST report say?

                      Who describes it more accurately?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      3 August 2011 at 7:47 pm

                      But why put the YouTube commentary on the building collapses “aside”? In many of those videos, highly qualified expert architects and engineers speak, as well as people who were at ground zero.

                      Why exclude them from your consideration?

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      3 August 2011 at 7:55 pm

                      Because unless it explains that PM is totally misrepresenting what the NIST report says, it is beside the point I am discussing.

                      Truthers often talk about what the NIST report says. I’ve not read the full report. But very often, when I check aspects of the report against what truthers claim about what it says, I find that truthers are not being particularly truthful.

                      So the question remains. Is PMs description of what the NIST report says more accurate, or less accurate than what truthers say about the NIST report.

                    • vto …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:07 pm

                      Well P’s b, thanks for the popular mechanics info. To be honest I don’t know what to believe. Considerable building and engineering knowledge and experience tells me that the building should not have come down. At all. And the way it fell.

                      Yet then I read the “official” story and that nakes some sense though very limited.

                      And on top of that I do not trust “official” much at all. Everybody on this earth conspires, many on a near daily basis from things as small as staying in bed pretending to be asleep so someone else has to go out and get the paper in the frost, to as large as Bill English planning with John Key and Nick Smith to cut ACC while at the same time knowing they will restore it a later date for political pleasures, to even larger again such that JFK’s head blasts back in one direction when the bullet came from a completely different direction. Anybody who says conspiracies do not exist is a true fool. They are part and parcel of manwomankind’s heart and soul. In fact such secretive planning is probably what has led manwomankind to the place it is in today.

                      The collapse of these buildings is of great interest and I continue to watch. I just wish I could see tvor’s larger building which fell on wtc7…

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      3 August 2011 at 9:30 pm

                      Re conspiracies in general vto, sure, they are real.

                      But they are hard to get the truth of, so it comes down to guess work and evaluation right.

                      On this one, what kills it for me is this:

                      Assuming AQ was involved, (and there is very very good reason to believe they did indeed recruit and train people to hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11), then

                      For it to be a false flag op, then the govt had to know that the AQ attack was going to take place. They had to know for certain. They had to have target details, time details, the works. They then had to set up the black op to make the AQ attack worse than it would otherwise have been, by somehow rigging those three buildings to come down in such a way that the aircraft crashes would not upset the demolition set up. They had to set this up under severe time constraints, with limited personnel and be confident that no one would discover that these buildings were rigged for demo.

                      The demo itself, would have to sound like no other demo I’ve heard. They all sound like a long series of large but discrete explosions as the building is destroyed. No such series can be heard while those buildings come down. So it must have been a new technique with special explosives. Fair enough. But again, that increases the risk of failure/detection. Above someone posits that the explosives were disguised as fire retardent paint and applied by unwitting painters. those painters would have to have had as a term of the contract for fire proofing the WTC, that they use this paint sourced by the contractee. The paint would have to look at act enough like normal paint that it would fool them. etc.

                      All of this, through every step of the operation, going back who knows how long. All of it set up just to make an attack they knew was coming, worse.

                      Remember too that he Bush gang had been downplaying and mocking the idea of terrorism as a threat. They were far more focussed on star wars spending and ‘rogue nations’ flinging nukes.

                      So if the conspirators were confident enough that AQ were going to attack, right down to knowing the target set (incidentally, Mohammad Atta only confirmed that target set to AQ leaders in afghanistan about 1 week before launch, but we’ll ignore that for the moment), if they knew AQ was going to fly airliners full of civilians into buildings, why wouldn’t they just let them do it and use that as the excuse for war.

                      Such an attack would already be cause for war. Far easier and much less risky to prepare a propaganda campaign saying that AQ were in cahoots with whoever it was you wanted to attack. Knowing they were going to attack yuo could be releasing forged documents in the month before the attack saying anything you like. Then when the attack comes; boom. the population goes crazy for you. Why on earth run the extraordinary risk of organising an incredibly complicated black op to achieve something you could achieve by just doing nothing?

                      Instead, they had been down playing and ignoring the risk of AQ, they treated AQ as a joke and a non threat prior to 9/11.

                      That oversight failure is enough to warrant the secrecy and lies and coverups truthers point to in the 9/11 report.

                    • vto …
                      3 August 2011 at 9:47 pm

                      Hmmm, roger some most of that. Battery almost out … have to get back

                • Vicky32 …
                  3 August 2011 at 6:51 pm

                  As I said, not a shred of evidence in 10 years. No emails, no phone calls, no whistleblowers, no proof what so fucken ever.  Nobody amongst the vast army needed to pull off this Mission Impossible who has ever dobbed in the rest or tried to sell his story to the media. Indeed, not one story in the media of any merit whatsoever in a country where a President can’t even shag the help without it being a major constitutional crisis.
                  Get back to me when the coppers start making arrests and I’ll take an interest. Till then, it’s just pants and more fool you for being a tool of the frothing right.

                  Swearing and arrogant abuse are not good debating tools, just saying..
                  As for no one has ever tried to sell his story to the media, how do you know? Do you think the media would dare run it? Grow up! As for the President shagging the help, I presume you’re referring to Clinton and Monica… It’s good to see you remember a scandal from  12 years or more ago, it makes such a good distraction from more recent and more heinous crimes! Gullible twat.

                  • The Voice of Reason …
                    3 August 2011 at 7:28 pm

                    “Swearing and arrogant abuse are not good debating tools, just saying.. ”

                    “Gullible twat.”

                    I guess you’d have a lot in common with the truthers, Deb, what with all the blind faith involving in worshipping the unprovable.

                    • vto …
                      3 August 2011 at 7:54 pm

                      tvor, now that you’re back can you please tell me which “larger building it was that fell on building 7”?

                    • vto …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:10 pm

                      aha I see, the falling debris

                      hmmmmm.. think think think

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:13 pm

                      Cheers, Bookie, and apologies for not spotting your question earlier, vto.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:28 pm

                      vto, other claims worth looking hard at are the free fall claims. Look at the vids. Watch the debris. The cloud falls faster than the building, obscuring it.

                      Here, seeing folks are linking to youtube:

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded

                      Here’s footage of wtc7 burning, with live voice track of police and fire peeps. They are already saying they think it will come down.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:29 pm

                      The wtc7 vid

                    • rosy …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:41 pm

                      “I’ve not read the full report. But very often, when I check aspects of the report against what truthers claim about what it says, I find that truthers are not being particularly truthful”.

                      PB, I’ve read the full report. Of course like all things done with hindsight you can pick on the minutiae, but I think it explains a lot. Funny that no 911ers I know have read it. Nor do have they been to any sites that try to debunk their conspiracy theories. They spend hours watching and pausing videos but no time reading the interviews of eyewitnesses and others who were directly affected – just other people’s interpretations of what they said. (Note I’m just talking about the ones I know).

                    • vto …
                      3 August 2011 at 9:11 pm

                      Well now having spent some mini time watching various vids etc on wtc7,,, on the balance of probablities the jury is still out imo.

                      At least the issue won’t go away for while so I’ll continue to watch for some sign of weapons of mass destruction…

                    • travellerev …
                      3 August 2011 at 10:36 pm

                      VTO,
                      Please take into account that WTC 7 fell in the late afternoon many hours after the other buildings had collapsed and that the collapse was announced by both CNN and the BBC between an hour and 20 minutes before the collapse happened and that until then not a single steel framed building other than WTC 1 and 2 had collapsed and that it never happened afterwards with the exception of controlled demolition

                    • Vicky32 …
                      3 August 2011 at 11:42 pm

                      “Gullible twat.”
                      I guess you’d have a lot in common with the truthers, Deb, what with all the blind faith involving in worshipping the unprovable.

                      If you think ‘gullible twat’ is either swearing or arrogant abuse, then you must be an ickle bubby! 🙂
                      Did I say you could call me Deb? No, I didn’t, and you can’t, as that’s what my friends call me – fake lefties will never be my friends!. The sneer about my religion is characteristic – but unwarranted.

            • Deadly_NZ 7.1.1.2.1.2
              3 August 2011 at 2:50 pm

              Watch the footage and then tell me WHAT building fell on it. It was a controlled demolition Supports kicked out and the building just falls down into it’s own space. I did notice something ‘funny’ All the buildings went straight down at first.

              • freedom …
                3 August 2011 at 3:28 pm

                they go straight down except for the top of Tower 1 where twenty plus stories are falling out from the line of the building, in an arc, as it should, with the path of least resistance. Then ‘pooof’ it explodes into dust and collapses straight downwards against its predetermined axis. Completely against all known physical laws

                • travellerev …
                  3 August 2011 at 3:46 pm

                  Here is a presentation of Dr. Graham McQueen about how the towers collapsed. It is in four parts and is a very dispassionate analysis of what happens and how it could and more importantly could not have happened and for you information. Graham is a Zen Buddhist and lifelong peace activist. Nothing rabid or right wing about him.

                  Part 1, 2, 3, 4

            • Vicky32 7.1.1.2.1.3
              3 August 2011 at 6:44 pm

              I’m sorry I don’t buy the rightwing 911 fantasy and that upsets you so much. Building 7 collapsed because a larger building fell on it. That’s the story, right there.

              Do stop being such a plonker VoR. I know I am more left-wing than you are, as you’ve confessed to being a Randbot, and no matter how many of the blinkered tell me they’re “left-libertarians”, I know there’s no such animal… Being in favour of marijuana and abortion for all doesn’t make you a left-winger. Neither does being a try hard, oops, I mean hard out atheist. So many followers of the official story simply hate Muslims!
              You’re wilfully blind about the WTC. I’ve yet to come across a right-winger who wasn’t deeply in love with all things American, which probably explains it.

              • The Voice of Reason …
                3 August 2011 at 8:46 pm

                I think you’ve got me confused for someone else, Deb. I did admit to once owning a Rush album, but that’s as far as it goes in Randian terms. I’m a socialist, have been all my adult life. Also an atheist, a vegetarian and a soccer player, which makes for some interesting discussions with the red necked and red nosed farmers at my semi rural local most Friday nights!
                 
                BTW, most of my contact with people of the muslim faith was on the soccer field at Hagley Park in Sunday arvo pick up games with the immigrant community. Wonderful, peaceful people who taught me a lot about humility and the love of the game.
                 
                 

          • Deadly_NZ 7.1.1.2.2
            3 August 2011 at 2:46 pm

            What ever it was someone wanted it gone big time, but it begs a coupla questions. How long was building 7 rigged for doomsday ? Did they have advance notice of the hijackings and targets ?. Who really runs things in the US ? Damn time for the tinfoil hat again.

          • Ianupnorth 7.1.1.2.3
            3 August 2011 at 6:44 pm

            I’d suggest the most heinous crimes were the coalitions retaliation strikes on Iraq and Afghanistan to find weapons of mass destruction and the links between Saddam and Al Queda – remind me how many innocent civilians have died during that?

            • Vicky32 7.1.1.2.3.1
              3 August 2011 at 7:05 pm

              I’d suggest the most heinous crimes were the coalitions retaliation strikes on Iraq and Afghanistan to find weapons of mass destruction and the links between Saddam and Al Queda – remind me how many innocent civilians have died during that?

              Absolutely right, Ian!

      • travellerev 7.1.2
        3 August 2011 at 12:21 pm

        CIA head quarters, Giuliani’s emergency bunker which was deserted for some reason before the first building collapsed, and the building was twice reinforced to withstand a nuclear blast. Oh, and all the legal documentation pertaining to Enron and other Wall street scandals.

        Here is a list of Tenants up until 2001
        Not the sort of building were 19 Arab terrorists can just walk into. Here is a witness telling about what he saw in the building before the other buildings collapsed. (This witness by the way died under very suspicious circumstances)

        • freedom 7.1.2.1
          3 August 2011 at 12:27 pm

          Travrev, you should add he died just before his testimony was to be given in a pivotal civil case taken up by the families to re-open an investigation into the murder of their children, their families and their friends

          • travellerev 7.1.2.1.1
            3 August 2011 at 12:36 pm

            Please feel free to share this watershed moment with me and give all the info you have. 🙂

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 7.1.2.1.1.1
              3 August 2011 at 1:58 pm

              Edge. Abyss.

              • freedom …
                3 August 2011 at 3:33 pm

                leave Chomsky alone…his betrayal of logic is the crime in that video. He has rejected so many of the values he once espoused. He has become a somewhat tragic figure with a diminshing authority and a growing pool of detractors for his ridiculous kowtowing to the official story.

                None of which negates his fine work in Linguistics and associated fields

                a person’s views and a person’s work can be exclusive of each other, look at politicians, some of them were once productive members of society

              • travellerev …
                3 August 2011 at 4:58 pm

                What’s more Gormy,
                Chomsky came around and said that we have not been told the truth about what happened on 911 and let’s face it the man is in his eigthies and has done excellent work but he’s a bit passed it.

                • freedom …
                  3 August 2011 at 5:08 pm

                  hey travellerrev, do you know of or have you ever heard a single person refer to Cheney as a softy liberal? just about split my hernia scar when i read that one.

                  • travellerev …
                    3 August 2011 at 5:12 pm

                    Can’t say that I have F.
                    Satan, Prince of Darkness, He who shoots friends in the face, Bastard, the real president! Many names but never a softy liberal or it must have been the people to the right of him who felt he should abandon his daughter for being gay! ROFL.

                  • The Voice of Reason …
                    3 August 2011 at 6:27 pm

                    Ahem.  Try googling ‘cheney too liberal’. About 1,630,000 hits as of a minute ago.
                     
                    But seriously guys, you’re not fools. You know this, along with the pathetic birther idea, is an obsession of the right, more specifically the ‘states rights’ and similar anti-federalists. You’re like Dylan’s Mr Jones; you know something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is. 
                     
                    I’ve got a proposition for you both. Why don’t you put up a left wing case for the truther movement? Write it up as a guest post and I’m sure the mods will give consideration to putting it up. I’m not assuming either of you are left wing, but I’m sure you are more than capable of framing the argument in left wing terms, if that’s at all possible.
                     
                    Or maybe give me the name of one of the on the ground conspirators and the proof against that individual. Whichever’s easier for ya.
                     
                    Edit: Couldn’t find any live Bob, but here’s some kid giving it heaps.
                     

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      3 August 2011 at 6:40 pm

                      So perfectly blindfolded that you think the darkness you see so clearly is the reality of the world.

                      So unquestioning, unable to draw out a single conclusion or supposition which has not been spoonfed through official channels.

                      Every idea fragment which does not fit exactly into your predetermined narrative dismissed.

                      Fighting so hard to stay in the dark.

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      3 August 2011 at 7:20 pm

                      Nicely put, CV. You were talking about them, right? ; )

                    • Tiger Mountain …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:05 pm

                      There is a huge volume of info, dis-info and opinion out there Voice on all sides of the 9/11 argument. I am skeptical as to the inside job claims but when people start quoting Popular Mechanics as an authoritative source-really…
                      The collapse of those buildings looks a hell of a lot like a routine retired Chicago project going down to me.
                      An ugly munted few floors and some still left standing makes more sense.

                      A left wing view? Well, historically whatever the US ruling class is up to can only be bad news for most of us. From a materialist perspective, if it was a false flag they are not going to admit it are they. Look at the US roll of dishonour of invasions and dirty tricks. The UK supporting Saddam in earlier years, surely not? Blair’s “Dossier” -what fuckers.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:16 pm

                      3 large steel framed buildings suffering significant assymetrical damage, falling completely symmetrically on to their own foot prints, with large percentages of the building structures ejected as a fine particulate dust during the fall, instead of collapsing into rubble, leaving pools of molten metal at ground zero which were roasting hot more than a week after collapse.

                      These facts are not in dispute.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:20 pm

                      Tiger, I quoted PMs report of what the NIST report said.

                      The NIST report says something. What it says is verifiable. That NIST report would be the ultimate authority on what the NIST report says, but secondary summations are much easier to read.

                      If PM is misrepresenting what the NIST report says, or if wikipedia is also misrepresenting what the NIST report says, I’d love to be corrected, and PM should get all the scorn one can muster.

                      By the same token, that scorn should be applied to truthers if it is they who are misrepresenting what the NIST report says. Right?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:24 pm

                      its not an argument about who can quote the NIST report most precisely. Nor about where ‘scorn’ should be heaped.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:37 pm

                      Ok, it’s a question about what the NIST report says. Is the PM summary accurate, or is what truthers say accurate?

                      Is it true that the NIST report said structural damage from WTC1 played no role in the collapse?

                      Does the NIST report say the fires were small?

                      Does it say that what they found was unlikely to cause the building to collapse?

                      These are all claims that truthers regularly make.

                      And they regularly heap scorn on nontruthers. Read the comments in this thread.

                      I think I’ve been pretty polite, all things considered.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      3 August 2011 at 8:43 pm

                      The only “truthers” you should listen to are the ones who have done specific investigative work, and are preferably highly quaified architects and engineers themselves.

                      To quote a bunch of peeps making random comments on a YouTube clip as “Truthers” in order to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the very real questions being asked does not seem fair.

                      Personally I think the material presented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 is pretty reasonable and reasoned.

                    • travellerev …
                      3 August 2011 at 10:26 pm

                      Here is a video of two scientists who analysed the NIST report and one of them (Kevin Ryan) was working for Underwriters laboratories and got fired for speaking out with regards to the NIST fire testing for which his company was hired to do.
                      Both Proffesor jones and Dr. Kevin Ryan speak in the AE911truth video which will air in September.
                      Also in this video is a professional smelter who adds to their NIST debunking.

                      About NIST. They only reported until the “inevitable” point of collapse and as such felt they did not have to explain how the buildings could have exploded into a pyroclastic flow and collapse into their own footprint within free fall speed. I hope you will agree with me that that is unscientific to say the least.

                      The remark that NIST states that their collapse theory has only a low probability of actually happening was a remark in the WTC 7 report and was added after they had to withdraw several hypothesis because there was so much criticism and peer pressure from other scientists.  
                      Colonial Viper is correct and you should only study the Architects & Engineers and scientist 911 sites to stay within scientifically and peer reviewed boundaries. Everything else is for now relatively unimportant as a lot of questions remain but the unexplained free fall collapses of the three buildings, the Nano thermite residue and the millions of molten micro spheres are in and of itself proof that two planes could not have caused the collapses and if that is so we need a new and fully independent investigation and let the chips fall were they may.

                      I am sure that there are people who think that Cheney is a liberal. I know of one who actually said so. His name is Erik Prince and he runs Blackwater now known a Xe services. He lives in Dubai and is by most 911 truthers considered to be a war criminal and part of the cabal whom we hope will be dragged before the courts for the war criminal he is.

                      There are enough testimonies (not in the final report) from people like Minetta putting Cheney firmly in control of some crucial events on 911 to make him very muc” a “person of interest” to be dragged before the commission who investigates the 911 crimes in the future.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      3 August 2011 at 10:37 pm

                      Are talking about the FEMA report, the one that preceded the NIST report?

                    • travellerev …
                      3 August 2011 at 10:40 pm

                      PB,

                      The video is about the NIST report if I am correct. I’m knackered now so don’t bite my head off as I’m trying to give the correct info. I’ll respond if need be tomorrow morning after I’ve had some kip. Cheers!

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      4 August 2011 at 7:30 am

                      Not the video. I was wondering about this:

                      The remark that NIST states that their collapse theory has only a low probability of actually happening was a remark in the WTC 7 report and was added after they had to withdraw several hypothesis because there was so much criticism and peer pressure from other scientists.

                      I can’t see anyting in the link (‘added’) that supports the claim. The FEMA report says they weren’t confident about their conclusions, which is what led to the NIST investigation…

                • Morrissey …
                  3 August 2011 at 9:42 pm

                  Chomsky came around and said that we have not been told the truth about what happened on 911

                  Chomsky, like all reasonable people, was concerned with the makeup and the conduct of the inquiry. But he has never suggested that there is any credibility for these bizarre “inside job” fantasies. In fact, he has on several occasions expressed his impatience with the “Truther” movement, which he says is irrational and a distraction from serious criticism of the government.

                  and let’s face it the man is in his eigthies and has done excellent work but he’s a bit passed it.

                  That’s nonsense. You obviously haven’t read anything he’s written or heard anything he’s said over the last six months.

  8. Rodel 8
    3 August 2011 at 11:30 am

    A cartoon in the Christchurch Press 1st August shows what Labour and Goff are up against.

    It portrays Goff in an airport imaging security device as having no substance.(If anything it should have pictured Key as the one with image only and no substance).
    Can’t remember who the cartoonist was but I can’t think of a word more emphatic than scurrilous to describe the mind of the ‘artist’ or the editor who must have Okay ed it.
    It’s about the same level intellectually and politically as Fox news (specifically psycho Glenn Beck) and ethically comparable to those who orchestrated the ‘ditch the bitch’ posters during the last election campaign.
    Congratulations Fairfax..You must be so proud of your professional fair and balanced approach.

    How on earth does Labour counter this kind of trash? Any ideas?

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      3 August 2011 at 7:24 pm

      It needs to get the meme out there that the MSM is unfair, unbalanced, and unquestioning. That and have separate Left leaning media channels.

    • Morrissey 8.2
      3 August 2011 at 9:46 pm

      Can’t remember who the cartoonist was but I can’t think of a word more emphatic than scurrilous to describe the mind of the ‘artist’ or the editor who must have Okay ed it.

      So this cartoonist is unfunny, unfair, and unashamedly partisan in his support for the National government. Sounds like the mirth-free Queenstown beardie Garrick Tremain.

  9. Tiger Mountain 9
    3 August 2011 at 12:00 pm

    What the? dept:
    Media reports claim Colin Craig is starting a new Conservative Party (work for the dole, usual stuff) and may stand in Epsom. He did not do too well in the supercity Mayoral contest or at organising a march in Queen St despite his dosh.

  10. Draco T Bastard 10
    3 August 2011 at 12:05 pm

    New Conservative Party. It’s “test” is an exercise in sloganeering.

    • Ianupnorth 10.1
      3 August 2011 at 6:50 pm

      FFS what a crock!! You’ll be pleased to know I did not meet the criteria to join – where is the contact link – wanted to send some abuse!

    • rosy 10.2
      3 August 2011 at 7:20 pm

      hehe my anti-virus software won’t open that page. Says it’s a potentially dangerous site.

    • The Voice of Reason 10.3
      3 August 2011 at 7:52 pm

      Did the Conservative Test. I think 3 out of 19 suggests I won’t be going on their mailing list. Have a try and see if you too are a secret pinko or made of the right stuff.
       
      Also heard Craig on the radio this arvo. I missed the start of the interview and for five minutes I thought he was Andrew Williams talking about NZ First! Looks like he’s gonna run in Epsom, but he sounds like he’d probably personally vote for John Banks, because none of what he said was any different from the average Banks soundbite.

  11. Jum 11
    3 August 2011 at 12:58 pm

    http://www.thenation.com/article/162390/sex-sells-sex-not-womens-sports
    fascinating piece on how even sports sticks women into a box.

    My question is: Who chose that ridiculous outfit for that team to wear? Please tell me it wasn’t a woman.

    Apart from that, read The Nation; it has some good articles in it and it isn’t owned by Rupert Murdoch.

  12. Gina 12
    3 August 2011 at 1:40 pm

    A while ago I read that National had bugeted a 40% increase in the prison budget. How do I get an actual breakdown of the math on this.

    • Ianupnorth 12.1
      3 August 2011 at 6:46 pm

      Suggest you contact one of the private firms that will be tendering for this. The 40% increase in budget will equate to the 50% they will need to be paid and the 20% that will be cut from rehablitation

  13. Jum 13
    3 August 2011 at 5:46 pm

    In Parliament Tau Henare is telling me that if I don’t want to belong to an organisation I don’t need to.

    So, I don’t want to belong to this government; I don’t want to be bound by any of their neo-conservative attack legislation on the rights of workers, i.e. those rules that prevent New Zealanders from having a support system that believes in them and protects their rights.

  14. Jum 14
    3 August 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Freedom of Association Bill – Moana Mackey is now telling me that only 10% of students have to demand a referendum to require voluntary student membership and it was never achieved. Yet Act is forcing this bill upon us.

    I’ve been watching the Act minister Heather Roy smiling to herself thinking, finally, she has forced something upon students that they didn’t want. This is all about weakening youth’s ability to stand against future strangulation of their democratic speech and student rights to fair treatment. This is all about weakening support for workers’ rights as those students will realise to their disadvantage as they enter into the workforce.

    Students and youth in general look to adults to protect their rights while they enjoy their freedoms before taking on the responsibility of looking after this country and its growing aged. I hope they forgive what this government has forced upon them as they lose their umbrella support, their support infrastructure and their physical infrastructure.

    This government lied before the 2008 election about not forcing through this legislation.

    Paul Hutchison; you are a liar. You lied about your promise not to drag Franklin assets into the Auckland pit of debt. Now we find out you lied to our youth. Shame on you. To think that the people of Frankin/Hunua will vote you back in just because it is a National nest speaks volumes about National/Act’s lack of credibility and National/Act’s voters’ self-respect.

    • McFlock 14.1
      3 August 2011 at 9:39 pm

      How is the Labour filibuster stacking up? Will it get to the vote this parliament?

  15. Andrei 15
    3 August 2011 at 8:12 pm

    Hey Colonel Viper you know how you don’t believe Nato bombed Yugoslavia into non existance

    • McFlock 15.1
      3 August 2011 at 9:36 pm

      Maybe they were trigger-happy after Srebrenica

      • Andrei 15.1.1
        3 August 2011 at 9:55 pm

        I think you will find that when Srebrenica occurred Nato had already occupied and was in control (supposedly) of Bosnia.

        In fact the wimpy Dutch were keeping order in Srebrenica but they ran away like little girls when the going got tough.

        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1
          3 August 2011 at 9:56 pm

          You continue to be full of it.

          • Andrei 15.1.1.1.1
            3 August 2011 at 10:00 pm

            You didn’t know the Dutch army ran away from Srebrenica?

            Hell the Dutch Government fell over that little detail

            • travellerev 15.1.1.1.1.1
              3 August 2011 at 10:30 pm

              It was a disgrace as far as I am concerned and I am Dutch but the truth is that they were there in a passive capacity and were not equipped to deal with the murderous intend of the Serbian warlords. Why Holland ever committed to this role without being properly equipped to deal with these circumstances putting their soldiers in that position is something you can blame the government for but I thought at the time it was an absolute disgrace.

  16. Jum 16
    3 August 2011 at 9:03 pm

    National is helping Act to remove the rights of students to decide whether they wanted to find 10% of students to force a referendum on whether they wanted to pay student association fees which cover a range of advocacy services and clubs, etc or not.

    Since this government is removing the rights of students to decide how they want to handle their university services, I decided to remove the right of Tau Henare to speak in my House and put him on mute. He looks hilarious waving his arms about, trying to bluster over the fact that when he was in the other party Pacific… he was all for advocacy.

    I’ve given him a verbal lobotomy; it couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.

    • law 16.1
      3 August 2011 at 9:49 pm

      Jum, did you ever go to university?

      What is the difference in forcing students into associations that they do not want to be a part of and forcing motorists into being members of the AA?

      • Ianupnorth 16.1.1
        3 August 2011 at 10:16 pm

        You seriously are a fuckwit; before student unions students had pitiful rights. In the modern age of higher education, where dollars are everything, their voice needs to be heard.
        Earlier this week the students were questioning the overseas travel at Auckland Uni and whether this was value for money. Can you imagine if a single student had the gaul to do this – they would be out.
        What you and your ilk do not like is anyone collectively challenging you value system.
        If this goes through, a bill supported by a party that gained 3.7% share of the vote, it will be one of the saddest days for democracy in NZ.

        • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1
          3 August 2011 at 10:20 pm

          RWNJs love breaking down civic and collective institutions. Atomising people into their individual selves weakens them and breaks communities and resistance down.

          • law 16.1.1.1.1
            3 August 2011 at 10:26 pm

            LWNJ’s love being control freaks. See, I can throw around pointless slogans too.

            • McFlock 16.1.1.1.1.1
              3 August 2011 at 10:29 pm

              LWNJ’s aren’t the ones ignoring the democratic wishes of students.

              • law …
                3 August 2011 at 10:37 pm

                you mean by letting them decide if they want to join or not? yeah…. that sounds like they are taking away their democratic rights….

                • McFlock …
                  3 August 2011 at 10:49 pm

                  Yep – most students don’t want to associate with universities that have a large chunk of freeloaders making student-provided services untenable. NACT are taking that option away.

            • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1.1.2
              3 August 2011 at 10:50 pm

              Ummm no, they weren’t “pointless slogans”; RWNJs really like to breakdown civil and collective institutions.

              The only collective institutions that RWNJs like are socialist groups of billionaires, major shareholders and other investors.

        • law 16.1.1.2
          3 August 2011 at 10:25 pm

          play the ball, not the man.

          I have now created the “Standard Commentators Association” as you have commentated here, you are a member. Your bill for $400 for this 1/4 is in the mail.

          Ian, is anyone being stopped from participating in the associations?

          • McFlock 16.1.1.2.1
            3 August 2011 at 10:33 pm

            Enclosed is my formal notification of conscientious objection to membership of your association. Failure to act on this will result in me choosing to comment on any of the other half-dozen leftish political blog sites in NZ.

      • McFlock 16.1.2
        3 August 2011 at 10:26 pm

        “Force” my arse. 
            
        Nobody “forces” anyone to go to that particular tertiary education provider, if membership of that particular students’ association one can object to membership, if there are issues around objection procedures the association needs to work under the democratic rules of societies’ legislation, and if the association is completely unresponsive to the needs of students a simple petition necessitates a referendum of all students regarding membership criteria.
           
        ACT’s last gasp is to overrule all that and the democratic wishes of students with a dictat from Wellington. When our PM can’t remember whether he opposed sporting contacts with Apartheid South Africa.

        • law 16.1.2.1
          3 August 2011 at 10:36 pm

          McFlock, when I went to Uni I had no option but to join, it was on my invoice every semester, if I wanted the expensive piece of paper, I had to pay the fees for an association that I did not want to belong to. Admittedly, they did a fair amount of good at my campus, I would rather have had the option of joining or staying out.

          You are now also enrolled in the association of commentators at The Standard, your bill is also in the mail for this 1/4

          • McFlock 16.1.2.1.1
            3 August 2011 at 10:41 pm

            Really? No obtion for conscientious objection whatsoever?
               
            My uni assoociation did, although I never bothered with it. I’m not a Jehova’s Witness or a self-obsessed tory who’s convinced I’ll never need help.
              
            I bet you never used any association services, either (/bullshit).

            • law 16.1.2.1.1.1
              3 August 2011 at 10:46 pm

              Other than the going to the new bar that they got on campus…… no I honestly did not. And I am not a Jehova’s witness either, nor am I self obsessed.

              • Colonial Viper …
                3 August 2011 at 10:51 pm

                what a waste of space

                will just have to defeat you RWNJs at the polls

              • McFlock …
                3 August 2011 at 10:55 pm

                So other than any association reps on university committees including the Council, academic policies regarding fairness and clarity in marking or library use, class reps, (and probably student publications, events around Orientation and so on), you only ever went to the pub a couple of times and never joined a club or society in three years.
                Yep, you got nothing from your membership.
                 

              • Ianupnorth …
                3 August 2011 at 11:48 pm

                Difference is The Standard doesn’t provide you with counselling services, discounts on things, sports facilities, clubs, funding, meeting space, medical services, legal back up, etc.
                I’ll gladly pay the $400 per year when you start offering them to me 🙂
                NB I already pay $80 a month to my union for similar representation; whilst I begrudge the $80 when it is deducted I also acknowledged that others who have paid before me have fought for and won many of the rights I now enjoy, not only as a worker, but as a human being.

      • Jum 16.1.3
        4 August 2011 at 10:23 pm

        Law,

        The NActs hate any support systems that strengthen people. If you can force people into individual actions you can weaken them.

        Why am I bothering to answer your question when others have said it so much better?

        I know – because you’re a f……….. who needs a truth being constantly repeated until it sinks in.

    • Morrissey 16.2
      3 August 2011 at 9:50 pm

      …decided to remove the right of Tau Henare to speak in my House…

      One of the few good things Trevor Mallard has done in his mainly odious career was punching Henare in the precincts of parliament.

      • logie97 16.2.1
        3 August 2011 at 10:53 pm

        … The precincts of parliament? What part of the anatomy is that? Watching that waste of space during the debate this evening, suggests that Henare is still suffering from concussion. He is obviously an embarrassment to the intellects in his party – they must cringe when he opens his mouth.

        • Morrissey 16.2.1.1
          3 August 2011 at 11:16 pm

          He is obviously an embarrassment to the intellects in his party – they must cringe when he opens his mouth.

          If National Party members had any standards at all, they would cringe whenever Key opens his mouth—especially his statement that the shooting of Norwegians by a Norwegian Christian fanatic is “why we are in Afghanistan”.

          • logie97 16.2.1.1.1
            3 August 2011 at 11:50 pm

            Did you watch the link above of Key reading his “condolences” speech?

            • Morrissey 16.2.1.1.1.1
              5 August 2011 at 9:29 am

              Did you watch the link above of Key reading his “condolences” speech?

              Yes I did. Key’s speech (Part 1) was as uninspiring and insipid as anything he has delivered, though it was interesting to see that he has dropped his grave assurances that “this is why our troops are in Afghanistan”. Note, straight behind Key, the hapless Hawkes Bay drone Chris Tremain dutifully looking concerned and occasionally nodding his head throughout the speech. Talk about a wasted life.

              I skipped the rest, except for John Boscawen (Part 5), who seems utterly bewildered and out of his depth. As usual. Note that the grossly under-performing National backbencher Alan (“I am not a stupid man”) Peachey is fast asleep throughout Boscawen’s speech.

  17. logie97 17
    3 August 2011 at 11:13 pm

    Anyone see the T.V. news showing Bill English being removed from the chamber today?

  18. Ianupnorth 18
    3 August 2011 at 11:41 pm

    A prediction – the first post on Open Mike tomorrow will be Pete George and it will contain a link to his blog…

  19. travellerev 19
    4 August 2011 at 7:53 am

    PB,
    Could not find a way to link to the previous thread so I’m responding a fresh.
    Let me start that over the many years I have done this the pile of books, rapports, counter reports, video’s, radio programs has grown so voluminous that errors are almost inevitable. that does not mean they ar on purpose or to mislead.
    Having said that Here is a link to the response of a group of scientists and engineers who respond to Both NIST and FEMA in their peer reviewed article in the Bentham open journal. This was written before the NIST WTC7 report was published and it shows you are right and that the FEMA report stated that their best hypothesis had a low chance of occurring.
    However NIST had to detract their timeline for the collapse of WTC 7 upon strenuous and well founded criticism after they denied that WTC 7 had collapsed in free fall speed when the same group of Engineers and Scientists reviewed their report on the collapse in the peer review process. As it should be I might add.
    Now you can say: see, see she’s got it wrong but the fact is that two scientific institutions financed by the US government have not bee able to give satisfying answers to the urgent question as to why three steel framed buildings could collapse (Two in an exploding fashion and one in an imploding fashion) into a pyroclastic flow and that until today this only happened on 911 even though more devastating fires in more fragile build buildings have not been able to replicate these collapses other then ones rigged with explosives.

    No proper criminal investigation has ever been allowed to take place and a small group of people has become even more hideously wealthy in the war efforts that followed.  
    Have to  be off, won’t be able to answer until midday.

    • Pascal's bookie 19.1
      4 August 2011 at 8:59 am

      Here’s what NIST say about the rate of collapse as far as I can make out:

      The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

      ‱Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
      ‱Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
      ‱Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

      This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

        • travellerev 19.1.1.1
          4 August 2011 at 1:13 pm

          PB,
          Just so we are clear here. A 47 floor 186 m high building twice reinforced to withstand a nuclear blast collapses into a fine dust and steel beams just the right length to fit on removal trucks in 5.4 sec (I thought 6.5 seconds) into it’s own foot print, the path of most resistance, as the result of mere office fires and you are OK with that because the absolute free fall time would have been 3.9 sec?

          Come on!!!

          Here is what Physicist David Chandler (One of the people criticizing NIST with  Architects and Engineers) has to say about it! 

      • Colonial Viper 19.1.2
        4 August 2011 at 1:23 pm

        the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

        Whoah, that is a totally unwarranted conclusion. Structural elements which fail take time to fail. They don’t fail as if they are not there. You have to remember that a good MAJORITY of the structural beams in the building were INTACT.

        What you are proposing is that all those intact beams wnet ahead and failed SIMULTANEOUSLY in such a way that they acted as if they had ZERO structural strength.

        Well of course there are circumstances where that could happen to a building, and has been seen to happen before e.g. a carefully timed controlled demolition.

        • travellerev 19.1.2.1
          4 August 2011 at 2:20 pm

          CV,
          Just to support your comment, here is a video with both the real world collapse and the framework computer model showing completely different collapses

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 19.1.2.1.1
            4 August 2011 at 2:38 pm

            Forget about the fucking buildings and tell me why.

            If the point was to provide a pretext for a war against Iraq, why not frame Iraq?

            • Colonial Viper 19.1.2.1.1.1
              4 August 2011 at 3:04 pm

              TGFFKAO

              Did you not hear? Saddam Hussein had WMD and proven links with Osama bin Laden, more than enough to take pre-emptive action for regime change 🙂

              Well so claimed Faux News 😀

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                4 August 2011 at 3:40 pm

                Yeah, seems a bit of a circuitous conspiracy. You want to go to war against Iraq. You need a pretext. You involve hundreds of people in your conspiracy planting explosives and such (none of whom ever leak about it).

                But then, you don’t frame Iraq, the country against whom you want to go to war.

                Isn’t that just a bit…insane.

                • freedom …
                  4 August 2011 at 3:54 pm

                  gormyone
                  “Forget about the fucking buildings and tell me why. ”

                  Gold Oil Drugs

                  sum it up for you?

                  if not then you may want to recall they had to hit Afghanistan first before they could whip up the frenzy to allow the illegal and unwarranted attack on their patsy Hussein. Then as the opium trade exploded in selected areas of Afghanistan, protected by the US forces of course, they could focus on Iraq and once the first million civilians had been killed they had to fire the Army so the country could properly disintegrate and the US could supply stability to the oil pipeline, i mean the oppressed people.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    4 August 2011 at 4:18 pm

                    But why get involved in the 9/11 plot?

                    Why not just use the actual AQ attacks as pretext? It’s not like everyone thought it was no big deal until after the buildings came down, and only then did the tv people start saying hell this is pretty freaky.

                    Even while the planes were still flying around people were describing it as the most serious and audacious terror attack in history. There is your pretext, right there.

                    You only need to run a false flag op when you opponent isn’t actually attacking you.

                    • freedom …
                      4 August 2011 at 4:35 pm

                      “Even while the planes were still flying around people were describing it as the most serious and audacious terror attack in history. ”

                      you really do come up with some amazing crap.. Weren’t you at all suspicious that within an hour of the first Tower being hit Osama was the man and every station on the planet knew it. .. kind of like when Oswald’s full bio and backstory turned up in NZ papers within hours of the event…. now back to your Airplane problem .. in the USA…any commercial aircraft that deviates from its course for whatever reason and does not respond to three calls to the flightcrew has an interceptor aircraft launched.

                      This did not happen for four passenger aircraft that as you state above were known to be highjacked and were tracked for over an hour over land.. The interceptors were sent out to sea.

                      A couple of months before 9/11 longstanding protocols were changed so all calls for interceptors had to go directly to the Secreatary of Defense. A couple of weeks after 9/11 the long standing protocols were re-introduced.

                      HOW and WHY…. PB.. HOW and WHY ?

                      I do not have time this week to continue but i am more than willing to deal with this next week. 9/11 is perhaps the most difficult subject for people to discuss, not because of the info-disnfo war, not because of the wars that it led to, not because the threat of actual terrorism is a real danger in the 21st Century. The real reason is people fundamentally do not want to accept that a small number of very powerful people conspired to slaughter millions for nothing else but Gold Oil and Drugs and the power they supply.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      4 August 2011 at 4:47 pm

                      Freedom, perhaps you didn’t actually read my comment.

                      The question I’m asking is why would you need to go through with a highly risky task of rigging three buildings to blow up, when the AQ attacks alone would serve as your casus belli.

                      Responding that in fact, everyone was already itching for war on AQ after only one hour explains my point perfectly.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      4 August 2011 at 4:52 pm

                      And no, I wasn’t suspicious at all about the fact that AQ was being fingered. When I first saw the shit goin down, and it became clear it wasn’ an accident, I thought, shit AQ have got their A game on.

                      It’s not like they hadn’t been threatening war on US soil for years. They were the obvious suspect, to everyone but the Bush administration (who were under the spell of neocons who believed that non state actors simply don’t have the capacity for this sort of thing).

                    • rosy …
                      4 August 2011 at 6:39 pm

                      “Weren’t you at all suspicious that within an hour of the first Tower being hit Osama was the man and every station on the planet knew it”

                      Why wouldn’t they finger AQ? They people and involved in the 1993 attempt were the same crowd.

            • travellerev 19.1.2.1.1.2
              4 August 2011 at 5:21 pm

              Tomorrow, tired now. And I would like to know what AQ stands for. Blond perhaps but remember English is my second language and sometimes abbreviations slide by me. Cheers

        • rosy 19.1.2.2
          4 August 2011 at 6:27 pm

          “Structural elements which fail take time to fail”.

          The way I understand it is that they had been progressively failing all day from uncontrolled fires on 10 floors. So much so, that instead of pulling the building down (as they had several others in the complex), the firemen left it to burn because they knew it was going to fall down anyway.

          The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn’t] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely.

          – Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

    • Pascal's bookie 19.2
      4 August 2011 at 4:12 pm

      Ok. Once again.

      Point the first:

      Eve posted some statements as to what she claimed the NIST report said, saying that they had to adjust their timeline implying that the new timeline would no longer support their theory of what happened. I posted what the NIST report says. As far as I can tell, what the NIST report says is not very much like what eve claimed it said.

      Point the second:

      There seems to be some astonishment at what I posted. It is as if, as Rosy talked about in an earlier comment, people aren’t actually familiar with the theory they are criticising.

      Instead of dealing with that, I’m asked if I believe the same tired old strawman about ‘small office fires’. It’s almost like I haven’t linked to what the actual theory is. It is quite something.

      Point the third:

      CV look again at the threes stages NIST talks about. When is the support for the building being lost? Stage 1, 2, or 3?

      • higherstandard 19.2.1
        4 August 2011 at 4:17 pm

        Are you completing a project for a psych paper or are you just a glutton for punishment ?

        • travellerev 19.2.1.1
          4 August 2011 at 5:23 pm

          No, actually I think that difficult though it may be he is actually trying to engage. Something you wouldn’t know how to do if it hit you between the eyes. Hence the questions and the links.

      • travellerev 19.2.2
        4 August 2011 at 5:25 pm

        Wrote this an hour ago and thought I’d send it off. That is the problem when you have about a hundred tabs open. My bad!

        We are nitpicking about 1.6 seconds here in the collapse of a 47 floor steel framed building for fucks sake I it had taken 1.5 hours it would still be impossible!

        NIST stated it did not investigate for explosives because there was no proof of explosives. WTF?

        First of all there was ample recorded testimony and video material showing clearly that explosive events took place BEFORE the planes hit the buildings and there is recorded testimony of explosive events in WTC 7 before the buildings came down and they did not investigate because they did not find evidence?????

        This is what Eric Lawyer (also speaking on the AE video to come) Fire fighters for 911 truth had to say about that.

        This is what appeared on Italian MSM about the WTC 7 demolition here the explosions just before the buildings collapse and oh oops, here are the fire fighters saying they knew it was coming down before hand even though this had only happened twice before on the same day!

  20. freedom 20
    4 August 2011 at 4:56 pm

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-03082011/#comment-360390
    reply to PB

    if you read The Project for a New American Century it spells out that ‘nothing short of a new Pearl Harbour’ would have been enough of a catlyst to form the required level of hysteria that would allow the implenmentation of a long standing warplan on the Middle East.

    The plans of which you may recall were dumped on the desk of the Secretary of Defense within 48 hours of the attacks on the WTC. Full plans, costs, including an exit strategy. All tied up with a nice blood red white and blue ribbon but the reality is there should have been nought on top but a white feather for their cowardice.

    • Pascal's bookie 20.1
      4 August 2011 at 5:16 pm

      I’ve read the PNAC docs. Lot’s of times.

      The AQ attacks fit the bill. Which is why they used it. Doesn’t explain why they would take he risk of getting involved. And it sure as hell doesn’t explain why their propaganda before the event wasn’t helping them. If they had known exactly what was going to happen, they would have been laying the ground about ties between AQ and Iraq and building up the threat AQ posed. Instead, they were ignoring them.