Open mike 30/08/2011

255 comments on “Open mike 30/08/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Afewknowthetruth 1

   29 August 2011 at 10:55 am

   ‘The establishment elite know Hone Harawira is their greatest foe.’

   That is not true.

   The establishment elite know THE TRUTH is their greatest foe.

   That is why they go to such great lengths to continually promulgate fabrications and propaganda via ‘news’, and to ‘assissinate’ anyone who does speak the truth.

   Only three concrete and steel buildings have ever collapsed at freefall speed because of short-lived low temperature fires, and they all did it on the same day, one of them not even being hit by a plane! On all other occasions where the furnishings of conctrete and steel buildings have caught fire the fires buned for many hours (or even more than a day) without the building collapsing.

   The have only been two incidents in all of history of the titanium alloy engines of airliners ‘evaporating on impact’ and no significant wreckage being found, and those incidents occured in different, close locations, also on the very same day!

   There has been only one day in history when the US airforce failed to intercept airliners that were ‘off course’ and allowed them to fly around for up to an hour-and-a-half. Also on the same day.

   A few hours later The Shrub and Tony B Liar started to implement their plans for the invasions of oil-rich nations.

   Anyone who believes anything ‘official’ is a fool.

   [lprent: too far off topic – the next time I have to move a threads of yours for this reason, then I will make moves to reduce part of my workload for a month or so. ]
   • alex 1.1

     29 August 2011 at 11:46 am

     Off topic?
     • Lanthanide 1.1.1

       29 August 2011 at 12:15 pm

       AFKTT only has one topic.
       • grumpy 1.1.1.1

         29 August 2011 at 1:23 pm

         ….with a few minor variations……..
   • Andrew Scobie 1.2

     29 August 2011 at 12:07 pm

     “On all other occasions where the furnishings of conctrete and steel buildings have caught fire the fires burned for many hours (or even more than a day) without the building collapsing”

     Should be in Open Mike … but, any of those other buildings get hit by commercial airliners at 600 ish miles an hour? mmm, didn’t think so. Put your tinfoil hat back on.
   • grumpy 1.3

     29 August 2011 at 1:25 pm

     Oh fuck….not again…..ever seen a fire in a tunnel??????

     Ever heard of how a fire reacts to draft?

     Know what a chimney is for???????
   • travellerev 1.4

     30 August 2011 at 8:48 am

     Oh well, at least he gets a warning and an explanation where as you just cleaned up another thread without so much as a mention and it’s not the first time. Can’t meet my arguments can you so discrete removal is your weapon of choice. Some sort of discrete censure. LOL, Pathetic and don’t worry you don’t have to ban me I’ll just stay away for a while shall I.
2. Afewknowthetruth 2

   29 August 2011 at 5:31 pm

   grumpy.

   Know what the melting point of steel is?

   Know the temperature of a alkane fire is when starved of air i.e. when it generates thick black smoke, as per 9/11?

   Know which plane hit WTO Building Seven?

   Know what happened to teh wreckage of teh ‘plane that hit the Petagon?

   As we have noted many times, this forum is frequented by uninformed, scientifically illiterate morons.

   Lanthanide.

   ‘AFKTT only has one topic’ Yes, the truth., however unpalatable it might be to the fantasists and deniers.
   • alex 2.1

     29 August 2011 at 11:44 pm

     But… it doesn’t matter anymore.
     Perhaps the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated, or at the very least allowed to happen by the Bush administration. Or Mossad. Or the attacks were made by Al-Qaeda. The point is, it doesn’t matter who attacked the towers. It was a decade ago. 10 years worth of much more important stuff has happened as a result of 9/11, and thats what we should be talking about, rather than the scientifically dubious claims the towers were rigged with explosives. Its sort of like debating who set the Reichstag fire. Who cares? We got Hitler as a result regardless of who did it.

     The great failure of the 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement is not whether they are right or wrong, its that they put their energy into a pointless chase, when they should have been trying to direct the narrative of the response. The western world could have reacted like Norway has in the wake of Breivik, with dignity and an unwillingness to compromise civil liberties. But that narrative was never really put forward, because the debate was framed around who committed the act, and that was simply an unwinnable fight.

     Here’s the point – You will NEVER convince a majority of people that 9/11 was an inside job. It simply will not ever happen. Whether or not it was an inside job will never be definitively proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Get over it already and start agitating for an end to the wars that resulted from it.
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       30 August 2011 at 4:48 pm

       Here’s the point – You will NEVER convince a majority of people that 9/11 was an inside job. It simply will not ever happen.

       Its not important to convince a majority of people.

       This is not a vote or a popularity contest.
   • Andrew Scobie 2.2

     30 August 2011 at 9:13 am

     I don’t know why i’m bothering, but ….. ill take the bait …

     “Know what the melting point of steel is?”

     Generally around 1300 – 1500 degrees, depending on the amount of iron and carbon. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel. So the steel did not have to melt in order to affect the structural integrity of the building. Seeing that the failure point of both buildings was at the point of the plane impacts, i would generally say case closed.

     “Know the temperature of a alkane fire is when starved of air i.e. when it generates thick black smoke, as per 9/11?”

     Which fire was this? Thick black smoke is also caused by burning lots of other things.

     “Know which plane hit WTO Building Seven?”

     No plane, but a fucken great chunk of building fell on it.

     “Know what happened to teh wreckage of teh ‘plane that hit the Petagon?”

     There is a metric shitload of wreckage photos from the pentagon. i can post links, but im sure your smart enough to google: pentagon plane wreckage photos.

     “As we have noted many times, this forum is frequented by uninformed, scientifically illiterate morons”

     And you are the way and the light, the bastion of truth, you are the only one who knows what really went on that day. God i hate the internet sometimes. It makes dumb people think they are a lot smarter than they actually are.
   • grumpy 2.3

     30 August 2011 at 12:53 pm

     ….well now…..how can acetylene (which has a low burning point) cut through steel?????

     Oh, that’s right – add oxygen!!!!!!
     • Colonial Viper 2.3.1

       30 August 2011 at 4:44 pm

       That’s right. You have to add pure oxygen under pressure. Or have some other highly oxidative agent present. (Nanothermite has microscopic iron oxide particles for instance).
       • grumpy 2.3.1.1

         30 August 2011 at 4:58 pm

         …or a lot of air. Years ago I worked in a Christchurch foundry. We had a great lead melting set up with Christchurch Town Gas piped into a junction with an Electrolux on “blow”. would melt anything! But, the gas on it’s own was useless.

         Ever use a Bunsen burner?
3. travellerev 3

   29 August 2011 at 8:03 pm

   Of course it’s OK for millions of people to die of radiation cancer because there are to many of us anyway so what does a “bit” of radiation matter. I see where you’re coming from but tell that to the million people who died and are still dying of horrible diseases in Russia after Chernobyl or the people who died in the aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

   And what gets me with arrogant assholes like you is the complete lack of real scientific knowledge you base your assertions on.

   For those curious as to what the long term effect of Fukushima will be here is some information and here is Helen Caldicott’s facebook page so you can keep yourself informed.

   As for the moron who thinks that carbon fires caused by two planes lasting less then an hour can actually demolish three buildings and cause them to break all laws of physics by falling in free falls speed into the path of most resistance and until this day have been the only three buildings to do so here is a link to the laws of motion page of the Wikipedia site (Serious Conspiracy site I know) and the link to the Architects and Engineers site for 911 truth and a new investigation. Here is a 15 minute video made for the tenth anniversary of the horrible events. Architects, Engineers, Fire fighters, Metallurgic engineers, Nano scientists speaking in favor of a new and independent investigation into the collapse of WTC7. All prime candidates for spouting conspiratorial mayhem I know but there you have it.

   Oh, and NIST actually telling that WTC7 collapsed into it’s own foot print in 5.8 seconds because of office fires. I suggest you don’t use your Kerosine heater tonight because it may collapse into it’s own footprint taking your house with it.

   [lprent: And that looks like it is getting well off topic – the oceans remember. This one is embedded in the thread, so I will fix it at the database. Next person veering so far off topic (and causing me excessive work) will receive my displeasure ]
   • The Voice of Reason 3.1

     29 August 2011 at 8:23 pm

     Ten years in a couple of weeks and still not a scrap of evidence that 9/11 was anything other than what we know it to be. But keep raving, that’ll make all the difference.
     • RedLogix 3.1.1

       29 August 2011 at 8:48 pm

       Ten years in a couple of weeks and still not a scrap of evidence that 9/11 was anything other than what we know it to be.

       I’d kind of be happy to accept that at face value if I thought you had spent some real time and effort sincerely sifting through the mountain of narrative around 9/11. Lots of it is nuts; some isn’t.

       In the end I couldn’t be quite as sneeringly dismissive as you are.
       • The Voice of Reason 3.1.1.1

         29 August 2011 at 8:57 pm

         RL, it’s not sneering, it’s a straight fact. Ten years and not a scrap of evidence. The right push this shit to confuse and distract and, yes, I know I shouldn’t feed the trolls, so sorry for helping to derail yet another thread.
         • RedLogix 3.1.1.1.1

           29 August 2011 at 9:04 pm

           Ten years and not a scrap of evidence.

           Well actually much of the evidence was scrapped, but let’s not quibble over that. But I said unless you’re willing to put some time and effort into examining the rather complex narrative around 9/11 then your opinion is by definition… underinformed.

           I’d agree with you there is no proof. Although at this stage even it was provided it wouldn’t make any difference because most people have too much invested in their fixed position to change their mind now.

           At the same time as you should know perfectly well, absence of proof is not proof of innocence either.
           • crashcart 3.1.1.1.1.1

             30 August 2011 at 10:39 am

             How long did it take the Americans to admit that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t workign alone when he shot Kennedy? I am by no means convinced that the events of 9/11 didn’t happen the way they are said to have. However I am not so arrogant as to dismiss those building the case against it yet.
         • Vicky32 3.1.1.1.2

           30 August 2011 at 4:29 pm

           The right push this shit to confuse and distract

           Bring me the world’s smallest violin! Oh good grief, the broken record technique probably works to make your family (if any) and friends shut up and let you be the boss, but it looks pretty desperate here.
           You know very well, that people who don’t accept the official story are not of “the right” – if any are, it’s maybe 10% of them… but it’s a pretty good insult to direct against people who won’t accept your bullying attacks. If anything, you’re the rightist, as your endless pro-war comments show. Change the bleeding record, and get educated on the subject! I have less patience with you than others do, and I think I am probably more cynical – I think that like Ayn Rand, you probably go out of your way to avoid reading anything that might challenge your conformist views.
           Conformist pretty well sums you up!
            
           • The Voice of Reason 3.1.1.1.2.1

             30 August 2011 at 4:37 pm

             Another county heard from …
              
             It’s marginally less that 100%, Vicky32 as you well know. The margin being a few infantile leftists. And, no I do not post endless pro-war comments. Provide the links that prove I do or fuck off.
     • travellerev 3.1.2

       29 August 2011 at 11:20 pm

       ROFL, Nano Thermite, three collapsing buildings breaking all the laws of motion and physics with people hearing loud explosions before the planes hit the buildings?

       This is what the Firefighters for 911 truth have to say about the lack of crime scene investigation. Two wars were started killing an estimate million in Iraq and countingas a result of the events and we have just taken the word of the US government as to how it could have happened and only after 1.5 years could a couple of widows called the jersey girls finally force a “committee”. Not a single person was held responsible for the failure of the air force to protect New York and the Pentagon.

       Next weekend there will be 4 days of hearings in Toronto with on the Panel amongst others:

       Ferdinando Imposimato is the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy,

       Lynn Margulis is a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst,

       William Pepper is a barrister in the United Kingdom and admitted to the bar in numerous jurisdictions in the United States of America and

       Giulietto Chiesa who is an Italian journalist and politician, and was a Member of the European Parliament. Chiesa was a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade and a member of the Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee. In 2008, Chiesa called for an international tribunal to probe events of September 11, 2001.

       All the sort of people and professions prone to conspiracy theories from wild eyed tinfoil hat wearers of course.

       Presented will be the best evidence gathered to date by Architects and Engineers, Scientists, Fire fighters to the judge, barrister and panel members. You might want to listen. The hearings will be aired online.
   • RedLogix 3.2

     29 August 2011 at 8:41 pm

     I think I mentioned this once before, but it was within a few weeks of 9/11 that I emailed a guy, I think his name was ‘PlaguePuppy”, a short email suggesting that the only thing that I couldn’t understand was the obvious presence of large pools of molten steel deep in the wreckage that was being openly reported at the time.

     I clearly recall IR satellite pictures that pinpointed them.

     And for what it’s worth I concluded way back then that thermite had to be involved… there really was no other rational explanation I could ever think of. And yet the consequences of this are so deeply disruptive aren’t they?

     As an ordinary person on the other side of the world there is no way for me to know the truth of what happened. But there are too many things that went wrong that day, too many inconsistencies, too many odd little things that simply got ignored by the official fairytale.

     And I fully accept that lots of the speculation around 9/11 is also plain nuts and sorting out the wheat from the chaff is a task beyond me. So I rather tend to try not to get sucked into being too positional about it all.

     Nor call folk names because in good faith they disagree with me.
     • r0b 3.2.1

       29 August 2011 at 10:07 pm

       the only thing that I couldn’t understand was the obvious presence of large pools of molten steel deep in the wreckage that was being openly reported at the time.
       

       What sort of electrical substations must have been buried in the basement of those towers, and what became of them?  Consider:

       A transformer buried under the rubble of the old Press newspaper building in Christchurch is on fire. …
       The Press building has been under demolition for the past week or so and is largely reduce to rubble.

        
       • travellerev 3.2.1.1

         29 August 2011 at 10:53 pm

         The presence of large pools of molten steel which were able to stay molten for months without the aid of oxygen.
       • RedLogix 3.2.1.2

         30 August 2011 at 5:37 am

         Any electrical arcing would have been extinguished within fractions of a second as the upstream protection on the supply to the buildings tripped out. Certainly there would have been no possibility of a sustained high-temperature arc as in an electric blast furnace, and certainly not over the multiple locations the molten pools were recorded in.

         Nor would it explain the molten steel recorded flowing from high up in one of the buildings as it collapsed. The argument went however that it could have been aluminium that melted at the temperature of the plane crash/office fitting fires. Or lead from some large UPS batteries. But at the low temperatures these two metals a melt at they could not have been glowing bright yellow. The colour of molten metals is directly and strictly related to temperature due to some very basic physics.

         I’m sure the oil in those transformers caught fire, but without being force-fed oxygen it would have burned relatively slowly at lowish temperatures. The science behind all this is very well known. I’m reluctant to relitigate what has been done far better elsewhere.

         The point is that the argument has raged vituperatively for a decade with neither side being able to score a knock-out blow. From a science perspective the problem is that 9/11 was a one-off unique event. It was not a repeatable experiment; worse still much of the material that could have retrospectively provided evidence was not gathered nor stored properly. As a result everyone is left boxing shadows, threading together tenuous strings of speculation and getting positional with each other.

         The existing global political order is so broken it can no longer deal to obvious incontrovertible crisis like fossil fuel induced climate change, or peak oil, or the current financial crash… so it’s hopelessly unrealistic to expect it to respond to the devastatingly subversive implications of 9/11 being any kind of inside job.

         No-one ‘grown-up’ could possibly admit to it. We all know this at a subconcious level. Imagine, hypothetically, Barack Obama making a bombshell speech informing the world that the official 9/11 story was a lie… the consequences of such an announcement would too preposterously dangerous and unpredicatable. Therefore it can never happen…regardless the truth of the matter.

         Personally I’m not too attached to it anymore. I recall on the very day of 9/11 my older daughter whose no-one’s fool quite matter of factly said to me, “Oh it’s just a big magic show”….a huge psychological manipulation to serve a purpose. She’s never paid it much attention since, it was just how she saw it at the time.

         We don’t really need any kind of “9/11 Truth” anymore to know that they lie to us. They have done so repeatedly over so many other things, that to imagine that the political/media machine would openly and plainly tell us the truth about ANYTHING…. is in fact quite delusional.
         • travellerev 3.2.1.2.1

           30 August 2011 at 7:24 am

           Vituperatively. I like that word. Had to look it up of course but I like it.

           I hear what you are saying RL but the problem is some 3000 people died that day and in the aftermath 70.000 first responders, brave men and women who trusted their government came to NY to help and to clean and many of them are dying of the dust they breathed and swallowed and for all these people and their families 911 never stopped. Not only that, two wars or arguably six wars and possibly two more in the future were enabled by the events involving millions of people around the planet. In the US more soldiers have died committing suicide than have died in the war zones as the result of battle related wounds and entire areas of the planet have become contaminated with DU to the point of being uninhabitable and for all those people 911 never stopped. 

           As a result of the events of that day laws have been voted in seriously restricting our civil liberties and while that may not amount to much yet over here in the US people are waking up to a different and much more dangerous country because of these draconian laws.

           You might want to walk away from 911, God knows I do, but it won’t walk away from you because that is the nature of the beast of an out of control ruling elite. They take and take and take until we say no more and take our lives back and that is the reality of the world we are living in.

           In fact you might argue that the entire MSM blackout of the events in Fukushima, the gigantic consumption of entirely unnecessary amounts of the earth’s resources due to an incredibly efficient advertisement system are all the result of our having been brainwashed by the same Military industrial nuclear industry that keeps us living in Lala land with regards to the evil that was perpetrated on 911.
           • ropata 3.2.1.2.1.1

             31 August 2011 at 7:22 pm

             Very good point travellerev, whether or not 9/11 was a “magic show” it was obviously just the excuse Bush and cronies needed to feed the Fox news frenzy, embark on their mad oil wars, violate the Constitution and Geneva convention, corrupt the whole freakin US economy and government…

             RT and Al Jazeera are the only news outlets willing to delve into these issues
         • Vicky32 3.2.1.2.2

           30 August 2011 at 4:35 pm

           I recall on the very day of 9/11 my older daughter whose no-one’s fool quite matter of factly said to me, “Oh it’s just a big magic show”….a huge psychological manipulation to serve a purpose.

           Your daughter’s very perceptive! My son was slightly less so at the time, he was 14, but since then, he’s come to the point of view my brother and I always had, which was the same as that of your daughter…
     • Andrew Scobie 3.2.2

       30 August 2011 at 12:39 pm

       What about an EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron coming into contact with steam to produce hydrogen. Enough pressure would have been exerted from the collapsing tower to produce enough heat to melt some of the steel. It’s basic physics. The hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat.
   • wtl 3.3

     29 August 2011 at 10:22 pm

     Of course it’s OK for millions of people to die of radiation cancer because there are to many of us anyway so what does a “bit” of radiation matter.

     I’ll break my own commitment to not reply to point one thing: you are either purposely or mistakenly misrepresenting my argument. I accept that that Chernobyl and Fukushima are disasters that have/are/will be likely to have long lasting effects for a large number of people (yes millions), which is a tragedy. What I am disputing is the following (quoting your first comment):

     … the Pacific ocean will turn into a radioactive soup long before the seas get to acidic…

     This, together with some of your previous comments on this site, indicates to me that you think that Fukushima will turn out to be some kind of world-ending disaster. It won’t be. And it isn’t even an order of magnitude close to what we can expect to face from climate change unless we get our arses in order and seriously reduce our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades.
     • travellerev 3.3.1

       29 August 2011 at 10:55 pm

       Yep, and the three towers collapsed as a result of two planes flying in them. LOL.
4. Afewknowthe truth 4

   29 August 2011 at 11:30 pm

   The Voice of Reason.

   I think you need to change your pseudonym to Voice of Unreason since you clearly cannot be reasoned with, and you dismiss all the scientific evidence that disproves your particular view of the world … the view handed down by elites like Tont B Liar and the famous Shrub, of course. .

   “Weapons of mass destruction ready to be lunched at a moment’s notice”. “We’re here to bring you feedom and democracy and it has nothing to do with the huge reserves of oil only accessible from within your border.” Planes that crash and leave no wreckage. Titanium engines (with a melting point around 3,000oC) that ‘evaporate on impact’. Lies, lies lies.

   Building Seven collapses at free-fall speed after a short lived upper-story fire. the CRIMPING DUE TO TEH DEMOLITION CHARGES is blatantly obvious in the video footage, shortly after Larry Silverstien says: Pull it, code for ‘demolish it. Lucky he just happened to take out double indemnity insurance a few months earlier, wasn’t it? And so fortunate that he and his mates decided to take out put options on ailine shares, on the basis that airlines would be grounded for some ‘inkown’ reason.

   But 9/11 did solve his asbestos problem didn’t it? How veryt convenient.

   You wrote: “Ten years in a couple of weeks and still not a scrap of evidence that 9/11 was anything other than what we know it to be ‘

   The reality is: Ten years in a couple of weeks and still not a scrap of evidence to support the official version of 9/11, just a fabricated report compiled by a mate of the Shrub to cover up the crime of the century.

   Of course all the fincnaicial-military-industrial empire needs to do is put out a few lies, get the coporate medai to repeat them a few times, and then uneducated morons believe the nonsense because it is ‘official’. From from that point on the empire doesn”t even need to defend its lies because uneducated morons will do it for the empire.

   The best kind of slave is one who thinks he/she is free: such as slave will often defend to the death the slavemster’s ‘right’ to own and abuse slaves.

   It is very noticeable that when defeated with logic, the defenders of the industrial empire resort to insults or refuse to discuss the topic anymore. .
   • alex 4.1

     29 August 2011 at 11:50 pm

     So how about those oceans then? I vaguely remember something at the top of the page about them.
     • Jenny 4.1.1

       30 August 2011 at 5:25 am

       Every effort needs to be made to save our biosphere.
   • The Voice of Reason 4.2

     30 August 2011 at 7:24 am

     I use the name Voice of Reason to annoy righties, truther. It’s an Ayn Rand book title. So far, I can’t recall anybody from the left complaining about it, presumably because they’re bright enough to get the joke.
      
     I haven’t denied any evidence, because there isn’t any. Ten years and counting.
     • The Voice of Reason 4.2.1

       30 August 2011 at 7:39 am

       Edit: The above was a reply to an AFKTT comment which now seems to have been removed, probably by a CIA black ops team. I love the smell of thermite in the morning.
       [lprent: By me – over in OpenMike ]
     • Colonial Viper 4.2.2

       30 August 2011 at 8:42 am

       I haven’t denied any evidence, because there isn’t any. Ten years and counting.

       Interesting that you deny that multiple footage (photos and videos) of molten metal pouring out of the towers, as well as under the collapsed rubble during clean up; and that multiple independent lab analysis which suggest that nano-thermite cutting charges had ben used somewhere in the vicinity are “evidence”.

       Denial saves you mental discomfort and I understand that.

       From your point of view, the twin towers and WTC7 all collapsed instantaneously at near free fall speeds, directly vertically and conveniently on to their own foot prints, each ejecting massive pyroclastic clouds of explosively and microscopically pulverised debris while doing so, after having suffered uneven, assymetrical structural and fire damage.

       In terms of context, I’m sure that you also believe that there is no eveidence that governments (or government factions) have ever used ‘false flag’ attacks to further their own political goals, claiming (false) outrage or indignity which needed to be repaid against a foreign (or local) aggressor.
       • The Voice of Reason 4.2.2.1

         30 August 2011 at 9:42 am

         As I said, CV, ten years and no evidence. Show me the email, the taped phone call, the death bed confession, the chapter in Cheney’s autobiography, anything at all that that proves a conspiracy and I’ll pay attention. But after a decade long wankathon all we have to show is nothing but fantasy and conjecture and Occam’s razor remains as sharp as ever.
          
          
         • vto 4.2.2.1.1

           30 August 2011 at 10:18 am

           TVOR, who shot JFK?
           • clandestino 4.2.2.1.1.1

             30 August 2011 at 10:23 am

             Lee Harvey Oswald.
           • grumpy 4.2.2.1.1.2

             30 August 2011 at 1:00 pm

             I’ll buy that one – not Lee Harvey Oswald! 6.5mm Curcano with open sights, 2 shots at a moving target at that distance – bullshit!!
         • Colonial Viper 4.2.2.1.2

           30 August 2011 at 10:23 am

           TVOR: so you prefer a “confession” over actual physical lab analysed evidence? Usually the hierarchy of evidence is the other way around. Physical evidence rules man.
           • clandestino 4.2.2.1.2.1

             30 August 2011 at 10:34 am

             But isn’t it the case that the physical evidence HAS been examined and explained, see the BBC summary below. Oh wait, the youtube videos and architects say otherwise…

             Normally reasonable people I agree with have been getting sucked in by this crap and it is frankly embarrassing
             • vto …

               30 August 2011 at 10:39 am

               I think what is happenning today mr clandestino is that people are simply not trusting things “official” anymore. They have been lied to too many times.

               So people will gravitate perhaps more to alternative ideas about situations, given that the official line is now not trusted.

               “Official” is dead in the water imo.
               • clandestino …

                 30 August 2011 at 10:55 am

                 Then I hope they view everything ‘official’ with the same disdain and don’t pick and choose to suit their political stripe.

                 The problem with the 911 thing for me is these people WANT it to be true because that provides a super-villain grand conspiracy to rail against rather than your garden variety human ineptitude which is the real bane of our existence.
                 • travellerev …

                   30 August 2011 at 2:58 pm

                   Well to be honest I also have a great problem with John Key, his Wall street bankster career and the money he made with the Derivatives trade. Oh and the attack he enabled on the NZ dollar in 1987 of course.
                   • Zaphod Beeblebrox …

                     30 August 2011 at 9:29 pm

                     Obviously he saw the writing on the wall and got out of Merrill Lynch before it went belly up. Now he is trying to do teh same to his new employers judging by the $18 bill deficit this year.
           • The Voice of Reason 4.2.2.1.2.2

             30 August 2011 at 10:37 am

             CV, there is no evidence at all of a conspiracy, so yes, I would ‘prefer’ a confession, if I’m to take this shit seriously.
              
             Ask a cop; the more people are involved in a crime, the more likely it is that someone will blab. In this case, somewhere between dozens and thousands would be required to keep schtumm and amazingly, not a peep has come from any of them in ten long years. So either this is the most astonishingly tight-lipped group of criminals ever assembled in human history or the theory is complete and utter bollocks.
              
             Just to make it fun, I’ll donate $500 to the Standard if and when a credible conspirator admits to being involved and provides proof such as an email, a recording, or a paycheque co-signed by Dick Cheney. $1000 if the witness actually is Cheney!
              
              
              
             • crashcart …

               30 August 2011 at 12:36 pm

               Yet you were willing to accpt that it was OBL who did it without any proof being offered.

               A large conspiracy was involved in the shooting of JFK. It has even been admited in official circles that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone. Yet to this day not one single member of the conspiricy has come forward to say they were involved.

               Being involved in the murder of over 3000 people for poitical reasons and what would happen to you should you admit you were involved is one hell of an incentive to stay quiet.
               • clandestino …

                 30 August 2011 at 3:32 pm

                 Wouldn’t the proof of OBL involvement be the trail of evidence the hijackers provided and the fact he himself accepted responsibility for it? Not to mention the build up to the event itself, well documented in The Looming Tower.
                 • Vicky32 …

                   30 August 2011 at 4:52 pm

                     the fact he himself accepted responsibility for it?

                   Except that he didn’t! How naive of you to believe the so-called ‘confession video’… which afaik was purely for American consumption. They were told that’s what OBL was saying, but again afaik, what he actually said was “What about that event hey? Who knew such a thing was even possible?” That sound like a confession to you?
                    
                   • clandestino …

                     31 August 2011 at 5:53 am

                     what a joke. i call bullshit
       • Andrew Scobie 4.2.2.2

         30 August 2011 at 10:04 am

         i wasn’t going to reply, but i will say this. Everyone just assumes that the orange stuff is molten steel. “The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.”
         • travellerev 4.2.2.2.1

           30 August 2011 at 11:46 am

           What AS refers to is molten metal as can be seen in this video. Here is what one of the commentators has to say:

           Whatever is, it is around 2500 degrees judging by its color, and it doesn’t look like it cools very quickly which tells me that it is also very dense. It must be something sufficiently dense that it does not vaporize, which makes it likely that it is some kind of metal. Regardless of what metal it is, the temperature will always be represented by the color. So any metal that is light orange / almost white is around 2500F. So only this is certain: It is metal. It is 2500F.

           This is what the Architects and Engineers have to say about it.

           As far as TVOR wanting a signed confession the following:
           After the middle ages it was established that confessions really were not a very reliable base to prosecute an alleged perpetrator. Confessions after all could be easily obtained. Waterboarding someone say a 183X would make him confess to everything including sinking the Maine well before he was born.
           In order to evaluate the possible guilt of an alleged perpetrator it was written in law that the accused must be assumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with his/her accusers and since torture until recently was not allowed protocols were developed in order to secure a conviction against the real perpetrator and not someone found close by the Crime scene and tortured to confess to the crime.
           What this meant was that the accused did not have to cooperate or confess to the crimes but that investigators had to find enough proof for it to become clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty allowing for a punishment to be proclaimed.
           In order to make it as fool proof as possible protocols with regards to safeguarding the chain of custody with evidence related matters, or safe guarding the Crime scene against contamination and here is the US fire investigation protocol.
           These rules and regulations and protocols is to make sure people get  fair hearing and that justice can be done for both the accuser and the accused.

           And while the US government claims to have been monumentally stupid and ignorant before the attacks they waited exactly until the first tower collapsed to announce that they had found the real culprits miraculously without having a single ounce of credibility and without allowing the normal chain of protocols for crime scene  investigations to happen to make absolutely sure they would find the real culprits before embarking on the longest and most costly wars this planet has ever seen.
           In fact both Bush and Cheney refused to appear in public under oath or separate from each other and could only be heard by a couple of members of the 911 committee in private and together.

           And you TVOR have the temerity to suggest we have to wait until somebody comes forward with a signed confession?

           From 9-12 September in Toronto an panel with such luminaries as Ferdinando Imposimato who is the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy.

           As a former Senior Investigative Judge in Italy, he presided over several terrorism-related cases, including the kidnapping and ultimate assassination of President Aldo Moro, the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, and other political assassinations and kidnapping cases and several cases against the Mafia. He is a former Senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations and a former legal consultant to the United Nations regarding institution of laws to control drug trafficking.

           And William Pepper who is a barrister in the United Kingdom and admitted to the bar in numerous jurisdictions in the United States of America. His primary work is international commercial law and he has been heavily involved in Human Rights Law, for a time convening the International Human Rights Seminar at Oxford University. He represents Sirhan Sirhan, the gunman convicted in the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968.
           Too name but few who will study and analyse the evidence collected by citizen investigators as should have been done right after the horrors perpetrated on 911.

           These hearing will be streamed live as well as be recorded by a professional team for those wanting to hear them at a later date.

           I put it to you that especially in cases such as this holding on to proper protocol instead of going off half cocked based on Nationalistic sentiments is essential and that the fact that a man such as Ferdinando Imposimato has consented to be part of these hearings, a man who has proven to be a stickler for protocol when his country was terrorised by Gladio and their Brigato rosso stooges is just such a man for the job and his partaking a sign how badly the international community needs these hearings.
           I also put it to you that if these learned and educated men and women after having analysed the evidence put before them come to the conclusion that further investigation is necessary and that a new and independent international team of legal and crime specialists with sufficient funds and proper authority to call anyone or if need be arrest and force them to appear before the investigators is needed we support that call unreservedly and call to justice the real perpetrators of 911 and let the chips fall were they may.
           
           • The Voice of Reason 4.2.2.2.1.1

             30 August 2011 at 12:21 pm

             Yep, that’s $500 to the Standard the moment you or the rest of the RWNJ’s come up with some actual proof. So the moment one of the cast of thousands gets religion or makes a deathbed confession or just surrenders to the guilt and ‘fesses up, I’m ready to pay out.
              
             As you point out, confessions can be faked, or be claimed by the mentally ill, so I’m looking for verifiable evidence. Anything at all that meets a reasonable standard of proof, such as a credible conspirator with an email, letter or taped phone call. Find it and I will put up the dosh. I’ve got the cheque book out, pen ready, just give me the name of the conspirator, the evidence he or she provides and the Standard will be a monkey richer.
              
              
             • travellerev …

               30 August 2011 at 12:33 pm

               Actually I think that I will stick with protocol and correct investigatorial procedure.
               • The Voice of Reason …

                 30 August 2011 at 2:01 pm

                 Actually, you are the one denying protocol and correct investigatorial procedure, Ev. They had a commission and you deny the results, remember?
                  
                 Tell you what, I’m in a generous mood. $500 is not enough. A thousand bucks to the Standard for a credible confession from a conspirator or any credible evidence of a conspiracy. Any time you’re ready, Ev, just give me the evidence and I’ll write the cheque.
                  
                 btw, while I’m here, I really should point out that your explanation about the weakness of confessions misses an obvious point, which is that confessions are a standard part of the legal process in NZ (and the rest of the western world). They can be done in the initial police interview (a statement) or in court, where they usually start with the words ‘guilty, your honour’.
                 • travellerev …

                   30 August 2011 at 3:16 pm

                   TVOR,
                   If you are referring to the 911 omission committee here is what the women who fought like hell to get some form of investigation going thought of that “investigation”. Them and about half of the survivors and their families. And most of the 70.000 first responders who by the way are not invited to attend the anniversary because they are not happy with the fact that it took about 10 years to force the government to give them some compensation for their plight. Most of them are sick and some of them are dying or have died and nothing was done for these people and they are angry funnily enough.  

                   Here is what the commission members themselves had to say about how they were lied to and how the entire commission report was a sham. Seems I don’ have to reject it since they are doing it themselves.

                   A confession is a nice bonus and you know as well as I do that many times a guilty statement is the result of a trade for a minor criminal event. The basis for a criminal prosecution is having a case (Habeas corpus) and the proof connecting the perpetrator to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

                   In fact there are cases were the accused confessed and the case was thrown out nevertheless because the judge did not trust the guilty statement as sufficient proof of the accused actually having committed the crime.
                    
             • Vicky32 …

               30 August 2011 at 5:01 pm

               Yep, that’s $500 to the Standard the moment you or the rest of the RWNJ’s come up with some actual proof.

               Sd hominem and broken record technique – and as for RWNJ it takes one to know one! (There’s no such thing as a left libertarian, after all). Don’t please, be such an abusive Twat!
             • MrSmith …

               31 August 2011 at 7:05 pm

               I’m with you on this one ‘The Voice of Reason’ and if you ever have trouble finding that $500 give me a call.
               • The Voice of Reason …

                 31 August 2011 at 7:59 pm

                 Cheers, MrSmith. I think I’ll just make a donation anyway, because I’m sure as hell never gonna be required to stump up, eh.
           • Andrew Scobie 4.2.2.2.1.2

             30 August 2011 at 12:53 pm

             well there is far too much there for me to comment on, but i will comment on this, which was your main response to me:

             “Here is what one of the commentators has to say: Whatever is, it is around 2500 degrees judging by its color, and it doesn’t look like it cools very quickly which tells me that it is also very dense. It must be something sufficiently dense that it does not vaporize, which makes it likely that it is some kind of metal. Regardless of what metal it is, the temperature will always be represented by the color. So any metal that is light orange / almost white is around 2500F. So only this is certain: It is metal. It is 2500F.”

             really? it has to be 2500 degrees because it’s yellow? Here is an image of the Yosemite Firefall:

             http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FireFall.jpg

             Looks rather similar doesn’t it? The color of a molten metal has more to do with the chemical makeup of the metal and less to do with the temperature. Molten steel turns black fairly quickly when cooled, the substance pouring out of the south tower cools to a silvery grey color.

             That entire paragraph is, and i quote you: “what one of the commentators has to say”. No scientific study, just what one commentator had to say.

             To be fair, I applaud your enthusiasm, but i am afraid that you have been blinded by all the wood and cannot see the trees anymore.
             • travellerev …

               30 August 2011 at 1:34 pm

               I take it that means that you did not check what metallurgic Engineers, Architects, Scientists and building Engineers had to say about it.

               I only took that quote because it was short and to the point.

               Maybe the billions of molten micro spheres indicating molten iron available in abundance throughout the dust of all three buildings may have something to do with the molten metal cascade coming from the building. NIST did not explain the collapses other than make a vague statement that it was inevitable (whatever that means) and had no explanation other then that the steel buckled but did not melt.

               I wonder how long you actually have shifted through all of the evidence. Perhaps all together half a day? and yet you have the gal to tell me that I after five solid years of six hours a day of research of looking into every little bit of evidence in order to make up my mind am the one confused? How about you are an arrogant son of a bitch not hindered by any knowledge or how do they say it here: A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
               • Andrew Scobie …

                 30 August 2011 at 2:00 pm

                 “How about you are an arrogant son of a bitch”

                 Well there you go. I dare question you and you automatically respond by abusing me. So you have spent 6 hours a day for the last 5 years “investigating” 9/11 on the internet. First of all i have a job so don’t have that much spare time, and second, you really need to get out more.

                 I am not going to spend any time following your links to YouTube videos about a bunch of cranks talking about controlled demolitions. for every “expert” you can dredge up, i can find more to debunk the theory.

                 Instead of just abusing me, why don’t you take some time out to see if it is actually possible that the substance you think is metal, is actually alloy from the planes?

                 So, enough about theories, how about proof?
                 • The Voice of Reason …

                   30 August 2011 at 2:07 pm

                   Arrogant SOB is nothing, Andrew. Any minute now you’re going to be labelled a racist because all us middle class whiteys just are, according to Trav. You are on the right track asking for the proof. Debating the melting points of various metals simply buys into the madness, whereas the request for proof positive tends to make the truthers go pfffft.
                   • Andrew Scobie …

                     30 August 2011 at 2:18 pm

                     I wonder why i bother sometimes. There is just something about the entire “9/11 was a giant conspiracy to justify a war with Iraq and Afghanistan” that grates on my nerves.

                     Lets kill 3000 innocent people to justify a war that is going to bankrupt our country and cost 1000’s more lives. The US government is far too incompetent to pull off a charade of this magnitude.

                     Like you, all it will take to convince me that this is a giant cover-up, is evidence. There is none.

                     The internet is a powerful thing, but you don’t see a judge, or the police googling the answer to their questions do you? ohh, i read it on the internet, it must be true 🙂
                   • travellerev …

                     30 August 2011 at 3:30 pm

                     Wow, two arrogant ignoramuses have found each other, how cute.

                     A carbon fire such as is a Kerosene fire burning is never hot enough to melt metal whether iron or aluminium. Metals; Iron and Aluminium ans steel are used to build barbecues, heaters and other utensils that need to be able to withstand the heat of open carbon fires but if you want to believe that whole cascades of melting aeroplane alloys appearing after only a minor carbon fire (Since most of the fuel burned off outside the building in minutes) and all of a sudden an open carbon fire can burn hotter then a special super hot melting oven and break that law of physics too be my guest.

                     You have no problem being ignorant and arrogant in believing that 19 young men were able to break the laws of motion and energy either so be my guest load another arrogant and ignorant remark on the other and maybe you and TVOR can get together one day and compare notes on how stupid that woman on the Standard is for actually believing that there are some laws of physics that can not be broken such as Newton’s laws of motion and the preservation of energy.
                     And TVOR you are a racist for believing that you are smarter then every fucking Arab or Muslim in choosing their leaders for them and that it is OK to bomb the shit out of their countries because they have to become like us.
                   • Andrew Scobie …

                     30 August 2011 at 3:53 pm

                     sigh … the melting point of aluminium is 660 degrees. A kerosene fire igniting an office fire, in the case of the WTC buildings burns closer to 1000 degrees, hell, even a normal house fire can burn at temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees. A BBQ cannot get hot enough to melt a hotplate. That enough chemistry for you?

                     “melting aeroplane alloys appearing after only a minor carbon fire”

                     1000 degrees centigrade is a “minor carbon fire”?

                     “19 young men were able to break the laws of motion and energy” and “some laws of physics that can not be broken such as Newton’s laws of motion and the preservation of energy”

                     You keep talking about the laws of physics, and in particular Newton’s laws. i would love to know which ones you think are broken. I’m guessing that because, as you say, the buildings fell at “near” “free fall” speed that this must have broken the laws of physics. Well it happened, so therefore it didn’t break the laws of physics, or else it wouldn’t have.
                   • The Voice of Reason …

                     30 August 2011 at 4:23 pm

                     You really are a fuckwit, aren’t you Ev? Can you please show me the evidence that I have ever believed that I am “smarter then every fucking Arab or Muslim in choosing their leaders for them and that it is OK to bomb the shit out of their countries because they have to become like us.”
                      
                     Nah, you can’t, can you? Because I have never written, said or thought any such thing. The truth is, the only racist in this discussion is the person who wrote “fucking Arab”.
                   • Vicky32 …

                     30 August 2011 at 5:05 pm

                     Any minute now you’re going to be labelled a racist because all us middle class whiteys just are, according to Trav.

                     Whining now! That’s no doubt because she and I both called you out on your racism, because of your support for bombing flat countries inhabited by brown people who look and sound different from you! Yes, you’re a middle class kiddie (to quote Tom Robinson) all right! Thanks for reminding me why I don’t want to be middle class…
                   • wtl …

                     30 August 2011 at 5:16 pm

                     Vicky32: Do you have a point, or are you just trying to pick a fight with TVOR? It seems to me that you have an axe to grind with TVOR, and aren’t saying much apart from insulting him/her. You weren’t even part of the original discussions, but jumped in to make various accusations about TVOR being racist, an abusive twat, a RWNJ, being pro-war, having a dumb name etc.
                 • travellerev …

                   30 August 2011 at 4:45 pm

                   Andrew,

                   After a two year battle, a lawyer and engineer finally managed through a FOIA request to “liberate” many hundreds of Gigabytes of data from the NIST. Amongst it we found this video made with one of those infra red cameras recording heat.

                   This video is made around fifteen minutes after the impact of the second plane and as you see the area where the molten metal will emanate from is nowhere near the required temperature while the rest of the building is cool to the touch and should have held firm. Cool eh?

                   All these materials you can find back for study over here at the international centre for 911 studies were they are made available for people such as me who want to know what really happened and research is returned and reviewed through the process of scientific peer reviews.
                   You know the scientific method were you are actually required to really study the information before you react.

                   And in the mean time why don’t you persist in your amazing arrogance and ignorance by rejecting whatever material I provide while screaming for proof because in my experience people like you eventually get more on peoples nerves here than people like me and freedom because no matter how irritating people find us for bring this subject up at least we bring information to the table and like it or not a lot of people do like the links we provide so you keep being the jerk you and we will give more links with every sneer, evasion or arrogant dis you can muster and let people who are interested actually inform themselves.

                   That you see is the only thing idiots like you are good for.
                   • Andrew Scobie …

                     30 August 2011 at 4:58 pm

                     oh my god … i have wasted enough time on you today. I have provided evidence against EVERY argument you have come up with today. Including how you just ignored the fact that i proved the fire was hot enough to melt aluminium?

                     You point me to a video taken 15 minutes after impact, even though the North Tower stood for 100 minutes before collapsing?!?

                     “And in the mean time why don’t you persist in your amazing arrogance and ignorance by rejecting whatever material I provide”

                     And why don’t you ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTIONS for a change instead of playing this distraction game with me. Ev, what about this … Ev, look over here it’s another strawman.

                     I give up … Carry on for another 5 years at 6 hours a day. If you do ever manage to find proof then let me know.
                   • wtl …

                     30 August 2011 at 4:59 pm

                     I had a brief look through that site. It is interesting to note that in one of the papers, the criticism espoused by one James R. Gourle in his response to the original paper “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions”, regarding laws of physics being violated and temperatues not exceeding certain values, is comprehensively taken apart by the paper’s original authors. Ending with:

                     Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that,
                     to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the
                     WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the
                     relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics. Otherwise critics run the risk of misleading and wrongly
                     influencing the public with incorrect information.

                     See: Gourley, James. “Discussion of ‘Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions’ by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 308-319. (DOI: 10.1061(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308))
     • Vicky32 4.2.3

       30 August 2011 at 4:42 pm

       I use the name Voice of Reason to annoy righties, truther. It’s an Ayn Rand book title. So far, I can’t recall anybody from the left complaining about it, presumably because they’re bright enough to get the joke.

       You’ll note (unless you’re pretending otherwise) that I have commented in your name more than once! If it’s meant as a joke, you’re on a hiding to nothing there – it’s pretty dense, and as an Aspie, I have a problem with ‘jokes’ of this sort anyway.
       The main problem is however, that you sound too much like a Randbot for anyone to believe you’ve adopted your name to annoy righties! How is it a ‘joke’ if you are in fact a Rand follower? Given that you sound just like one, I for one will take a lot of convincing otherwise.
       • The Voice of Reason 4.2.3.1

         30 August 2011 at 5:20 pm

         As I said, it only seems to annoy righties. Welcome to the club.
          
         ps, any evidence I’m a racist? I’m still waiting from the last time you lied about my beliefs and ethics. I’m sure you said you would provide some proof, but I haven’t seen any. Waiting, waiting …
         • Vicky32 4.2.3.1.1

           30 August 2011 at 5:45 pm

           As I said, it only seems to annoy righties. Welcome to the club.

           Any evidence I am a Rightie? No? Then STFU then…
           You know perfectly well what evidence I have – your ravings in the thread about the SAS in Afghanistan… although I did ask you whether it was atheism (of the anti-Islam variety) or racism. I gave you an out there, which you chose not to take. And to wtl above – read what VOR has said to me, then you can accuse me of bullying the poor boy! 😀
           • The Voice of Reason 4.2.3.1.1.1

             30 August 2011 at 9:26 pm

             Haven’t got the foggiest what you’re on about. Show me the ravings of which you speak. Link please. Btw, there is no such thing as anti-islamic atheism for pretty obvious reasons, so excuse me for not picking option A. And, clearly, I am not a racist, because if I was, you would have provided the proof already, so option B is out too.
              
             Evidence that you are a rightie? You’re a homophobic truther.
             • Vicky32 …

               31 August 2011 at 5:10 pm

               Evidence that you are a rightie? You’re a homophobic truther.

               Oh hysterical! 😀 As Bugs Bunny used to say “it is to laugh”.. The idea that “truthers” are “righties” is your idea only! You invented it, and are now using it as proof that I am a rightie?
               Sure I am “homophobic” but only by the defintion of a gay man. Really, there’s no such thing as homophobia. I am not afraid of gay men, (except in terms of the harm they can cause women, largely on a whim). I think they’re barking mad, but they harm mostly themselves – why would I fear them? 
               I have voted Labour all my adult life, and since MMP came in I’ve voted Labour/Green. I am not and never have been a middle class kiddie. I’ll back my left wing credentials any day against yours – but I am reminding of a testerical American atheist on h2g2 in 2003, who kept telling everyone that I was a Bush supporter because he’d never heard of the  concept of a left-wing Christian. Americans are all hopelessly stupid but – what’s your excuse? Too much Bolly?
               • Vicky32 …

                 31 August 2011 at 5:22 pm

                 Oh, and I will just add a thought I had – my connection burped so I can’t edit – I’ve noticed that your truly vicious attacks and accusations of being a RWNJ are limited to me and travellerev… What do she and I have in common? We’re women! You never have a word to say to the other “truthers” here… because they are (I am assuming) male.
                 Therefore I am assuming you to be a gynophobe. Or simply a misogynist. Probably both, if all the other evidence fits and I believe it does.
                 Do you like show tunes? 😀 😀 😀
               • McFlock …

                 31 August 2011 at 5:39 pm

                 Actually, it’s also from the perspective of this straight man that you’re homophobic. And arguing that homophobia doesn’t exist suggests that my friends weren’t beaten up because of their sexuality, or indeed that “i panicked because a gay man made a pass at me” hasn’t been used as a defence in court. Plain wrong. And even if their defence was a lie, the fact that it worked suggest that homophobia was not restricted to the accused.

                  
                 But of course all the people who think you’re a bigoted idiot are all fools, right? It can’t possibly be you. It must be misogyny – not that you’re a nutbar. 
                 • Vicky32 …

                   31 August 2011 at 5:59 pm

                   Actually, it’s also from the perspective of this straight man that you’re homophobic. And arguing that homophobia doesn’t exist suggests that my friends weren’t beaten up because of their sexuality,

                   I am sorry about what happened to your friends, but that doesn’t prove that homophobia is a real thing!
                   Thanks so much for calling me a nutbar… what truly kind and loving people gays and their friends are.
                   Gay men are misogynists, it’s obvious why. I didn’t always despise gay men you know. Then I had the bad luck to have a boyfriend who was coveted by a gay man, and found out how dangerous it is to cross the middle classes! As your gay friends will all tell you themselves, they’re seldom short of a dollar…
                   • wtl …

                     31 August 2011 at 6:23 pm

                     FFS, you disgust me. You insist that homophobia doesn’t exist, despite the very real experiences of some people who have been on the receiving end of it. Then you jump into an anti-gay tirade that you consider justified because you were once hurt by a gay man? Yes, you are homophobic. This comment proves it for all to see.

                     Grow up. Get over it. And learn to respect all people as people.
                   • McFlock …

                     31 August 2011 at 10:28 pm

                     “I am sorry about what happened to your friends, but that doesn’t prove that homophobia is a real thing!”
                     Um, yeah, it does. Attacking (or killing) people because you were apparently driven to panic by their ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc, DOES demonstrate the existence of a phobia.
                      
                     And saying that all gay men are misogynists is a pretty bigotted stereotype, based (on your own comment) on your own limited population sample. So I say thie following not because of your gender, religion, and so on: you’re a bigot and an idiot. If that makes me uncaring, then it only makes me uncaring towards bigoted idiots.
5. Afewknowthe truth 5

   30 August 2011 at 12:26 am

   alex.

   The reason 9/11 is SO IMPORTANT is because it clearly demonstrates the extent to which governments will lie and the extent to which the corporate media will conceal the truth. Once people recognise 9/11 as a lie and recognise that what they read in papers and see on tv is a lies they are more open to accepting that officiladom persistemtly lies in all other areas of life.

   9/11 also clearly demonstrates that the elites don’t give a damn about the lives of ordinary people (as if we didn’t already know that!).

   Some people may like to check this out and report back to those of us unable to attend at a later date:

   You are cordially invited to:
   9/11 See The Evidence
   A Photographic & Video Exhibition

   Opening:
   Friday 9 September 5.30 pm – 8 pm

   Exhibition hours:
   Saturday 10 September 10.00 am – 5.00 pm
   Sunday 11 September 10.00 am – 4.00 pm

   Location:
   The Band Rotunda
   (Underneath the Fisherman’s Table Restaurant)
   Oriental Parade, Wellington

   As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, NZ911Truth invites you to the exhibition “9/11: See The Evidence,” a series of images that documents the events of 9/11 using dramatic photos, eyewitness testimony and concise factual explanations.

   The exhibition invites the viewer to take a second look at the events of 9/11 by giving an introduction into the main discrepancies of the official story and encourages the viewer to investigate further. All of the key events of 9/11 will be covered: the destruction of the three World Trade Centre Buildings, the attack on the Pentagon and the story of Flight 93.

   This exhibition will be part of a global series of events, bringing a wealth of scientific evidence that contradicts the official conspiracy story to the attention of the public. The exhibition complements the numerous public lectures, books, and videos that cover the 9/11 accounts over the past several years by providing a graphical and factual account of the events of 9/11, pointing out the major inconsistencies in the official story.

   There will also be a screening of the recently released documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, where dozens of experts in architecture, building, engineering, chemistry, physics and other relevant technical fields explain the physical and scientific evidence that undermines the official account of what was behind the collapse of the three WTC Buildings on 9/11.

   (More information on this documentary at: http://www.ae911truth.org)

   About NZ911Truth.org
   New Zealanders for 9/11 Truth have been distributing thousands of informative DVDs and leaflets in their monthly street actions. In November 2009 they sponsored Richard Gage, AIA, of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in his presentation of Blueprint For Truth at Te Papa, Wellington.

   We look forward to your attendence.
   Please RSVP your attendance at the Friday opening to [email protected]
   • clandestino 5.1

     30 August 2011 at 9:44 am

     These people embarrass me. First, why do we care? Second, I want to know why if our ‘elites’ are so out of control already they would waste money and time on this ‘false flag’ operation and not go ahead and fight the war they want or exploit the resources of x state?

     Also, an operation such as this couldn’t have been done by 3 men and a dog, where are the conspirators-turned-whistleblowers?

     Sorry the thermite demo theory after hitting the building with a plane theory just doesn’t cut it, especially with an unrepeatable experiment and a million variables. The more important question is why.
     • travellerev 5.1.1

       30 August 2011 at 1:50 pm

       Clandestino,

       Asking questions only works if you are really trying to find answers, other than that it’s just empty ignorant rhetoric. You see there is nothing embarrassing about being curious and asking questions, it only becomes embarrassing if you don’t want to hear the answers.

       So now that we have established who is the really embarrassing clown here, for those of you who would like to know the answers to the questions Clandestino only asked to show how masterfully embarrassing he is I suggest you read up on the profit margins of the banksters, big oil and companies such as Haliburton, KBR and such. Also the National safety and mercenary world have had a bonanza these last 10 years and just because we “little” people are being bankrupted doesn’t mean that the wars have not been disgustingly profitable for a lot of people most of whom are in government and big corporations.
       • clandestino 5.1.1.1

         30 August 2011 at 3:46 pm

         Sweet merciful crap you and people like you are the reason the ‘loony left’ label gets plastered on anyone who cares about the real, important issues.

         I am familiar with the conspiracy theory, having watched and read about it for years, when I was unfortunate enough to be the victim of a passing tinfoil hatter.

         The evidence doesn’t stack up, the motives are unconvincing, and there hasn’t been one slip of the tongue.

         You’re gonna have to accept you’ve wasted your time one of these days, eh.
         • Descendant Of Smith 5.1.1.1.1

           30 August 2011 at 8:01 pm

           Still, was playing Deus Ex, the latest iteration, over the weekend when a line popped out of the game:

           You know who’s behind these attacks on Sarif industries don’t you. The same people who faked the attacks on 9/11″.

           I immediately thought of the various postings on this forum about this.

           Then I was shocked to find that this wasn’t the first reference to this in the series.

           “If anyone here has played DEUS EX then they know its a great game about a worldwide conspiracy but i have noticed somthing and want to chuck it in for discussion. Deus Ex was released in: 06/26/2000

           Now When you play the game you start at the statue of liberty and work your way upto the top. You can walk all the way round several levels of the base and see the newyork skyline and from further UP. The Twin Towers are NOT repeat, thats NOT, in the skyline. I got this game in 2000 and never noticed till today when i started playing it again and its soooo damm obvious they are not there (not there in june 2000 over a year before 9/11.”

           Damned computer games. They are to blame for everything.
           • clandestino 5.1.1.1.1.1

             31 August 2011 at 5:59 am

             Ha Hah and the terrorists are actually swarm bots from MW2!!
           • Vicky32 5.1.1.1.1.2

             31 August 2011 at 4:46 pm

             . I got this game in 2000 and never noticed till today when i started playing it again and its soooo damm obvious they are not there (not there in june 2000 over a year before 9/11.”

             OK, that’s just really weird!
             • Descendant Of Smith …

               31 August 2011 at 5:59 pm

               Nah it’s co-incidental – just like this:

               http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2001/09/46771

               of course if you really want conspiracy you can always consider this

               http://www.snopes.com/rumors/20bill.asp

               And of course Rumsfield was in on it as well:

               On December 5, 2001 CNN’s Larry King Live Aired the Following Story
               in an Interview With U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
               ©CNN

               Editor’s Note: The conversation below is the transcript of the final few minutes of Larry King’s December 5, 2001 interview with U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. King is attempting to ask Rumsfeld where he was on the morning of September 11, 2001. The segment was recorded in the Pentagon room where Rumsfeld was first told of the attack,
               only minutes after warning Congress that a “shocking” event was imminent.

               KING: You were right here when the Pentagon…
               RUMSFELD: I was.
               KING: And someone told me that you had spoken to a congressional delegation…
               RUMSFELD: Right here in this room.
               KING: … in this room about terrorism that morning. RUMSFELD: I had said at — I had an 8 o’clock breakfast — that sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, 10, 12 months, there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people, again, how important it is to have a strong, healthy Defense Department that contributes — that underpins peace and stability in our world. And that is what underpins peace and stability. It’s the fact — we can’t have healthy economies and active lives unless we live in a peaceful, stabile world. And I said that to these people.

               And someone walked in and handed a note that said that a plane had just hit the World Trade Center. And we adjourned the meeting. And I went in to get my CIA briefing right next door here, and the whole building
               shook within 15 minutes. “
               • Vicky32 …

                 31 August 2011 at 6:09 pm

                 Nah it’s co-incidental – just like this:

                 I am reminded of the lost Lone Gunmen episode… and the rumoured Tom Clancy novel from the 90s, that depicted the same thing as what happened on 9/11…
6. Matthew Hooton 6

   30 August 2011 at 6:36 am

   So, what about that Herald poll then?
   • millsy 6.1

     30 August 2011 at 6:53 am

     Good for your paymasters in China. We are most certain to have a Vichy government who will bend over backwards to let the Chinese hoover up our land and assets.
   • kriswgtn 6.2

     30 August 2011 at 7:12 am

     hahah Hooten youre a joke

     knew I knew your handle and Sunday yup- hollow men dogsbody

     does it pay well?
   • mickysavage 6.3

     30 August 2011 at 7:23 am

     Call me biased but I cannot reconcile the polls with the mood that I see doing on the ground campaigning. And you cannot reconcile the poll results with the Auckland by election results. Each showed a swing to the left not evident in the polls.

     But I agree hoots that they sap morale and are very unhelpful.

     I look forward to Bolger’s 1993 post election statement being repeated by Key, “bugger the polls”.
     • Jim Nald 6.3.1

       30 August 2011 at 7:35 am

       Murdochified media?
     • lprent 6.3.2

       30 August 2011 at 8:21 am

       What was interesting about the digipoll was the difference between Auckland and other parts of the country. From memory Labour were 31% over the whole country and 38% in Auckland. Of course there are margin of error and pollsters access – but it does point to the difference you are probably seeing.
   • Scotty 6.4

     30 August 2011 at 7:47 am

     Yes Matthew, same as 1999, No wonder you and the nats are shitting yourselves.
   • Sanctuary 6.5

     30 August 2011 at 9:58 am

     The total Labour/Green vote has not changed, it has stayed steady at basically 42% for months now. National is sitting at 52%, basically unchanged and only 100,000 voters away from losing the election, given their paucity of coalition partners.

     But since the Left’s vote has been moving between the Greens and Labour more or less consistantly at 42%, and National’s has stayed steady as well over the same period of time, I would have thought the real news in this poll is the remarkable difference that has emerged between Auckland – where Labour and the Greens appear to be ahead of National – and provincial New Zealand, where it seems a massive 70% or so of committed voters support National.

     Given that the most recent outbreak of major political violence in this country in 1981 was exactly along this urban/provincial fault line, I would have thought the danger signs represented by this huge (and seemingly increasing) polarisation would have had REAL journalists crawling over it.
   • Puddleglum 6.6

     30 August 2011 at 12:54 pm

     The Herald poll? Seems pretty much like the other recent ones to me.

     Labour ‘drop’ by 1.6%, Greens ‘up’ by 1.5%, National ‘drop’ by 0.3%, ACT ‘drop’ by 0.2%, NZF ‘up’ by 1.5%, UF ‘drop’ 0.5%, Mana and Maori both ‘drop’ by 0.2% and Goff ‘up’ by 2% in preferred PM stakes. (Total ‘drop’ for ‘government parties’ of 1.2%, total ‘rise’ for ‘opposition parties’ of 1.2%).

     I suppose the left (or Labour supporters) could take real heart from the rise in Auckland for Labour (up four points to 38.4%), especially given the likely lack of ‘appropriate’ polling in Christchurch’s eastern suburbs (in a sample size of 750).

     And, as for your desire to be a fly-on-the-wall at Labour’s caucus, I’d much rather be a fly on the wall when Joyce and Key meet in private. I know that, publicly, you accept Key’s claim that he’ll be leading National into the 2014 election (assuming he is returned this time) but, honestly, when do you think the handover will be?

     Key looks pretty tired and uninterested in the job at present. Understandable given that he’s turned it into a vacuous series of PR exercises.
7. John Dalley 7

   30 August 2011 at 7:43 am

   Only one poll matters Matthew, the one on election day.
8. Salsy 8

   30 August 2011 at 7:57 am

   The Green Party and NZ First were the main beneficiaries of Labour’s fall. The Greens went up by 1.5 points to 9.8 per cent – their highest in the poll since mid 2002, and enough to add three more MPs to the nine they have..”

   Labour made up ground among Auckland respondents where it had 38.6 per cent support, a four-point lift. The gain was at the expense of National, which dropped from 52 to 47 per cent in Auckland.”..

   So the vote went left anyway, and Labour is growing in Auckland at the expense of National….mmm so how about them polls then..??
   • Matthew Hooton 8.1

     30 August 2011 at 8:00 am

     Yep – the poll shows a Labour/Green/Winston Peters/Hone coalition is more likely than the previous poll. Good luck with that one. You’re welcome to it.
     • Tiger Mountain 8.1.1

       30 August 2011 at 8:17 am

       Nice to see the “Hollow Men” showed on Māori TV on Sunday. Can’t see TVNZ or TV3 running it prior to the election though. I had watched it on DVD by coincidence that afternoon and it all came back, the substantiated narration conveyed instantly why New Zealanders should not treat seriously a word uttered by Key, Brash, Joyce or Matthew Hooton.

       We have kiwi mysteries aplenty still to solve-who leaked the Brash emails–why was Richard Worth sacked–what is the outcome of Paula Bennetts beneficiary privacy breach investigation–What pecuniary interests does Shonkey really have?
       • mickysavage 8.1.1.1

         30 August 2011 at 8:34 am

         Yep should be compulsory viewing to show how deceitful and duplicitous the right wing can be.  Ol Hoots was a bit of a star in it too!  Or at least that was in the book.  What was that epithet applied to him?
       • mik e 8.1.1.2

         30 August 2011 at 5:11 pm

         The smiling assassin had the most to gain .If he didn’t roll Brash then his good looks would be gone by the time he got his next chance to live his childhood dream of being New Zilands next celebrity PM ! Aye Hootton annie
       • Jum 8.1.1.3

         30 August 2011 at 10:00 pm

         Tiger Mountain – Was it just coincidence you named Brash and Worth in the same sentence…

         In the parliamentary pecuniary interest list against John Key’s name originally was a $1million loan to the Bank of America. Didn’t the Bank of America take over the debt of Merrill Lynch? Suddenly that million dollar wording disappeared and it became something like ‘business with the Bank of America’ – yet another mystery to be solved methinks…
     • Scotty 8.1.2

       30 August 2011 at 8:23 am

       What as opposed to your dream team of National/ Brash/Turia/Dunne.
       No wonder Key is too embarrassed to appear in the TV debates.
       • Matthew Hooton 8.1.2.1

         30 August 2011 at 9:00 am

         Key/Norman is the more likely outcome (assuming National and Act have 50%+1 vote on their own, in which case I suspect Key will ask the Greens: “Do you want a National/Act Government or a National/Green Government? Over to you.”
         • Jim Nald 8.1.2.1.1

           30 August 2011 at 9:09 am

           Yup, Norman will likely do a NickCleggy and be Torified.
           • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.1.1.1

             30 August 2011 at 9:11 am

             That’s Sir Norman to you, thanks.
             • Jim Nald …

               30 August 2011 at 10:08 am

               Sir Norman or Sewer Norman: spoilt for blue-green choice.
         • Campbell Larsen 8.1.2.1.2

           30 August 2011 at 9:31 am

           If the Greens go into a National led coalition then it will be the end of the Green parties credibility forever. People vote for the Greens because they are appear to be the most principled and least corrupt/ opportunistic. Get in bed with the Nats are you are bound to end up dirty – there are no policy concessions which are worth losing your respectability as a party.
         • Scotty 8.1.2.1.3

           30 August 2011 at 9:38 am

           Big assumption there Matthew re 50%. Nats/Greens highly unlikely due to Keys’/Nationals’ vested interest in Dairying/Irrigation/despoiling/
         • mik e 8.1.2.1.4

           30 August 2011 at 10:40 pm

           Every National party and Act would turn in their graves just listening to your bs MH . No way is National going to jump inti bed with a party thats going to tax irrigators.
           Obviously you didn’t get your briefing from crosby textor before you answered that one.or the dinisaur dons
     • Blue 8.1.3

       30 August 2011 at 9:14 am

       So Matthew, what happens if your darling Key fails to get an outright majority, Act gets only one or two seats, Peter Dunne loses Ohariu and the Maori Party lose several of the Maori seats?

       You may recycle old lines about ‘five-headed monsters’ and such, but it might be the only option if your boy can’t muster up a few more friends.

       The big weakness of the National Party under MMP is that they have very few willing coalition partners, and the major one they do have is entirely due to their ‘wink and a nudge’ arrangement with Act in Epsom.

       No wonder they want to go back to FPP.
       • Matthew Hooton 8.1.3.1

         30 August 2011 at 9:40 am

         Blue – then there could be a Labour/Green/Hone Government. But I don’t see that having the numbers without Peters getting 5% and joining too.
         • McFlock 8.1.3.1.1

           30 August 2011 at 3:10 pm

           If Peters gets 5% then I’d also expect a more general swing away from NACT – making 31% a bit of an undercount.
9. thejackal 9

   30 August 2011 at 8:02 am

   Here’s an article worth reading:

   The government will effectively privatise welfare for teenagers by funding “community and other organisations” to intensively manage their payments, pay rent and other bills on their behalf and control their access to services such as childcare. These “support providers” will also monitor under-18s who are not on benefits but are deemed “at risk of long-term welfare dependency”. The organisations will receive government financial incentives to “reduce the number of young people who go onto a benefit at age 18.”

   A report released this month by Every Child Counts, a coalition of non-government groups and charities, found 270,000, or one in four, New Zealand children living in poverty. According to the report, public spending on services such as welfare and education for children under 5 is just $3 billion a year, or 1.5 percent of GDP—one of the lowest levels of spending in the OECD and less than half last year’s increased wealth for the Rich List.

   National’s current lead in the polls above all reflects the widespread disgust in the working class with Labour, which previously presided over savage restructuring measures. A “Household Incomes Report” released on August 1 by the Ministry of Social Development found that income inequality “grew very rapidly from 1988 to 1992.” This was primarily due to a series of “free market” reforms launched by the 1984-1990 Labour government of David Lange, which sold off key state assets and slashed taxes for the rich.

   The National government extended Labour’s right-wing reforms from 1990, with massive across-the-board welfare benefit cuts. The Labour government of Helen Clark, in office from 1999 to 2008 and supported by the Greens, did not restore any of the cuts and kept a tight lid on spending on health and education.

   As a result of the policies carried out by successive Labour and National governments, the poverty rate doubled from 9 percent of the population in 1984 to 18 percent in 2010 (25 percent for children), according to the government’s incomes report.
   • vto 9.1

     30 August 2011 at 8:07 am

     But mr jackal, that first paragraph is the most intensive intervention in grown people old enough to vote and die for their country that I have ever seen. It is many times more than any nanny state intervention seen under Clark. Surely you must be wrong – it would not be a National govt that would make such a change surely? They campaigned on reversing nanny statism, not increasing it.

     What have I got wrong?

     Perhaps mr hooten, commenting above, may still be around and could provide some explanation …
     • thejackal 9.1.1

       30 August 2011 at 9:03 am

       Yes Mr Hooten… pray do tell why National has morphed into Super-Nanny? Faster than a plummeting opinion poll, deafer than ever before, able to leap over 270,000 impoverished children in a single bound, quieter than a royal commission of inquiry, with unlimited amounts of cronyism and a super-sized beneficiary bashing stick. It’s Nannational!
   • Pete George 9.2

     30 August 2011 at 8:33 am

     Perhaps more intervention would help, the current levels of intervention don’t seem to deal with the problems adequately.

     The question shouldn’t be whether one government or anothe should intervene more or less. The important thing is finding what makes a difference to solving the problems.
     • mickysavage 9.2.1

       30 August 2011 at 8:36 am

       PeteG it aint the level of intervention, it is the level of poverty that is the problem.

       Reminds me of a National MP in the 1990s Katherine O’Regan who volunteered to survive on a benefit to show how easy it was.  After a couple of weeks she stopped because she was suffering health problems.  Shame on her.  She did not even have the decency to apologise.
       • kriswgtn 9.2.1.1

         30 August 2011 at 8:50 am

         I thought she never started surviving on a benefit t cos of the fact she got ill
       • Vicky32 9.2.1.2

         30 August 2011 at 5:17 pm

         after a couple of weeks she stopped because she was suffering health problems.  Shame on her. 

         Did she even get started? I was on DPB at the time, so I took a keen interest in her “promise”, and I was disgusted when she gave her illness as an excuse not to do it – as we didn’t have such an ‘out’!
     • vto 9.2.2

       30 August 2011 at 8:37 am

       “The important thing is finding what makes a difference to solving the problems.”

       That’s right Pete. So why is that not done by your government?

       Why, instead, do they choose to do this?
       • Pete George 9.2.2.1

         30 August 2011 at 9:01 am

         Maybe they think it could help. There’s a possibility of that you know.

         Floating different ideas is important, to see what gets support and what is deemed acceptable. That can help determine what is actually implemented. And implementing – preferably on a small scale to begin with, is one way of finding out if it will make a difference.

         Otherwise you remain bogged down in ideological squabbles.
         • vto 9.2.2.1.1

           30 August 2011 at 9:23 am

           “Floating different ideas is important, to see what gets support and what is deemed acceptable.”

           You see Pete, that is where you go wrong. You said above that the important thing is finding the solution to the problem, but then in the next breath you say it is important to find something that is politically saleable, which is zip to do with finding a solution.

           You see, you have now answered my question which was “why did your government commit to such massive nanny state intervention?”. And you answer is clearly “because it gets support and is deemed acceptable” i.e. this gross intervention was entirely about politics and nothing about a few young people’s struggles.

           And that is why I detest politicians so much at times – they say they do something for one particular reason (finding a solution) yet the truth is that they do something for an entirely different reason (political sales). They lie.
           • Pete George 9.2.2.1.1.1

             30 August 2011 at 9:58 am

             vto, policies have to be poitically saleable, or at least politically survivable, or they won’t happen. Fact of life.

             In any case what’s wrong with selling policies to the electorate before deciding whetehr to implement them? If done right it’s good consultation.
             • vto …

               30 August 2011 at 10:07 am

               Now you’re skirting around the particular point I raised, which was why the Nats did this to these young people.`And the lie that that reason was.

               Thanks for your answer.
         • Draco T Bastard 9.2.2.1.2

           30 August 2011 at 11:57 am

           Maybe they think it could help. There’s a possibility of that you know.

           No, it won’t help and they don’t think that at all. What it does is bring in more government control of individuals exactly as the Right Wing Authoritarians want and helps channel more of the communities wealth to rich people via the privatisation of state services (which will, of course, not be as good and cost more).
   • aerobubble 9.3

     30 August 2011 at 9:46 am

     Youth will growup faster if this plan goes ahead. They will avoid the system and
     find other means of working collectively together. Those with resources will
     help, and bonds of loyalty and mutual respect be born. The youth will grow up
     under strong leaders – who supply the money- who will inevitable use their new
     found power to further their own ends. All because the State failed, and on
     the back of its failure imposed deconian policies.

     ACT and its insensible sentencing trust mates like the idea that punishment is
     not proportionate. Take the bulb theif for example. Police cannot decide guilt,
     so Police will rock up to some aberrent event and have to work out who
     did what and why, enough to point a case together. If someone is acting
     suicidal, that any benefit of their actions is negative, that they do more harm
     to themselves than to others, then no court justifiable could punishment
     more, since obviously they have been punished enough (think dad whose
     son drowned in their van when he forgot to put the handbrake on).
     So of course proportionality isn’t too hot with our proto-fascist govt,
     because down the track it means full blown fascism. Whether in
     welfare where Key believes kids who are not yet older enough to buy
     alcohol, who are on a pitiful benefit, must be stopped fro doing alcohol.
     Its deeply disproproportionate, and want top kids getting alcohol from
     their usual sources.

     Classic proto-fascism, where the marginalized are discriminated against
     in order to command a sense of a strong defiant leader. Its why we have
     no fundamental human rights in NZ when governments routinely
     target the poor, powerless and weak.
10. Herodotus 10

    30 August 2011 at 8:55 am

    From a sad experience I have had – I am thankful that NZ is still a place whereby nurses & drs from other countries are willing to come here and practice their profession. From taking to others offshore, even in the UK they are suffering from the exodus of trained staff in the health field to US, Aust and other countries.
    So we all feed off the extremely valuable human capital of other countries e.g. India, S.A so what happens to these countries medical skill? They train and we benefit, we train for other countries benefit. Is it me or is there a perverse trade occurring. But I am thankful to those who that in the health field – pity they are paid only adequately at best. 😉
11. Morrissey 11

    30 August 2011 at 9:31 am

    Brilliant Minister Discusses Government’s Exciting New Energy Plan
    National Radio, 9:15 a.m., Tuesday 30 August 2011

    KATHRYN RYAN: What does this involve? Because, frankly, it sounds like a pipe dream.

    Rt. Hon. HEKIA PARATA: Well, ahhhh, ummmm, it includes a variety of various variables. We have a suite of variables. Ahhhhh, look, we are a first world nation and that means exploring and exploiting the opportunities available to us. Ummmm, there is a suite of measures… Ahhh, ummmm,.. look, aahhhhmmm, look… you know… aaaahhhhhmmmm, the commercial ummmm, ahhhh, acumen of New Zealand… ummm. the more strategic ummmm block offer approach… We also can manage ummmm in a predictable and transparent wayyyyyy, ummmm… prospectivity… ummmm…

    KATHRYN RYAN: How much increase in the acreage for exploitation are you foreseeing?

    Rt. Hon. HEKIA PARATA: Ummm, ahhhh, we will go at this in a measured way. Ummmmmm, ahhhh. We are trying to ensure a very ummmmm, ahhhh, managed and ahhhhhh transparent regime.

    KATHRYN RYAN: You’re talking about a QUADRUPLING in a very short period of time.

    Rt. Hon. HEKIA PARATA: Ummmmm, ahhhhh…well, ahhh…I’ve been talking to Stephen Joyce about insurance.

    KATHRYN RYAN: We’re worried about a Gulf style disaster, not insurance!

    Rt. Hon. HEKIA PARATA: Ummmmm, ahhhhhh. There is ummmm, ahhhh, ummmmm, risk in every industry. This ummmm, ahhhh, comprehensive regime is designed to ummmm, ahhhh, mitigate this risk.

    KATHRYN RYAN: Really appreciate your time, Minister.

    Rt. Hon. HEKIA PARATA: Byeeeeeeeee!
    • Lanthanide 11.1

      30 August 2011 at 10:28 am

      Well, I listened to this part of the interview, and your transcript here is nothing like what Hekia actually sounded like.

      I guess that’s the last time I trust your transcripts of anything. 
      • Morrissey 11.1.1

        30 August 2011 at 10:39 am

        Our gallant friend Lanthanide has, incredibly, decided to climb up on his high horse and gallop to the defence of one of this rotten government’s less distinguished performers…

        Well, I listened to this part of the interview, and your transcript here is nothing like what Hekia actually sounded like.

        I started engaging with this horrifically incompetent performance when I heard her blither desperately about “various variables”. I edited out most of the really tedious stuff, where she unwisely tried to string together words other than “ummm”, “ahhhh” and “look”. I captured exactly the essence of what she said.

        I guess that’s the last time I trust your transcripts of anything.

        I made up none of this. It’s a fair but condensed transcript, designed to highlight the inanity and lack of knowledge of a Minister of the Crown. You know that perfectly well.
        • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1

          30 August 2011 at 12:31 pm

          “I made up none of this. It’s a fair but condensed transcript, designed to highlight the inanity and lack of knowledge of a Minister of the Crown. You know that perfectly well.”

          You just admitted it’s biased. You “condensed” (read: left out) most of her content and left the waffle in place to deliberately portray her differently to how her words were spoken on the show.

          If she is really as bad as you say, surely you can actually transcribe what she said and let the readers come to that conclusion themselves.

          Transcripts have to be accurate or they’re worthless. No MSM outlet would get away with publishing your drek and calling it a “transcript”.
          • Morrissey 11.1.1.1.1

            30 August 2011 at 6:51 pm

            You “condensed” (read: left out) most of her content and left the waffle in place to deliberately portray her differently to how her words were spoken on the show.

            I boiled her words down until what we were left with was Essence of Parata, i.e., basically thick and indigestible rubbish—-and once you look past the glossy initial appearance, deeply unpleasant too.

            Transcripts have to be accurate or they’re worthless.

            My transcript is accurate and fair. I am certainly not going to type out and then post up the whole twenty minutes of a particularly dull minister struggling, and failing, to deliver a coherent argument. That would be a grave disservice to my readers.
        • The Voice of Reason 11.1.1.2

          30 August 2011 at 12:43 pm

          It’s not a transcript, Morrissey, it’s mostly made up of good satire based on what the Minister (and Ryan) said. You’ve got some of it accurately recorded (various variables!), but mainly you’ve humorously, but inaccurately, précised what was said.
           
          Lanthanide is right to point that out, so I’m not sure why you needed to have a pop at him about it. I, too, had assumed your previous ‘transcripts’ were accurate. I guess I know better now, but it won’t stop me enjoying them as satire.
           
          The RNZ recording can be found here, courtesy of CV.
          • Morrissey 11.1.1.2.1

            30 August 2011 at 7:10 pm

            You’ve got some of it accurately recorded (various variables!), but mainly you’ve humorously, but inaccurately, précised what was said.

            I didn’t précis what she said, because I don’t think she said anything substantial or coherent. I aimed to show her lack of preparation and her embarrassing failure to get on top of what is a demanding portfolio.

            Lanthanide is right to point that out, so I’m not sure why you needed to have a pop at him about it.

            Lanthanide’s motivation is, I think, obvious. He is simply annoyed that I didn’t take Parata’s (and the Government’s) ludicrous scheme seriously. Remember that Lanthanide believes strongly that nuclear power is safe—and he heaped scorn on the reports from Japan asserting otherwise earlier this year. We can only surmise how rose-tinted his view of oil-drilling off New Zealand will be.

            I, too, had assumed your previous ‘transcripts’ were accurate. I guess I know better now, but it won’t stop me enjoying them as satire.

            My transcripts ARE accurate. I don’t usually record EVERYTHING—that would be utterly dire. I aim to catch the zeitgeist of an exchange, rather than transcribing everything. If I hear a more interesting and engaging conversation than this morning’s débâcle, I will record the whole thing. (Over the next few weeks I’ll post up on this site some of my greatest hits of the last decade.)

            The RNZ recording can be found here, courtesy of CV.

            Thank you very much for that. True fans can listen and read along with my transcript!
            • vto 11.1.1.2.1.1

              30 August 2011 at 8:26 pm

              ha ha, they are often amusing in their exposure of silliness and other troublesome human uselessness that is true. Keep it up.
            • The Voice of Reason 11.1.1.2.1.2

              30 August 2011 at 9:45 pm

              Fuck me, does nobody understand the concept of linguistic and journalistic accuracy any more? No point dissing the MSM, if we don’t keep up standards on the interwebs, eh?
               
              “My transcripts ARE accurate.”
               
              Bullshit. A transcript is, by it’s very nature, meant to be a faithful recording of what is said, even if it is not everything that is said. Editing out is fine, making shit up isn’t.
               
              The Parata piece you wrote is funny, but it’s not what she said. It’s also not what Ryan said. It is not a genuine transcript, it is a humorous and inventive summary of the gist of the conversation. At least you didn’t put quotation marks around it, so you get a bonus point for that.
               
              Lanthanide was right. And he does not strike me as a fan of Parata or any other Nat minister, for that matter, so I think you’re out of order. You don’t have to type twenty minutes of accurate quotations, just keep doing what you’re doing. Just don’t call it a transcript, because it ain’t.
              • Morrissey …

                31 August 2011 at 9:41 am

                1.) A transcript is, by it’s very nature, meant to be a faithful recording of what is said, even if it is not everything that is said.

                As you yourself concede, I captured the gist of what she said. I did not invent anything. I just don’t do that. (Well, I have invented stuff, such as an imaginary 2003 news conference in Iraq featuring a preternaturally grovelling Paul Holmes—but it was clearly and obviously made up.)

                2.) Editing out is fine, making shit up isn’t.

                I made up nothing. I edited out a lot.

                3.) The Parata piece you wrote is funny, but it’s not what she said.

                In fact it is what she said. I made up none of it. If I had, it would not be funny. Any humour in it lies in the way I selected and presented it—after all, what Hekia Parata was actually trying to say is anything but funny. I selected and amplified the most damning parts of what she said. That’s no different to what the news media do every day—except they are more gracious than me, and almost always choose to edit out embarrassing examples of incoherence. In contrast to that, I presented things in order to ridicule her.

                4.) Lanthanide was right. And he does not strike me as a fan of Parata or any other Nat minister…

                You can’t be serious. Following the tsunami and nuclear meltdown in Japan earlier this year, Lanthanide went out of his way to express his confidence in the political authorities’ version of events, and he insisted that critics of the Japanese government were panic-mongering. He seems to have a bee in his bonnet about anyone questioning the safety and/or morality of big energy corporations—so he was no doubt incensed by my pointing up the intellectual vacuity of the National Government’s “plan” announced yesterday.

                5.) Just don’t call it a transcript, because it ain’t.

                It’s not a complete transcript, and I have never suggested it is. But it is accurate. This is only an issue because Lanthanide made it an issue. That was a deliberate choice by Lanthanide—attack my (admittedly partial) transcript rather than deal with the fact that what Parata was saying was poorly thought out, as well as incoherently expressed.
                • The Voice of Reason …

                  31 August 2011 at 10:07 am

                  John Key is not PM of Japan, and there is no connection there at all. Your ‘transcript’ is not even remotely accurate. You made it up, with the exception of a few phrases. It is not a transcript, it is piece of humorous writing. The ‘gist’ of a conversation is not a transcript. If you don’t believe me, try a dictionary. Look up ‘transcript’, see what it says.
                   
                  The simple fact remains that if you play the interview it bears no relationship to what you wrote, except for a word or phrase here or there. You made the piece up, Morrissey and though it is funny, it is not the least bit accurate, in the sense of it being a transcript. If you were a court or newspaper reporter, you would be fired for incompetence. Ultimately, you insulted Lanthanide without cause and that’s what got me going in the first place.
                   
                  Anyway, keep ’em coming, because they are funny. Just not accurate.
                   
                  • Morrissey …

                    31 August 2011 at 10:31 am

                    All right, Voice of Reason, I must concede that, strictly speaking, you are right.

                    And Lanthanide was insistent in his defence of the Japanese government’s mission of misinformation (AKA damage control).

                    I forget what Key said during the crisis in Japan, but I remember Rob Fife of Air New Zealand going on television to assure New Zealanders that the experts were all exaggerating.

                    To my knowledge, Fife is yet to apologise for that gruesome performance.

                    I’m still waiting for Lanthanide to apologise for his behaviour as well.
    • mik e 11.2

      30 August 2011 at 5:15 pm

      Party political broad cast Kathryn Ryan let her of every Question it wasn’t an interview.
      • Morrissey 11.2.1

        30 August 2011 at 8:38 pm

        Kathryn Ryan let her of every Question it wasn’t an interview.

        I think Kathryn Ryan realized almost immediately that Parata was out of her depth, and she decided it would be cruel and pointless to pursue her.

        Greens energy spokesman Kennedy Graham neatly damned Hekia Parata and her cunning plan: he said it “contains deep illogicality.”
12. john 12

    30 August 2011 at 9:37 am

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14665953

    heres the 911 truth
    • clandestino 12.1

      30 August 2011 at 9:55 am

      The BBC is a thing of beauty sometimes, I hope it will help shut up the embarrassing tin foil hatters we seem to have in this country.
      • travellerev 12.1.1

        30 August 2011 at 2:55 pm

        ROFL! So what you are saying that the BBC stating some pro’s and con’s is sufficient scientific proof instead of a thorough criminal investigation?
        Th BBC who announced 20 minutes before WTC 7 collapsed into free fall speed that it had come down? Even though a fire had never before in history ever brought down a steel framed building and this building was twice reinforced to withstand a Nuclear blast? That BBC?
        I’m glad you’re not designing buildings for a living and if it’s all the same to you I think I’d rather go for the scientific evidence brought together by Metallurgic engineers, Architects and Building engineers and scientists who have spend the last five years investigating the evidence still available instead of a disreputable state owned propaganda machine.
      • Vicky32 12.1.2

        30 August 2011 at 5:26 pm

        The BBC is a thing of beauty sometimes, I hope it will help shut up the embarrassing tin foil hatters we seem to have in this country.

        I couldn’t agree less. I listen to it every day (which I can bet you don’t) and it has taken a huge and rapid gallop right-ward in the last 10 years. In 2001, I heard a man and woman in their studio expressing their general scepticism about Al Q, 9/11 and the whole thing.
        Talk about gone by lunch time and they were! Read John Pilger on the subject – not that I suppose for a “New York minute” that you would!
        • The Voice of Reason 12.1.2.1

          30 August 2011 at 5:47 pm

          “I couldn’t agree less. I listen to it every day …”
           
          There’s an old joke … two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ’em says, “Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.”
          The other one says, “Yeah, I know; and such small portions!”
           
          Woody Allen
           
          • Vicky32 12.1.2.1.1

            30 August 2011 at 6:05 pm

            Sigh, VoU, you simply can’t help yourself can you! Bitchy much? Even at its worst and most infuriating the BBC at least has news from everywhere, unlike the NZ media who care only about NZ, the USA and once in a while, Australia and the Pacific… At its best, it is so far above anything from the USA/NZ that there’s no comparison.
            • The Voice of Reason 12.1.2.1.1.1

              30 August 2011 at 9:02 pm

              Sorry, forgot you don’t get humour. That wasn’t bitchy. Your words, and the internal contradiction in them, reminded me of a classic Woody Allen bit. That’s all. 
               
              I listen to the BBC as often as I can on both the net and the steam wireless. It was, is and, Tories notwithstanding, will always be the best radio service on the planet. There is no rightward shift that I can see. It remains impartial despite incredible pressure from the likes of the Dirty Digger. As long as there is a licence fee in Britain, the BBC should remain independent. But even now, huge cuts have meant the closure of a lot of overseas bureaus. It’s a bloody tragedy, that.
              • clandestino …

                31 August 2011 at 8:50 am

                Vicky engaging with you seems pointless as I’ve read how you respond to the voice of reason, who is genuinely a voice of reason on this insane thread. The joke was hilarious too.

                Anyway, the BBC isn’t perfect, I didn’t say it was. But it is a damn sight better than most media. Try reading a bit more and listening less, the guardians a good place to start. To be honest, I don’t think you’d know a swing to the right if it crossed the centre line and hit you head on, from what you rant about here.

                By the way, don’t condescend to me with your ‘read Pilger’ bollocks as if you know what or who you’re talking about, it is patently obvious you don’t.
                • Vicky32 …

                  31 August 2011 at 4:55 pm

                  Anyway, the BBC isn’t perfect, I didn’t say it was. But it is a damn sight better than most media. Try reading a bit more and listening less, the guardians a good place to start. To be honest, I don’t think you’d know a swing to the right if it crossed the centre line and hit you head on, from what you rant about here.

                  Hark at you, Mr Arrogant! I’ve been reading Pilger since you were ‘shitting yellow” to use a rather crude but expressive Kiwi phrase… I read the Guardian, I read voraciously, and what on earth is wrong with listening? For someone with bad eyesight, such as me, it’s a lot easier than reading off a screen.
                  If you’re weren’t so desperately keen to back up your libertarian buddy, you’d see that I had already said that the BBC is better than most media. 
                  Condescending? You’re the condescending little pillock here – and BTW, as I anticipate what your next ill-tempered squeal will say, I was a left-winger when you were still in nappies. So I know well what a swing to the right looks like.
                  • clandestino …

                    31 August 2011 at 5:10 pm

                    Libertarian? WTF??

                    You throw labels around like a rank amateur. You even assume a ‘left-wing’ position on September 11!! I’ve seen people get into slinging matches with you before on here where you devolve into name calling and self-contradiction.

                    No wonder the ‘old’ left is so utterly discredited. Time we got rid of your ilk and moved on with the younger, smarter left.
                    • Vicky32 …

                      31 August 2011 at 5:43 pm

                      Libertarian? WTF??

                      I call him a libertarian because he is one!

                      You throw labels around like a rank amateur. You even assume a ‘left-wing’ position on September 11!!

                      Excuse me, but I have no idea what you mean by that! I will just say that VoU throws labels around in a similar way. He calls me a rightie and liberally flings the f word around like a chimp throwing its faecal matter.

                      I’ve seen people get into slinging matches with you before on here where you devolve into name calling and self-contradiction.

                      You mean you’ve seen me trying to get Jum and QoT to admit they’ve misquoted me on abortion. That’s it.

                      No wonder the ‘old’ left is so utterly discredited. Time we got rid of your ilk and moved on with the younger, smarter left.

                      Fair enough, have it your own way! As part of the ‘old left’ (i.e., the workers, unionists and working class people, I feel honoured by being told to f*** off by a middle or upper class ‘smarter’ left’ man. Third way by any chance? Business grad, neo-neo lib? If you object to these labels, then why aren’t I allowed to object to the labels you and he use against me? 
                      Really it gets on my nerves somethng awful to be attacked all the time – I find myself wishing there were more women here to also be targets!
                    • ropata …

                      31 August 2011 at 10:39 pm

                      Those of the “left” who obsess over 9/11 conspiracy theories look like wackos to the rest of us.
                      There are real consequences happening NOW, let’s stop re-litigating the past.

                      Wishart: IPCC and the gays r out to get us!!
                      Travellerev: Military industrial complex AAaaarrgghh!!!
                      AFKTT: Peak everything we are all doomed!!
                      Fox News: liberals atheists and socialists gonna take away our guns!!
                      Rhema/Family fisrt: totalitarian nanny state and the Antichrist!!!

                      Conspiracy theories are completely USELESS crap.
                      Let’s deal with the current issues facing NZ and think about Building for the future not hiding from it and indulging in paranoid fantasies.
    • The Voice of Reason 12.2

      30 August 2011 at 9:58 am

      Cheers, John. There is an accompanying radio feature here.
    • Mac1 12.3

      30 August 2011 at 10:27 am

      I’ve just read the BBC link. Thanks, john. It seems to cover it.

      I remember a man with whom I had some dealings during one election. I was perusing his book shelf as one does when I saw a copy of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” I asked him, having had an intimation of his particular and peculiar world view, whether he knew that the ‘Protocols” was actually a forgery made up by the Russian secret police.

      His response, “Well, how come it’s all true then?”
      • Morrissey 12.3.1

        30 August 2011 at 11:21 am

        His response, “Well, how come it’s all true then?”

        Was that credulous crackpot by any chance a right wing radio talkback host named Leighton Smith?
    • freedom 12.4

      30 August 2011 at 2:12 pm

      It is astounding how inanity passes for information these days. Each point in that BBC article is more ridiculous than the last and every situation described within it has been categorically proven to be false. If a stock standard press release constitutes satisfactory evidence for the summation of 9/11 discussion then it is no wonder that the lies carry so much weight within the ignorant. On behalf of your common sense i urge you to temporarily ignore the press releases, the talking heads, the plethora of co-ordinated bs that is about to be unleashed by the MSM. Instead i challenge you to consider the mountains of fact based, peer reviewed data that are being presented at the Toronto Hearings over the 10th Anniversary.

      If you prefer the warm slumber of false flag security then perhaps you deserve to be a slave in the Police State that is steadfastly approaching. That is for you to decide. What i can do is proudly and clearly state, if freedom is our birthright it must be your legacy. It is only reasonable to proffer caution that you are hiding under the covers of official disinformation instead of facing the biting cold of Truth that awaits you outside, where reality is not as easy to control as your keyboard allows you to believe.

      To the deniers…
      You really need to pay attention to the Toronto Hearings.
      You really need to stand up and face the reality that you may be wrong.
      • wtl 12.4.1

        30 August 2011 at 2:18 pm

        You really need to stand up and face the reality that you may be wrong.

        Honest question – what would it take for you to do the same? That is, what evidence would you need to be shown to accept that you may be wrong?
        • freedom 12.4.1.1

          30 August 2011 at 3:29 pm

          I admit when i am wrong, do you ?

          The prima facie evidence does weigh heavily against the Official 9/11 Commission Report ever convincing me that events in America on September 11 2001 were as ascribed within that document. I just find it tough to ignore the reality of our world, the learned experiences of thousands of years of human development but basically i am niggled by a belief in the known laws of physics.

          When you have convinced me that the well understood processes of Chemistry and the long standing principles of Newtonian mechanics are incorrect , then i will begin to listen to the deniers’ childish persistent though absurdly earnest litany of ommissions and disingenuous statements.
          • wtl 12.4.1.1.1

            30 August 2011 at 3:51 pm

            I am happy to admit I am wrong when I am. But I am unwilling to just take your word for it that I am. You didn’t really answer my question anyway – I asked what evidence would you accept to prove you wrong.

            As for me, I am with TVOR above, and will accept I am wrong if someone shows me verifiable evidence of a conspiracy. Among other things, I simply cannot believe that such a conspiracy could have been committed with absolutely no leaks – far too many people would have had to be involved. I may accept other evidence as well, but nothing I have seen to date that qualifies as sufficient to believe you.

            Instead, it seems to me that you are saying that you WILL NOT accept any evidence to the contrary. It seems to be that you are saying that ‘science says I am right, so I can’t be proven wrong’*. The laws of physics and chemistry have nothing to do with it, as redlogix pointed out above, this was not a repeatable experiment. There are so many variables associated with the situation that is is impossible to properly model what happened, even given our current scientific knowledge.

            As such, I dont believe any argument with you would be in good faith, so there is no point in having such a discussion.

            * it is not entirely relevant in this case, but another point is that science is constantly evolving, and current scientific theories could be disproven in the future.
            • freedom 12.4.1.1.1.1

              30 August 2011 at 6:32 pm

              If you think being ‘right or wrong’ is what motivates a Truther, then you only know conspiracy fans. Let me ask you this; If you drink, are you assumed to be an alcoholic?

              i would add …”As such, I dont believe any argument with you would be in good faith, ”
              is patently and demonstrably untrue.

              What i am stating is that peer reviewed evidence disputes the Official 9/11 Commission Report in so many base issues that the questions raised undeniably warrant a new Public Investigation. This is all the families of the victims have been asking for since the tragic events of 9/11 2001.

              Refresh your knowledge of the WTC construction.
              http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857

              Revisit the issue at the Toronto Hearings over the 10th anniversary
              http://torontohearings.org/

              and remember, tinfoil hats only boost your tracking signal
13. Anne 13

    30 August 2011 at 10:13 am

    The best, informed commentary in the world is not going to make one jot of difference. The conspiratorial types thrive on their theories… it’s what sustains them in this life. Like CC Deniers, they fill each other’s heads with convoluted scientific data that appears impressive on the surface but which is really undiluted claptrap.

    I remember a video where the late Osama bin Laden admitted that his Al Qaeda buddies were responsible for the 9/11 carnage. He looked like a cat who had just drunk all the cream…
    • grumpy 13.1

      30 August 2011 at 1:20 pm

      ..and now anyone who believes he was behind 9/11 is labelled a “9/11 denier”….

      Interesting use of language.
    • Vicky32 13.2

      30 August 2011 at 5:33 pm

      I remember a video where the late Osama bin Laden admitted that his Al Qaeda buddies were responsible for the 9/11 carnage. He looked like a cat who had just drunk all the cream…

      Heaven only knows what you’re remembering! I’ve dealt with that video above.. and it’s nothing like how you describe it…
14. thejackal 14

    30 August 2011 at 10:25 am

    Is Cactus Kate Dead?

    It was rather amusing to see Cathy Odgers joining the Act party a few months ago. Even though she’s immensely qualified to be a member of the bigoted party, some of her beliefs appear to go against the grain. Odgers says that corporate welfare must stop and that politicians should be honest and accountable. Perhaps she doesn’t know about Don Brash’s sordid history?
    • Anne 14.1

      30 August 2011 at 10:29 am

      It was rather amusing to see Cathy Odgers joining the Act party a few months ago.

      Cathy Odgers was a founding member of ACT. As far as I know she’s been a member ever since. That is, if she is who I think she is.
      • thejackal 14.1.1

        30 August 2011 at 9:52 pm

        Catcus has just informed me that she joined Act in 1995. Act was founded in 93 by Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley. I meant joined as a candidate, which as far as I’m aware is only a recent thing. 2008 to 2011 is the first time Act has been in Government… and look at the results. I’m guessing it will be their last.
    • aerobubble 14.2

      30 August 2011 at 10:36 am

      I was taken by the quote…
      “The secret to success is sincerity and conviction –
      Once you can fake that you’ve got it made”

      Two points, one there must be a demand for the conviction, for people to trust
      the sincereity. Cheap oil made Rogernomics possible, made it possible to
      hollow out the NZ economy.

      And, over time people become stale and solidified in their positions, they’ve
      put huge effort into being the way they are, they may even start believing
      their own nonsense, even get a pag of regret, or become the thug they
      expouse.

      So once they can fake sincerity and conviction they have to hope they
      know they are and remain fakes, and also that dmeand for their kind
      of conviction is saleable.

      Key doesn’t have any convictions, he’s so saleable because he can however
      look like he does, its the Bush effect. Dumb and knows it.
15. Ianupnorth 15

    30 August 2011 at 10:45 am

    So, Family First and Destiny Church received contracts from our righty government; wonder if it is anything like this
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/aug/29/emails-hidden-costs-free-schools

    The controversial Tory initiative to set up free schools received fast-track public funding after fierce lobbying from education secretary Michael Gove‘s inner circle of advisers, according to leaked emails.
    Civil servants were urged that the New Schools Network (NSN) – a charity providing advice and guidance to set up the schools – should be given “cash without delay”, in a disclosure which will heighten concern over the government’s lack of transparency about the wider free schools programme.
    The charity, which is headed by a former Gove adviser, was subsequently given a £500,000 grant. No other organisation was invited to bid for the work.
    The award was made after an email from Dominic Cummings, a Tory strategist and confidant of Gove, called for: “MG telling the civil servants to find a way to give NSN cash without delay.”
    Cummings went on to work for the charity on a freelance basis.
    Sent after the election last May, his message goes on to say: “Labour has handed hundreds of millions to leftie orgs – if u guys cant navigate this thro the bureauc then not a chance of any new schools starting!!”
     
16. Ianupnorth 16

    30 August 2011 at 10:52 am

    Sounds like something ACT would want to introduce!
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/28/powerpoint-party-switzerland-ban

    Switzerland could become the first country to outlaw PowerPoint presentations if a new party runs in the October parliamentary elections. Matthias Poehm, founder of the Anti-PowerPoint Party, claims that €350bn could be saved globally each year by ditching the scourge of public speaking. Poehm believes that the software takes people away from their work and teaches them little. “There is a solution,” he says. “A flipchart.”
    On leaving academia seven years ago I vowed that I would never use PowerPoint again. I still speak at conferences, though, and have been known to rant at organisers when asked in advance for my PPT presentation. I inform them that I will be turning up with a set of index cards on which I have jotted down key points, but will not be boring my audience to tears with fiddly slides consisting of flying text, fussy fonts or photo montages.
    Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in having a real discussion about ideas as opposed to force-feeding an increasingly sleepy crowd with numerous graphs and bullet points projected on to the nearest wall. Sometimes I wonder why we even bother showing up to hear a colleague elucidate on their thesis, when we are helpfully posted an advance printout of the presentation. As the speaker is building to a crucial statistic, delegates have long finished and are doing the crossword instead.
    If Poehm gains 10,000 signatures his party is free to run candidates in the election. So far fewer than 300 people have put their names to the cause. Unfortunately I don’t think a move to Switzerland is on the cards for me.

     
17. vto 17

    30 August 2011 at 11:12 am

    Canterbury had building consents issued for just 8 houses in July.

    the calm before the storm perhaps.

    (plus 28 relocateables, which dont really count).
18. Jim Nald 18

    30 August 2011 at 11:26 am

    Supermarket duopoly rules your food basket in NZ!
    The market has failed?
    There is no alternative. There is no alternative. There is no alternative.

    And across the ditch in today’s news:
    http://www.theage.com.au/business/heinz-blasts-supermarket-power-20110829-1jie4.html
    There is no alternative. There is no alternative. There is no alternative.

    Consider Singapore:

    – Do you know that the many ‘NTUC’ supermarkets you see there from which housewives and householders shop achualleee provide the best deals in town?

    – “NTUC Fair Price” as they say.

    – What has the labour movement got to do with NTUC? Aowmmmmm

    “About NTUC FairPrice

    “NTUC Fairprice Co-operative Ltd was founded by the labour movement in 1973, with a social mission to moderate the cost of living in Singapore. The first NTUC Welcome supermarket at Toa Payoh was opened by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew on 22 July 1973. In 1983, NTUC Welcome merged with the Singapore Employees Co-operative to form NTUC Fairprice Co-operative Ltd.

    “From one supermarket, FairPrice has grown to become Singapore’s largest retailer, with a network of more than 230 outlets comprising FairPrice supermarkets, FairPrice Finest, FairPrice Xtra, FairPrice Xpress and Cheers convenience stores. FairPrice also owns a Fresh Food Distribution Centre and a centralised warehousing and distribution company.

    “Today, with its multiple retail formats serving the varied needs and interests of people from all walks of life, the social mission of NTUC FairPrice has evolved to make the dream of living well accessible to everyone by moderating the costs of the good life.”

    Source: http://www.fairprice.com.sg/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FerretAbtUsView?langId=-1&storeId=90001&catalogId=10051&Corporate=Y

    To the NZ labour movement (hello, anyone still breathing?) and the NZ Labour Party: have some imagination, guts and apply your hands to making a difference to our lives.
    • Jim Nald 18.1

      30 August 2011 at 11:36 am

      …… oh …… NTUC = National Trades Union Congress 🙂
    • mik e 18.2

      30 August 2011 at 10:45 pm

      It would be a good idea to start some proactive politics as well as food we could organize cheap doctors and cheap dentists etc as well.
19. Lanthanide 19

    30 August 2011 at 12:32 pm

    This should be a shit storm.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/rebuilding-christchurch/5531238/Revised-Canterbury-quake-bill-exhausts-disaster-fund

    The new estimates will run down the Natural Disaster Relief Fund to zero, leaving the Government to pay for any shortfall and to foot the bill on any fresh disasters.

    The Crown accounts have been dealt a blow by the increased costs, with the projected deficit pushed out by another $1.3b to a historically high $18b.

    Combined with the Government’s exposure to the financial risk of another disaster, the projected deficit rise could raise the ire of credit agencies and push up the cost of borrowing.

    ”On the absolute numbers, we’re as vulnerable as we’ve ever been,” English said.

    Time for the one-off earthquake levy we so obviously needed but this government was too ideologically pig-headed to implement.
    • vto 19.1

      30 August 2011 at 12:45 pm

      I am sometimes highly dubious of cost blowouts. It would be interesting to see the absolute detail of these costs. They can hide all sorts of things which are unjustifiable. And then of course be used for political purposes …

      For example, Council charges out their receptionists at $65/hour, planners anything from $135/hr and up, Councillors at some even higher stupid rate. If you add these up for say a simple two hour meeting then the result is sky-high, whereas the actual cost is way way way less than that.

      Another example, it costs as much to dump a kilo of scrap at the dump as it does to buy a kilo of potatoes at times.

      Another example. It is EXACTLY like Warner Bros claiming that $700million would be spent in NZ / making the Hobbit. But the reality is that that figure included hundreds of millions of financing costs and CEO and other management costs, all of whch were spent back in California or somewhere else equally useless.

      The honest figure will be a fraction of this figure. Who put this figure out? Bill English? If so then no more need be said ….

      DO NOT TRUST THESE FIGURES.
      • grumpy 19.1.1

        30 August 2011 at 1:17 pm

        Oh, I am sure the money has all gone (wasted). Anyone involved with EQC will know how wasteful their process is – multiple assessments, huge bureaucratic empire, wasted stupid ideas (camper vans anyone??).

        The assessment system is total crap – all these guys on huge hourly rates, in some cases visting properties 5 or 6 times carrying their clipboards. Also, tired old ex council staff hauled in to administer stupid ideas.
        • ianmac 19.1.1.1

          30 August 2011 at 3:02 pm

          Such a figure would be hard to quantify BUT the huge amount might give weight to lets mine for bigger returns OR lets cut the Public Service more or…… Political posture?
          • grumpy 19.1.1.1.1

            30 August 2011 at 3:29 pm

            Nah, just incompetence…..
            • Puddleglum 19.1.1.1.1.1

              30 August 2011 at 7:37 pm

              So, you think that the Australian private company contracted by EQC to run this mess is obviously doing very well, thank you, out of this blowout? 

              I agree, private companies just can’t help themselves when they’re offered an infinite number of bites from the public cherry.
          • thejackal 19.1.1.1.2

            30 August 2011 at 10:12 pm

            @ianmac

            I think there’s a strong case to show that National has mismanaged the situation to create further debt as to have an excuse for budget cuts and their mining and drilling for oil and gas holly grail. It’s a common tactic of corporates, and you only have to look at John Key’s old bosses to realize New Zealand is in trouble.

            A while ago it was revealed that Bill English was borrowing an additional $100 million per week when this was not required. His excuse at the time was that the interest rate was favourable. Who in their right mind borrows money just because an interest repayment rate is favourable?

            I think there’s going to be a big mess to clean up after this incompetent and deceitful National government is booted out, and I’m not just talking about the mismanaged Christchurch rebuild that is leaving thousands living in ruined houses.

            Pick a statistic… any statistic, it’s getting a lot worse under a National government.
20. tc 20

    30 August 2011 at 1:28 pm

    “Supermarket duopoly rules your food basket in NZ!
    The market has failed?
    There is no alternative. There is no alternative. There is no alternative”

    substitute Building for food and between CHH and Fletchers they profit from the customer via their dominance with gib, coloursteel, timber, concrete etc we’re pillaged right across the board in NZ with the sham regulators.
    • Draco T Bastard 20.1

      30 August 2011 at 2:04 pm

      Fletchers they profit from the customer via their dominance with gib, coloursteel,…

      According to my family in the building trade there’s some 12 roofing manufacturers in NZ – all of them are owned by Fletchers. This could be hearsay but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was true or even just mostly true.
      • tc 20.1.1

        30 August 2011 at 5:35 pm

        Yup DTB it’s all about the ‘Brand’ they learnt that when no-one liked them and preferred the local crowd they could buy it, keep it’s identify, hollow out and amalgamate it’s back office, carry on as usual with a gradual winding up of price against less admin and supply chain costs. Transport sector seen alot of this to between Toll and Mainfreight.

        I’ve chatted with architects who were born/ trained/worked overseas and despair at the cost of building in this country due to the monoply practices of CHH and Fletchers.

        When a family built business wanted to sell a masonry division and fletcher came snooping, a rubber stamp from the comcom easily attained and hey presto more consolidation. Rebstock’s tenure is not good reading for those who like a competitive environment.
      • MrSmith 20.1.2

        1 September 2011 at 11:24 am

        As I understand it Draco we own through the reserve bank around 275 million Fletcher shares, so profits from the Earthquake are going back to the government/fletchers share holders, bugger the people in Canterbury.
21. Ianupnorth 21

    30 August 2011 at 2:49 pm

    Quote of the day/month/ year

    There are times when it seems that nothing can happen, either internationally or domestically, so far as our media are concerned, unless the Prime Minister is on hand to comment on it or otherwise certify by his presence that it is indeed news. He seems to serve the roles, variously, of national leader, moral guide, social commentator, sports journalist, pub drinking companion, comedian – and even politician. There is scarcely a television news bulletin which does not feature his appearance at some point in one or other of these roles.

    All Hail Bryan Gould! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10748251
    Smile and wave…..
    • ianmac 21.1

      30 August 2011 at 3:05 pm

      Yes read that from Bryan Gould. Agreed. Be interesting to see Morgan and Gould on a panel V Key and English. Ha ha. I must be dreaming.
    • mik e 21.2

      30 August 2011 at 5:20 pm

      Same modes operandi Borrow and hope. light at the end of the tunnel.Smile and wave .last person leaving for Australia ,Don’t forget to turn out the lights!
22. Dave Kennedy 22

    30 August 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Invercargill primary principals send an open letter to the Minister of Education expressing their concerns about National Standards. Many are going through the motions of implementing them because they are a legislated requirement, but i didn’t find one principal who found them useful or worth the time spent on them.
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2011/08/invercargill-principals-send-open.html
    • ianmac 22.1

      30 August 2011 at 3:06 pm

      Yes. The Reality bites. A sort of Claytons Compliance?
23. joe90 23

    30 August 2011 at 3:43 pm

    The evil empire?. Yup, I reckon.

    At least 83 Guatemalans are thought to have died not long after being deliberately infected with syphilis and gonorrhoea in the 1940s, a presidential commission in Washington has heard.

    US government scientists infected hundreds of Guatemalan prisoners, psychiatric patients and sex workers to study the effects of penicillin.

    None of those infected consented.
    • Vicky32 23.1

      30 August 2011 at 5:41 pm

      At least 83 Guatemalans are thought to have died not long after being deliberately infected with syphilis and gonorrhoea in the 1940s, a presidential commission in Washington has heard.
      US government scientists infected hundreds of Guatemalan prisoners, psychiatric patients and sex workers to study the effects of penicillin.
      None of those infected consented.

      For those loving the BBC to bits. I’d like to point out that I heard their item about this – as the studio guy worked hard out making excuses for the EE… The American woman he was interviewing had clutched the lifeline he threw her and was agreeing that America as a peaceloving democracy couldn’t really be blamed for this event.
      
24. Just Thinking 24

    30 August 2011 at 5:04 pm

    Wow not enough backoffice bureaucrats to organise suitable weaponry for the frontline staff.

    Who would have thunk it?

    Cycleway -> RWC -> Discover Oil

    The dynamic strategic plan to save us and our children evolves.
25. Vicky32 25

    30 August 2011 at 6:15 pm

    Serendipitously, a friend of mine (no rightie at all, VoU, but a beneficiary, and leftie Christian like me) has sent me this today…
    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26174
     
26. Vicky32 26

    30 August 2011 at 6:26 pm

    I have just heard 3 News and Petrick Gaaarr as he pronounces it, strike again – his little beat up trying to make it look as if Trevor Mallard, and a heap of others are plotting against Goff ….
    The stupids in the population will use this item as evidence of something, that’s guaranteed.
27. Jim Nald 27

    30 August 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Maori Party: Desperately Seeking Authenticity?
    Puppet-masters in charge of the Maori Party?
    Any guesses for who the ventriloquists might be?

    “The Maori Party’s launched an astonishing media management approach for the election campaign.

    “It’s put out a note to journalists requesting they fill out a form if they want to interview Maori party MPs.

    “The form asks journalists to provide standard matters such as name, contact details and time of interview, but it also asks that topics, question lines, other people involved in the story, and any other matters the MP should be aware of be provided as well.”

    Source: http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=135755&fm=psp,tsf
28. tc 28

    30 August 2011 at 8:20 pm

    Yup the MP continues to behave like the nats, not engaging and seeking to control and dictate the ground rules…..wonder who’s advising them.
    They’ve really lowered the bar and made swinging voters feel even more that the beehive is full of troughers.
29. Ianupnorth 29

    30 August 2011 at 9:59 pm

    Been listening to some old school tunes and picked up on John Lydon and Afrika Bambaataa from 1984 (27 years ago); now most people think Lydon is, well, a bit of an arse; maybe he knows more than some of us thought. (bold bits my emphasis)

    Speak about destruction (x3)
    This is a world destruction, your life ain’t nothing
    The human race is becoming a disgrace
    Countries are fighting with chemical warfare
    Not giving a damn about the people who live
    Nostradamus predicts the coming of the Antichrist
    Hey, look out, the third world nations are on the rise
    The Democratic-Communist Relationship,
    won’t stand in the way of the Islamic force
    The CIA is looking for you
    The KGB is smarter than you think
    Brainwash mentalities to control the system
    Using TV and movies – religions of course
    Yes, the world is headed for destruction
    Is it a nuclear war?
    What are you asking for?
    This is a world destruction
    Your life ain’t nothing
    The human race is becoming a disgrace
    The rich get richer
    The poor are getting poorer
    Fascist, chauvinistic government fools
    People, Moslems, Christians and Hindus
    Are in a time zone just searching for the truth
    Who are you to think you’re a superior race?
    Facing forth your everlasting doom
    We are Time Zone
    We’ve come to drop a bomb on you
    World destruction, kaboom, kaboom, kaboom!

    This is the world destruction, your life ain’t nothing
    The human race is becoming a disgrace
    Nationalities are fighting with each other
    Why is this?
    Because the system tells you
    Putting people in faceless categories
    Knowledge isn’t what it used to be
    Military tactics to control a nation
    Who wants to be a president or king?
    Me!
    Mother Nature is gonna work against you
    Nothing in your power that you can do
    Yes, the world is headed for destruction
    You and I know it, cause the Bible tells you
    If we don’t start to look for a better life,
    the world will be destroyed in a time zone!
    Speak about destruction (x3)
     
30. travellerev 30

    31 August 2011 at 12:19 pm

    Pssttt TVOR, Clandestino, Andrew Scobie,
    Meet Edna Cintron.

    I just keep forgetting how much material is out there but for some reason after the debate yesterday people in their hundreds are finding the way to a post I wrote in June 2008 and which is a compilation of photo’s supporting a piece written by Prof. Legge and Engineer T. Samboti. They wrote a piece titled: Instant collapse initiation was impossible.

    I decided to reblog another post I wrote two months later. The subject is a lady called Edna Cintron. Edna died in the collapse of the North tower. This tower was hit first and collapsed last which in it self is an anomaly which needs to be explained.

    What is remarkable is that she was last seen in the hole made by the plane. Now if the plane area was burning so hot than how come a frizzy haired lady can hold on to the red hot steel without that frizzy hear being on fire or her clothes falling over her in flames?

    Now before you go all; “but the debunkers say….” Let me give you a link to a debunk site which states that the photo was assembled 6 months before the events of 911 which must most surely be the most bizarre of all debunking theories as it would confirm advanced knowledge. By the way they are talking about a photo here and on my blog you actually see a video of the lady in question waving at the helicopter with the camera.

    Edna did not die in the fire. She died when the buildings began to explode and fall down in free fall speed into a pyroclastic flow of Powdered concrete and steel beams just the right length to be put on trucks to be transported on barges to China were they were melted before a crime scene investigation could take place.
    • Andrew Scobie 30.1

      31 August 2011 at 1:49 pm

      ok, ill bite one more time, but that’s it. just for those of you who don’t know embedded photo information works.

      1) download the image of Edna to your desktop: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/people/3707.html

      2) right click on the image and view the properties. on the details tab you will see the “Date Taken” was in fact, 3 sept 2001 at 10:41 am.

      3) Open the image in Paint.Net (i don’t know how other photo editors work, but i am familiar with this one)

      4) select a portion of the photo with the “rectangle select” tool.

      5) select Image menu => Crop to selection.

      6) save this new image to your desktop and give it another name.

      7) right click on the image and once again view the properties. on the details tab you will see that the “Date Taken” is still set to 3 sept 2001 at 10:41 am

      Happy now. One more piece of your evidence that i have torn to shreds. please feel free to send me a list of points that you say prove that it was a giant set-up. ill knock them off one at a time.
      • travellerev 30.1.1

        31 August 2011 at 2:42 pm

         
        Fuck you’re stupid!
        Set to being the operative word!!!! A human action which more often than not is transalted in human error.
        It would go abit like this:
        Ring ring: Alert,Alert!!! fuck a plane just flew in the tower… go get a camera and get there. Camera guy gets in helicopter gets there can’t start the camera. Shit camera’s run out of battery power. Battery gets renewed but date is not set. Like in, shit we’re in a hurry because because fuck a plane just flew in the tower.
        Even you must admit that this is more likely than a set build to film a women in a hole a week in advance of 911. A video which would argue against extreme heat as a result of a plane impact which they then later argue was the whole reason the buildings collapsed in free fall speed.
        But here are some questions you might like to answer:
        How did the set builders know what the hole would look like? 
        Would Edna Cintron cooperate with this video a week before the events of 911 took place an if so why?
        Does this mean you admit foreknowledge?
        If that is all they’ve got to debunk it then that is clasping at straws and you’re a fool for buying it.
        • Andrew Scobie 30.1.1.1

          31 August 2011 at 2:58 pm

          more like the photo of Edna sitting at her desk was in fact taken on 9th March 2001 (sorry made an error with the photo as i thought i was reading in american format, which i was not).

          That image was then used in the memorial photos. I said nothing about a guy in a helicopter taking any photos. you were the one who said that.

          and you say i’m stupid?

          any why the fuck are you talking about a made up set, and a made up video, involving Edna. I said no such thing,
    • Andrew Scobie 30.2

      31 August 2011 at 1:57 pm

      oh, and if your still not convinced. Download the actual Exif Reader that they used in the website you linked to, here:

      http://www.takenet.or.jp/~ryuuji/minisoft/exifread/english/

      and you will see that all the settings about dates are still the same in the new cropped image.
      • clandestino 30.2.1

        31 August 2011 at 2:25 pm

        ‘Crazies fight other crazies with crazy theories in Internet forum shock-horror!’

        That just about says it all about your ‘evidence’ travellerev. Must. try. harder.

        The reason she isn’t on fire is because she isn’t near the flames, in fact you can see them burning on the floors above her…I would think this would be obvious even to you.
        • travellerev 30.2.1.1

          31 August 2011 at 2:48 pm

          So what you’re saying is that she goes down with the building while holding on to steel which is not even remotely warm!!!! This contradicts the NIST thesis which is that all the steel got so hot that while it didn’t melt it buckled and broke at exactly every bolt and welt at the same time.

          And before you go yeah but the top hammered it down, that was denied by both the NIST and FEMA. The hammer down theory was discredited a long time ago and if you’d pick the hammer down theory (Bazant. Google It) than you would single handedly break Newtons laws of physics which states that an object will follow the path of least existence which (hint) is not about 80 floors of concrete.
          • clandestino 30.2.1.1.1

            31 August 2011 at 4:21 pm

            Try another law: Occam’s Razor.

            Wild conspiracy theories about some hidden power’s scheme to hire suicide hijackers and train them covertly at a florida flight school, crash planes into buildings as a distraction from controlled demolition, kill a bunch of people, in order to partly claim on insurance and partly to begin a decade-plus long project of wealth redistribution via war-profiteering through shadowy companies linked to the VP. All this without one, ONE, byte of evidence of this grand plan going public. Methinks you give them too much credit.

            I suggest you follow the path of least resistance and stop obsessing over something you cannot prove.

            It’s obvious Apple caused 9/11 anyway, just look at their profits over the last ten years!
    • travellerev 30.3

      31 August 2011 at 2:50 pm

      Here is a professor in physics who explains what laws of physics were broken on that day
      • Andrew Scobie 30.3.1

        31 August 2011 at 3:04 pm

        and here is a link that casts doubt on his papers:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#WTC_destruction_controversy

        this link also mentions mr jones and his work

        http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf
      • wtl 30.3.2

        31 August 2011 at 3:07 pm

        See: Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 308–319. (DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308).

        The authors clearly debunk the idea that any laws of physics were broken. Interestingly, I found this on a site you cited above. But I guess you can just ignore anything that doesn’t agree with your ideas?

        edit: Andrew Scobie beat me to the punch. 🙂
        • Andrew Scobie 30.3.2.1

          31 August 2011 at 3:36 pm

          sorry, i should have hat-tipped you as i read it from your link yesterday 🙂
        • Colonial Viper 30.3.2.2

          31 August 2011 at 3:45 pm

          I want to see what responses/letters there were to this paper.

          The paper for instance states “The column strength is an objective property of the
          material and of the column geometry and not some fictitious
          property that can be adjusted according to the load to achieve
          static equilibrium.”

          However in a controlled demolition situation, column strength will change in a very unpredictable way.

          Further I would want to know if any physical or computer modelling has been conducted to determine if the modelling proposed in this paper actually works in real life.
31. wtl 31

    31 August 2011 at 3:43 pm

    (Reply to Andrew Scobie 30.3.2.1)
    No worries. I thought this part was particularly relevant (emphasis mine):

    Newton’s Third Law: The discusser is not correct in repeatedly claiming that Newton’s third law is violated in the paper and particularly in concluding that the “two-phase collapse scenario is scientifically implausible because it ignores Newton’s third law and the equal but opposite upward force dictated by it.” As explained at the outset in every course on mechanics of materials, this law is automatically satisfied, since all the calculations are based on the concept of stress or internal force, which consists of a pair of opposite forces of equal magnitude acting on the opposite surfaces of any imagined cut through the material or structure. This concept is so central to the discipline of structural mechanics and self-evident to structural engineers that Newton’s third law is never even mentioned in publications.
    • Colonial Viper 31.1

      31 August 2011 at 3:49 pm

      This concept is so central to the discipline of structural mechanics and self-evident to structural engineers that Newton’s third law is never even mentioned in publications.

      Structural engineers deal with engineering structures which stay stable.

      They spend much less time in the study the engineering of structures in dynamic collapse.

      Structures in dynamic collapse DO NOT have forces of equal and opposite magnitude applicable to them and in those SPECIFIC SCENARIOS Newtons 3rd law should be explicitly considered.
      • Andrew Scobie 31.1.1

        31 August 2011 at 4:03 pm

        when you say “Structures in dynamic collapse”, what exactly do you mean by that?
        • Colonial Viper 31.1.1.1

          31 August 2011 at 4:12 pm

          A structure where formerly (largely) static elements experience acceleration and displacement far outside their planned parameters.

          That paper also seems to fail to recognise that many tonnes of the towers were ejected far away from the main falling mass (dust and debris clouds covering square miles of manhatten) .
          • Andrew Scobie 31.1.1.1.1

            31 August 2011 at 4:15 pm

            cheers. I also read this yesterday and it seems to make a lot of sense to me as well.

            http://www.mae.ncsu.edu/eischen/courses/mae543/docs/BazantWTC.pdf

            but then i’m not a physicist, but i do get maths.

            edit: i see that one of the authors, also was responsible for the above document.
          • wtl 31.1.1.1.2

            31 August 2011 at 5:04 pm

            I disagree that the author’s failed to account for Newton’s third law under the ‘collapse scenario’ (see point 2 in their discussion, for example). Basically, what they are saying it is structural engineers use the concept so much they often do not explicitly point out where it is being used.

            Anyway, it appears that you are saying that it is impossible to model the process accurately, because there is no way to know all the variables associated with what happened. I agree with this. It does mean, however, that the constant insistence of critics that the ‘official’ story violates laws of physics and chemistry are nowhere near a surety. Some models may raise doubts regarding the ‘official’ story, but others support it. I do trust certain experts more that others, but the nail in the coffin for me is that all the conspiracy theories rely on an implausibly large number of people that would be required to put the plan into effect, and not one has had a change of heart and come forward with evidence proving the conspiracy.

            Put it another way, if the powers that be intended to manufacture a terrorist attack to serve their political agenda, which of these more likely:
            1) Pay off/kill/whatever a huge number of people, carry out the perfect conspiracy by blowing up some buildings and convince everyone that OBL was behind it.
            2) Secretly fund OBL, divert attention of the authorities to prevent them detecting and stopping the plans of OBL’s agents, and wait for an attack to happen to serve your agenda.

            If 9/11 was a conspiracy, I expect it would NOT have be carried out as (1).
            • wtl 31.1.1.1.2.1

              31 August 2011 at 5:16 pm

              In fact, if the powers-that-be wanted to make sure no one suspected (2), they probably would make up lots of rumours to point to (1) or infiltrate the conspiracy theorist ranks to make up lots of wild accusations and make everyone else think that the conspiracy theorists were a bunch of cranks.
            • MrSmith 31.1.1.1.2.2

              1 September 2011 at 11:46 am

              Or to simplify if I may wtl “The only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead”
    • travellerev 31.2

      31 August 2011 at 6:28 pm

      In response to my learned colleagues arguments in support of the Laws of Newton and how they pertain to the sudden collapse of the twin towers on 911 and the third tower in the afternoon the following:

      1/ The laws of Newton can never be broken. I think we are all in agreement of that. An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
      This law is often called “the law of inertia”.

      2/Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass (of the object being accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to accelerate the object).

      3/For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.
      And last but not least in Physics there is one other unbreakable law and that is the path of least resistance: In physics, the path of least resistance is always taken by objects moving through a system.

      If these laws are unbreakable there follows that in the event of the collapse of all three towers those laws must have been followed. I think we can all agree on that because even if we didn’t these laws would still be in place and would be followed no matter what.

      So if we are in agreement on the previous what remains is: Did the official theories offered to us by FEMA, NIST and Bazant meet the requirements for the collapse of the three buildings to have occurred the way they did; namely in free fall speed and while the twin towers exhibited a huge amount of outward energy (Which must be accounted for if we submit to the previously described laws of physics) and the third tower collapsed in free fall speed into its own footprint, the fact that there was no resistance during the fall of the buildings means that there must have been an enormous amount of energy available to remove any of the constructions below the impact of the planes to simultaneously disappear for the debris to be able to fall straight down.

      NIST conveniently stopped analysing the collapse when it concluded that there was an inevitable collapse which is rather unscientific since until then no buildings had ever collapsed due to carbon fires and after 8 years concluded that just office fires had caused the spectacular free fall speed of building three and had not investigated in any of the three buildings whether explosives had been used. Leaving in all cases the question where the energy had come from to explosively destroy the first two buildings and implosively destroy the third building in fact building three was not mentioned at all in the first report. In the video showing the collapse the inner core remains standing and is not accounted for in the report.

      Bazant: Claimed that hammer action from the blocks above the impact had caused the buildings to collapse but this would violate the path of least resistance law and did not explain the time factor as the hammer action from above would be met with equal energy from below slowing down the block above and since no resistance was measured Bazant’s theory was eventually ignored even by the NIST.

      The FEMA report is also misleading in that it suggests that the Twin towers did not have a core construction and were in fact hollow tubes which could easily collapse. For this reason alone the report has to be dismissed since the core structure was of essential importance to the strength of the towers.

      The 911 committee report was commissioned to find out what mistakes had led up to the events and to allow them to happen and is not connected to the analysis of the buildings and their collapse and is therefore of no consequence in this comment.

      Here are some scientific responses to:

      NIST & Bazant  1, 2, 3, 4
      And this one is particularly interesting in that the scientists who wrote it actually found 14 points of agreement with the NIST, Fema and Bazant publications. This was published in the peer reviewed open Bentham magazine.

      Gentlemen let’s keep it scientific and let’s keep these laws of Physics in mind when discussing the events of 911.
       
      • AndyB 31.2.1

        31 August 2011 at 8:51 pm

        lets forget about wtc7 for a moment. can get back to that later.

        you say that no steel building has ever collapsed because of fire. you are most likely correct, but did any of those other buildings get hit by fucking great big commercial jetliners? didn’t think so.

        we all agree on Newtons 3 laws, that’s fine. your main argument that newtons laws must hold is because of, as you keep saying, the towers fell at free-fall speed, and hence they broke the path of least resistance laws.

        Well here is absolute proof that the buildings did not fall at free-fall speed, and hence, your arguments are now not valid. Free-fall speed from 415 meters is 9.2 seconds. Please show me where the towers collapsed from top to bottom in 9.2 seconds.

        The impact load on the lower floors was such that they could not stand the increased load, and gave way. With each floor, the mass increased, as with the velocity. energy is mass and velocity, means more energy impacting the floors below, the easier and faster the collapse.

        Also, in that video above, please show me the 10’s of thousands of pounds of explosives that would have been needed to blow out the columns of the floors below. You cant show me, because they don’t exist. There were no explosives. Anyone that heard loud bangs before the collapse no doubt just heard steel struts collapsing and breaking under the strain.
        • Andrew Scobie 31.2.1.1

          31 August 2011 at 8:52 pm

          sorry, haven’t used this computer for a while. AndyB is me.
        • Colonial Viper 31.2.1.2

          31 August 2011 at 10:15 pm

          Free-fall speed IN A ZERO AIR RESISTANCE VACUUM from 415 meters is 9.2 seconds

          Thought I should fix that small omission both you and that video made.

          On the AE/911 videos it is clear that portions of the collapse occur at free fall acceleration (which is impossible if the steel structure was largely intact), but the final parts occur at terminal velocity in a thick atmosphere. So yeah the overall fall takes longer than it would in a vacuum.

          You will find the same result if you timed the jumpers from the twin towers. They all took longer than 9s to hit the ground. Just like sky divers they reached a maximum velocity and accelerated no more, even with no structural support (apart from air friction) underneath them.

          The impact load on the lower floors was such that they could not stand the increased load, and gave way. With each floor, the mass increased, as with the velocity. energy is mass and velocity, means more energy impacting the floors below, the easier and faster the collapse.

          Nice theory should be a piece of piss to demonstrate on say a 10m high model, but it doesn’t work in reality.
          • Andrew Scobie 31.2.1.2.1

            31 August 2011 at 10:37 pm

            it does work in reality, because it did happen in reality. There were no explosives in the twin towers to knock out the steel columns, so how did it happen then?

            edit: those documents that i linked to earlier show how that theory holds. that the force exerted on the lower floors were such that they in turn collapsed. steel beams can only hold the force they are designed to. a 30 floor section of the building collapsing onto a lower floor is a much greater force than the floors were designed to hold.
          • Andrew Scobie 31.2.1.2.2

            31 August 2011 at 10:53 pm

            also from the videos you can see that a 30 floor section of the inner core of the south tower, and a 40 odd floor section of the inner core of the north tower stayed standing after the initial collapse. that would mean that at least some of the internal core structure of the buildings were still standing and only the outer skin collapsed of those lower floors.

            This would also demonstrate the complete lack of explosives knocking out the core structure.
            • Armchair Critic 31.2.1.2.2.1

              1 September 2011 at 12:12 am

              You won’t change anyone’s opinion on this one Andrew, ev is fully convinced she is correct and nothing you say will change her mind. She takes every opportunity to get bang her drum on this.
              Seriously, I reckon if you post on Open Mike, in a month or so, that you saw John Key driving a Porsche 911, it won’t take long to get to the “freefall velocity” and “traces of nanothermite”.
              I agree with a lot of what you’ve, and I note:
              Newton’s Laws of Motion are not valid in some circumstances. They do apply to the collapse of the twin towers, but they are “broken” in circumstances when general relativity works, and for superconductors, for example.
              Steel frame buildings do collapse in fires. Which is why they have fire protection added, it slows down the transfer of heat to the structural members and increase the time until collapse occurs. But it is definitely for protection, rather than fire-proofing. No building is fire-proof. The twin towers were fire proofed, because even back in the 1960s, structural engineers knew that steel loses its strength when it is heated. Actually, our collective wisdom on this subject has existed since we discovered iron becomes a liquid at high temperature, and this occurred well before the twin towers were designed.
              The NIST report isn’t automatically flawed because it stops at the point a building collapses. NIST used traditional static analysis, finite element methods (which I think are excessive in this instance) and fire propagation models to show that the collapse could or should have occurred. Keep in mind a couple of things, first that NIST had no monitoring data from within the buildings, they had to rely on observations from outside, and that structural engineers tend to chuck load factors in their designs, so design calculations are always conservative. Once the building starts moving (ie. collapsing), traditional static structural analysis and even finite element analysis are not applicable. Buildings are never designed to move at high speed, quite the opposite, in fact.
              The FEMA report contains a diagram that shows their proposed failure mechanism. It is simplified, and the criticism ev refers to is that the simplifications go too far. I don’t agree, making it more complex would not improve their target audience’s understanding of the point FEMA are trying to make. Proposing a lack of understanding or an intention to mislead on FEMA’s part is just rubbish.
              I think the debris fell straight down for two reasons. One is that that is the direction gravity pulled it. The other is that there was insufficient force to push them sideways – explosives, for example. But that’s just my understanding of Newton’s Laws.
              Nanothermite – ask ev if it’s in commercial production, and in quantities sufficient to pull this job off. Evidently it’s still in the R&D phase with some military uses today. Has it ever been used for commercial demolition to date? No. Ten years back, nah….so maybe ask her how they stopped it going off, it’s kind of unstable. The problem with moving out of the R&D phase is that even a little static electricity can just set it off.
              And ask about the video of the blast from the simultaneous explosions that instantaneously remove all the structural support, to initiate the collapse. You won’t find that being supplied, though you might get a link to a neat video of an old brick chimney that is is just like the twin towers, apart from being quite different.
              Finally, ask about Occam’s Razor, as TVOR alluded to, and the supposed motives for the US government undertaking the operation. Bet you won’t get any straight answers, in fact you will be lucky to get straight questions.
              • Andrew Scobie …

                1 September 2011 at 1:43 pm

                Thanks AC. I think when it all boils down you need to ask yourself. When you remove all the random external variables, what is the least complicated, most likely scenario for this to happen. You cannot say that because “no other steel buildings have collapsed in history”, which is a claim i can’t verify the validity of anyway, then it was “impossible” for these buildings to collapse in the way they did.

                It’s obviously not impossible, because it happened, live, before my eyes. I’ll bet none of the other “steel building fires” had rather large commercial airliners slam into them approaching 600 miles an hour.

                All this crap about explosives, nano-thermite, blah blah ad infinitum, are just rubbish (i believe). There is no way that amount of wiring, explosives, thermite, could have been loaded into the buildings, under the noses of some 50,000 workers, without ONE BLOODY PERSON, noticing anything strange. Where did the initiation of the collapse happen? right at the impact point of the planes. That would mean that for the conspiracy to be correct, they would have had to have known what floor it would start collapsing from, someone was watching the building, saw it was starting to collapse, and push a shiny red button to set off the explosives in such a way that the timing was absolutely perfect, to make it look like a collapse … TWICE! The logistics involved in this alone are staggering in their complexity.

                WTC7, did not get hit by a plane, tho it did get hit by a lot of debris from the towers , badly damaging the south side (or was that the north, i cant recall). The WTC building between the towers and WTC7 was virtually completely destroyed by the falling towers. The fires burned all day uncontrolled, major supporting columns failed, and the rest is history.

                I think there are a number of people that see the US government of being inherently evil, and want them to be involved in some way as to satisfy their sicko fantasies about the evil American empire.

                Anyway, it’s nice to know that there are still sane people out there. (in my opinion)
                • clandestino …

                  1 September 2011 at 2:28 pm

                  I agree, it is heartening.

                  But then you look at this:

                  “Why do I support such an investigation? Because I would like to see those who perpetrated those crimes punished and the wars started as a result of those events stopped”

                  and you see that you’re right, some people have come to their conclusions about the supposed motives behind the conspiracy and any further investigation is the equivalent of a show-trial, in tinfoil hats.
          • Andrew Scobie 31.2.1.2.3

            31 August 2011 at 11:12 pm

            yes 9.2 seconds in a vacuum. sorry, i missed that bit. but i guess the point i was trying to prove was that the collapse happened at nowhere near those times. The south tower, over 15 seconds, and the north tower, over 22 seconds. that is nowhere near free-fall velocities.

            anyway, i’m done with this conversation, i have wasted too much time on it already over the last 2 days.

            You and Ev keep believing in your grand conspiracy. As if the dumbest president the United States has ever seen could ever be involved with something like this. People will make up their own minds based on the evidence they see. I’m with TVOR, if someone can post irrefutable evidence that this was a cover up, then i’ll donate $500 to The Standard as well.

            It’s been fun, but for the sake of my work, i’m banning myself for a while.
            • Colonial Viper 31.2.1.2.3.1

              31 August 2011 at 11:34 pm

              As if the dumbest president the United States has ever seen could ever be involved with something like this.

              Eh…the role that the dumbest POTUS ever played was exactly the role that he was expected to play…

              I have no idea how you expect us to believe that while the two towers somehow failed in essentially the same way, that one tower fell 50% slower than the other one. How would that work?

              I’m with TVOR, if someone can post irrefutable evidence that this was a cover up, then i’ll donate $500 to The Standard as well.

              yes because irrefutable evidence is always declassified and available to mere mortals like us on the intertubes.
              • Armchair Critic …

                1 September 2011 at 12:15 am

                I have no idea how you expect us to believe that while the two towers somehow failed in essentially the same way, that one tower fell 50% slower than the other one. How would that work?
                The failure mechanisms were not “essentially the same”
              • clandestino …

                1 September 2011 at 7:09 am

                But isn’t the evidence already irrefutable to you truthers?

                There seems to be no reasoning regarding science or motive with some, it is depressing especially when you consider these people make worthwhile and sensical contributions to other discussions.
                • travellerev …

                  1 September 2011 at 9:52 am

                  Clandestino,

                  Thanks for acknowledging our valuable contributions to other discussions which is so far more then I can say of you.

                  I need to correct you on another one of your ignorant remarks however:

                  What we are saying on the whole is that since the laws of Physics are not satisfyingly supported by the Official Conspiracy theory for which the FBI never officially made Osama bin Laden a wanted fugitive and the safety of steel framed buildings has been cast into doubt by the lack of solid investigation we want a new and independent investigation well funded and legally accountable into the events of that day.

                  That’s all!
                  • clandestino …

                    1 September 2011 at 11:08 am

                    Ok, I don’t see why you have to be rude, when new people become confident enough to contribute to a forum they (mostly) see as aligned to their views they shouldn’t be put down.

                    But ok, I agree there should be an independent investigation if people are this concerned there really has been a cynical manipulation the likes of which the world has never seen.

                    But I say this and only this, if it turns out the laws of physics have not been violated by the events, and the scientists responsible for peddling what I would call myths are discredited, will we (well, not me) on the left (and I see this as at least as much a left ‘truther’ issue as it is a right wing anti-government one) not let ourselves be distracted by fantasy and focus on the real social justice issues hiding in plain sight?
                    • travellerev …

                      1 September 2011 at 12:12 pm

                      Clandestino,

                      If like you say are a newbie on this site it pays to either, support your comments with links or keep them well written short and to the point (ROFL) or to refrain from words such as embarrassment, loony conspiracies and other arrogant opinionated shite.

                      That, you see, does not come across as someone who is just getting his/her confidence as a new commenter that just comes across as arrogant assholeness inviting ridicule and derision from people who have been commenting here for oh, say four to five years and who have had to deal with multitudes of ignoramuses over the years all of whom received troll treatment I might add.

                      If more then 1500 architects and engineers and almost 13.000 registered supporters all want a new and independent investigation and are prepared to put their career on the line to demand such an investigation supported by professors, scientists, fire fighters, law enforcers, pilots, political leaders, Military personal and doctors to name a few I am inclined to support that.

                      And if you think I am fringe think again: 1 in 7 Americans now believes the government was involved in the events of 91. That is 15% or a whopping 43 million people and that is the US alone. (Considering that about 2-3 of those seven Americans are under 16 you are looking at a staggering percentage of young to adult Americans who are suspicious enough of their elites to even want to consider such betrayal.)

                      Why do I support such an investigation? Because I would like to see those who perpetrated those crimes punished and the wars started as a result of those events stopped and the first responders who ran into those dust clouds get the medical care they deserve and the people who lost loved ones on that day have the answers they want and…. and….. you see for all those people 911 NEVER STOPPED!!!
        • travellerev 31.2.1.3

          1 September 2011 at 7:00 am

          No, let’s not forget WTC 7 because NIST declared that only gire had brought down that building and the had to admit that at least partly it was in freefall speed.

          If steel framed buildings could collapse like that there would be no demolition industry and what’s more there would be no steel framed buildings after 911 any more either. So No, let’s not forget about WTC 7. 
          If you discuss the collapses that has to be an integral part of the discussion.
          And as far as the nitpicking about the time frame of the collapses goes. Only three buildings ever in the history of steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire in a speed which was in no relation to the energy applied to those buildings.

          That is the real problem. The laws of Physics can not be broken. Not by 19 young Saudis nor by other people with access to those buildings.
        • travellerev 31.2.1.4

          1 September 2011 at 7:15 am

          Actually they heard loud explosions before the impact of the impact of the planes altogether:

          Here is the testimony of William Rodriques. He was the last man out of one of the towers who single handedly saved many people and who had worked in the buildings for many years.

          Here is a testimony of Barry Jennings who got trapped in WTC 7 when he was on his way to Giuliani’s bunker as was the protocol.

          Barry died under suspicious circumstances after he appeared in a BBC doco on WTC7 and just before he would testify about the explosions in WTC7 which according to him happened before the WTC towers 1 and 2 Collapsed.

          Here are some interviews and video clips with fire fighters and their account of explosions before the buildings started to collapse.
32. Vicky32 32

    31 August 2011 at 7:03 pm

    FFS, you disgust me. You insist that homophobia doesn’t exist, despite the very real experiences of some people who have been on the receiving end of it. Then you jump into an anti-gay tirade that you consider justified because you were once hurt by a gay man? Yes, you are homophobic. This comment proves it for all to see.
    Grow up. Get over it. And learn to respect all people as people.

    No, I won’t. Respect has to be earned. Your attacks disgust me! I don’t have to love, adore or even respect people who do things that disgust me – get over it. It’s legal – but that doesn’t make it right. What the gay man wants is not to be let alone, but to be praised for his sexual preference – the average 20-something has been ‘educated’ into doing that, but for me, no, it ain’t gonna happen. Call me a homophobe, see if I care! But better – invent a new word, as phobia means fear. I don’t fear gay men – but I am disgusted by the very concept of anal intercourse – and yes, I know what comes next, so I will answer it now. It doesn’t matter if straight people do it (and afaik most of them don’t) – it’s still revolting.
    • rosy 32.1

      31 August 2011 at 9:16 pm

      A little analogy Vicky32 … I don’t like smoking, should I not like you because you smoke? Or should I accept that you might do something that I don’t do and move beyond that issue in any relationship I might hypothetically have with you?
      • clandestino 32.1.1

        1 September 2011 at 9:34 am

        What is revolting is your outdated and evil attitudes.

        Free speech is free speech, but this is so offensive I wouldn’t blame anyone who censored you.
33. wtl 33

    31 August 2011 at 8:14 pm

    (reply to Vicky32 #32)
    I, for one, find your prejudice completely unacceptable. It is an attitude such as yours that leads many young gay people to depression, hating themselves or worse. You do not have to respect everyone. But you should not disrespect someone simply because of their sexual orientation. At the very least, you should have the decency to treat all people as people, whoever they may be.

    It is not up to me to decide whether or not your comments are acceptable on this site, that is the job of the moderators. However, I will not engage with you any further and will not read your comments until you change your anti-gay attitude. I am well aware that you probably don’t care. But it is the one thing I can do on this forum to show that I will not tolerate this attitude of yours towards gay people.
34. Jum 34

    31 August 2011 at 11:49 pm

    ‘Vicky32,
    Vicky32 …
    31 August 2011 at 5:43 pm
    ” I’ve seen people get into slinging matches with you before on here where you devolve into name calling and self-contradiction.

    You mean you’ve seen me trying to get Jum and QoT to admit they’ve misquoted me on abortion. That’s it. ”

    *****You are a liar Vicky32. Once again I will post what I said to you on 26 August.
    (I am also beginning to see a pattern with your attacks. A trojan horse, no less.)

    ,Jum 15.1.1.2.1.1
    29 August 2011 at 10:44 pm

    Look right above your ‘ 15.1.1.2.1
    29 August 2011 at 1:33 pm’ post Vicky32. You will see the very words ‘Just put that down in writing and sign it will you, and in 50 years time we’ll have a look at it and we’ll find out if you were right or whether you were just peddling mischief to women.’

    There was nothing about a ‘bet’ that word was invented by you. There was nothing in any of my texts about late term abortions until you introduced it Vicky32.

    Please stop lying.

    I repeat ”If so, I’m so pleased Vicky32. You obviously have the inside knowledge on everything the Catholic Church and its administrators do in New Zealand, and no way would they turn away a rape survivor. Wonderful. Just put that down in writing and sign it will you, and in 50 years time we’ll have a look at it and we’ll find out if you were right or whether you were just peddling mischief to women.’ You say you still have it on email – go and look and if you want perhaps The Standard still has the original on hard drive.

    Either way you are accusing me of lying Vicky32 and you are really starting to piss me off.

    YOU said (15.1.1.2.1) : ‘That’s why I asked you to ask yourself why it was so desperately important to you that Catholic hospitals should be forced to go against their principles when there are plenty of state hospitals that will provide abortions, contraception and disguised abortifacients such as the ‘morning after pill’.’

    I had already said (15.1.1.2) : ‘I have no problem with Catholic hospitals not doing abortions but only if they do not attempt to take control over the public hospitals and thereby remove the facility of abortion support for women.’

    As long as Catholic hospitals don’t control our secular hospital care in New Zealand, we don’t have a problem Vicky32. Only you do.”

    Re::: http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleTD=5850

    You really do have a credibility problem, Vicky32. Being a female (if you really are one) has nothing to do with why you are being targeted. You are offensive and you deliberately try to add comments that other posters have not made. I waited patiently on 26/8 to continue our debate, but you thought you would be sneaky and post about our debate on another day. Very low, Vicky32. Did you think I wouldn’t notice. I shall rely on other posters to inform me if you are attacking me in the future.

    Once I liked to think we were on the same wavelength, but now I think I was naive.
35. travellerev 35

    1 September 2011 at 10:17 am

    Vicky32,
    I’m am generally very much in agreement with you on many levels but you’ve got me stumped here.

    You called yourself a Christian and according to your teachings your God is a God of love. How come you confuse the capability of human beings to fall in love and bond with people of either sex with a sexual act which usually happens only between consenting adults?

    How come you surpass and usurp your God with a human and therefore by it’s our limitations limited morality? If God is love then who are you to judge so harshly?

    Did not your prophet Jesus say: “He who is without sins throw the first stone?” when the rabble was about to stone Maria Maghdalene for prostitution?

    And with the percentage of homosexuality in the population what do you reckon? 11 male apostles and only one female Apostle. Could there have been a homo erotic under current in the bible since at the time of Jesus Homosexual intercourse wash much more acceptable then it is now? 

    We are all just human beings V and your aggression and rejection of a simple sexual preference as a moral issue is not like you. I think you’re better than that.

    If your God created all of us he created sexuality and our preferences too. Let there be love I say and let what people do in their bedroom be between them as consenting adults. And please, if anal intercourse revolts you, don’t consent to it.
    • Vicky32 35.1

      1 September 2011 at 6:49 pm

      I’m am generally very much in agreement with you on many levels but you’ve got me stumped here.

      I am stumped also, that you’re so willing to fall in with the distraction they’ve begun. It all started because I was trying to back you up on the 9/11 issue! Then VoU and Clandestino weighed in on me with the personal insults – someone said “homophobe” Burn the witch!” and they all weighed in. I should never have answered back, but I had forgotten that the atheist view is that Christians are not allowed to defend themselves.

      You called yourself a Christian and according to your teachings your God is a God of love. How come you confuse the capability of human beings to fall in love and bond with people of either sex with a sexual act which usually happens only between consenting adults?

      I don’t confuse sex with love – they do!

      Did not your prophet Jesus say: “He who is without sins throw the first stone?” when the rabble was about to stone Maria Maghdalene for prostitution?

      It wasn’t Mary Magdalene and she wasn’t being stoned for prostitution, but – whatever.

      And with the percentage of homosexuality in the population what do you reckon? 11 male apostles and only one female Apostle. Could there have been a homo erotic under current in the bible since at the time of Jesus Homosexual intercourse wash much more acceptable then it is now?  

      Offensive nonsense. The true proportion of homosexual men in the population is actually 1%, but once again, whatever. No one wants to know facts on this issue.

       And please, if anal intercourse revolts you, don’t consent to it.

      I never have! What makes you think I ever did? What I do is irrelevant. I allowed myself to be goaded into saying why I won’t regard gays as being better people than I am myself – I should have just kept quiet – which is what I am doing from now on. Jum can throw tanties til his eyes bleed, but I am not saying anything about abortion, and John Barrowman and friends can spew venom all over the Standard, I’m keeping stumm…
      I thought you were better than to fall for this wonderful distraction from the issue! As I’ve done many times before, I am resolving to stay out of any discussions here, except for the most banal. I am however, keeping a list of the insults… no other leftie has ever copped so many, simply for trying to explain and clarify what I naively thought were misunderstandings!
      Hey Clandestino, people my age aren’t the reason that, what was your phrase, “the left has no credibility”? It’s the champagne socialists, the chattering classes in Ponsonby, the threatre going, Bolly swilling luvvies that make working people spew at the very idea of the left… 🙁
      • Jum 35.1.1

        1 September 2011 at 6:53 pm

        Vicky32,

        ‘Jum can throw tanties til his eyes bleed’

        Seriously Vicky32, you’re losing credibility, especially in your perception of me…

        Once again I shall repeat the important part of my debate with you: “As long as Catholic hospitals don’t control our secular hospital care in New Zealand, we don’t have a problem Vicky32. Only you do.”

        Re::: http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleTD=5850

        You really do have a credibility problem, Vicky32. Being a female (if you really are one) has nothing to do with why you are being targeted. You are offensive and you deliberately try to add comments that other posters have not made. I waited patiently on 26/8 to continue our debate, but you thought you would be sneaky and post about our debate on another day. Very low, Vicky32. Did you think I wouldn’t notice. I shall rely on other posters to inform me if you are attacking me in the future.

        Once I liked to think we were on the same wavelength, but now I think I was naive.”

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS