Huguenot

LD, the one thing that all your cover-ups and hideous behaviour of governments will have in common is that if a cover up was attempted, it didn't work, otherwise you wouldn't know about it. This is because cover-ups on the scale you are claiming just don't work.

"I have been doing some research (lahdeedah) and it does appear that the experts donot believe that a fire brought down WTC7" *sighs* yes, resident... that's exactly what I said in my own post, which you didn't read, because like other conspiracy theorists you don't want to hear the truth. It's too boring for you. Nobody is calling the Fire Departments or Engineers liars. A compreshensive review and investigation of the WTC7 collapse have taken place, have found no evidence of demolition, and nothing to support the conspiracy cause. There is no 'series of detonations' in the seismic record as the loonies claim. Demoliton companies all over the world could repeat the collapse if they repeated the incident - which would include (in no particular order: - The explosive removal of 25% of the building over 10 floors on the south side (caused by the twin towers colapse) - The collapse of east side penthouses pulling down the west side of the building after themselves - The unsual loads the damaged columns were initially bearing (approx 2,000 sqft of flooring each) such that one failed column could bring down the entire structure - Trusses on the 5th and 7th floor transferring almost the total weight of the failed south face to the other faces to exceed load bearing capacity - A high pressure diesel fire lowering load bearing capacity on the 5th floor. It is entirely normal that different buildings, constructed differently, with different load distributions and stresses would be able to sustain fires for different periods of time. The BBC have made clear that they simply made a mistake when they reported this incident. It isn't the first mistake they've made, and won't be the last - does no-one remember all the mistakes in the coverage of 7/7? They thought other stations had been targeted. It wasn't because they knew it was going to happen, they just got it wrong. It's just what happens in high pressure emergencies. This is the only rational way of approaching this series of events, but the loonies will never agree. The only response to this post will be New Nexus to claim this is all lies made up by the government.

LD, this is tiresome. I've already stated that there is no doubt that both the US and many parts of the developed world have economic problems. There is also no doubt that there are some dickheads in positions of influence. Your 'news' story boils down to this, alongside a whole lot of ridiculous speculation plastered over the top. I have also pointed out the solutions to these economic and political challenges, which are generally shared by government, are moderate in their execution and medium term in their delivery. I have been at pains to point out that the apocalypse scenario the lunatic fringe paint, with water drained from our taps, the banks empty of money and the stores devoid of food is a ridiculous extrapolation of these challenges into a doomsday hysteria. If despite all the information and insight that you have been offered you still believe that armageddon is the more likely scenario then no amount of rational information is going to swing your judgment. The conversation then took a step into the ridiculous, as it became apparent that both yourself and New Nexus share conspiracy theories that fly in the face of every reasonable consideration. The idea that 9/11 was a massive false flag exercise involving the murder of 3,000 people and the demolition of national icons just to get rid of a few documents and win a few quid on the stock market is laughable. That you believe a secret like that could actually be kept is testament to the loss of perspective that you are suffering from. You have forgotten both what people are like, and in your hatred of organised society you have actually dehumanised the millions of individuals that work in finance, the public sector and politics. In reality they are just like you - enquiring and responsible, full of hopes, concerns, ambition and curiosity. This is not an environment within which massive conspiracies can be effectively executed. To forget that is to enter a bizarre disassociative madness. Finally you've now entered the last vestige of conspiracy theorists - that all the media are also in on the criminal conspiracy and that the literature and output from totalitarian states is more believeable than that from our own haphazard liberal democracies. It's frankly ridiculous.

WTC 7. For New Nexus and LD, all these people are liars, and there's massive conspiracy. That's because they're deluded. The final report is the only plausible one: "NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near Column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, Column 79 soon buckled - pulling the East penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the entire building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse."

LD, it IS a conspiracy theory - one of many. If you check my posts I've persistently come back with evidence that the assertions being made are unsubtantiated rubbish. All we've had from New Nexus are fabricated quotes, fabricated photographs, sweeping abuse, misunderstood concepts. Read the thread again and start counting them. The Editor of Russia Today (not the journo, the Editor) says that she doesn't believe the news they peddle. Yet you use it to cite support for this rubbish that New Nexus trots out. Your long term objective is to bring down society, based on a delusional conviction that this will benefit humankind. Your willingness to believe this rubbish is directly affected by this. I'm disappointed that you continually claim that I haven't back up my assertions - yet it has been myself and others who are the only ones to provide plausible references through this thread.

You're being a bit of a wally LD - I don't live in the UK and don't have access to Radio4 or Newsnight. To claim that the BBC follow the Conservative Party line is just stupid, and warrants no serious response. Like you I draw my information from a variety of sources. Unlike you I also make a measured assessment of the quality and reliability of the source before accepting the information. You seem to have lost this skill, and are probably politically motivated in this. I pointed out on another thread that there are clincial studies that prove when politically motivated people get engaged with their subject, the rational side of their brain shuts down. Are you seriously there standing firm with New Nexus that 9/11 was a put up job? Really tragic.

Yay, Next Nexus is really on a roll here - now revealing himself to believe that the 9/11 attacks were fakes! You go, tiger. What next? Apollo moon landings?

Margarite Simonyan (the editor of Russia Today) even said that she does not believe the coverage they offer. Do you get that LD? The Russia Today coverage is not even believed by the people who create it: "Simonyan argued that the channel?s policy was merely to provide a platform for marginalized points of view that otherwise got little coverage, like the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. "I personally do not believe them. But I believe that if there are people out there who think so but do not get into mainstream media, they deserve an audience ? and we should give them a forum,? she said."

Russia today readily admit that they have an editorial policy to push conspiracy theories. "Last month, an episode of the show ?CrossTalk? descended into chaos when its host, Peter Lavelle, was berated by the show?s guests for proclaiming that the people who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attacks were not fundamentalists. One of the guests, British journalist Douglas Murray, expressed outright disgust afterward. "I?ve never encountered a more incompetent presenter," he wrote on his blog. Asked by The Moscow Times about the show, Lavelle said it was a "fiasco" because he had not been able to get a balanced pair of experts. "Everybody was snowed in," he said." Everybody was snowed in? Is that like the cat ate my homework?

'Well sourced'? Faked photographs? You're a joke mate. The Corbett Report describes its own content as "breaking news and important issues from 9/11 Truth and false flag terror to the Big Brother police state" It's just a little boy's conspiracy wankfest.

The Corbett Report isn't news, they've got faked pictures of George Bush snogging a male member of the House of Saud as their headline. Corbett's book is called "Essays on the New World Order". You don't get more mental conspiracy theory than that. If I want to get similar material I'd go to the Daily Mash, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to call it news. As for Russia Today - the government owned Russian overseas propaganda station? If you've reached the point where you feel that the Kremlin is more honest than, for example, the BBC you've truly lost the plot. But then we've got 20 pages of evidence for that already, so I wouldn't be surprised.

You bring to mind hypochondriacs rabidly searching medical sources online to prove that they have finally picked up a terminal disease that will justify their obsession. Every Doctor who points out they've just got a sniffle is rubbished as a fraud and a liar - but the quacks claiming they've got an obscure, terminal and (most importantly) ravaging cancer are welcomed with open arms. The Corbett Report - The Road to World War III, subtitle: 'Feeding Your Psychosis'. People like Corbett are parasites that feed on your paranoia.

All great examples of other people setting their objectives in terms of their own set of values. None of them any more valid than the next, despite how prosaically or romantically they are stated. Even just trying to do something can be a goal in itself. I quite like the ones that define success as following your own path - the statement is unwittingly an oxymoron: in order to accept that philosophy you would need to embrace someone else's guidance... ;-)

"Can I draw you a beer, Noam?" "No, I know what they look like. Just pour me one."

Sure, and I think that's all valid in its own way. However, this thread was essentially about asset stripping pensioners. This won't solve your housing problem, it won't shift the burden of taxation from 'youth', and it won't suddenly create a wondergul rosy future for our nation. So we are left with no other logic for attacking geriatrics than envy or punishment. Having said that, if the Lib Dems can use theis 'extremist' approach as a way of highlighting and addressing imbalances in the UK property market then it may have been a worthwhile exercise. Regardless of that, it isn't going to give the same lifestyle to vendors of services perceived to have low financial value at low volumes compared with those that do the opposite. The only way you get that is through state property and social totalitarianism, and that's a proven disaster.

Have your conspirancy theories plumbed new depths with the claim that Keynesian Economics was a communist attack on the USA?

What do they make it from? http://dinnerdiary.org/wp-content/ratatouille.JPG Courgettes, Aubergine, Pepper, Onion Garlic... ... and Chef's special sauce?

http://ih3.redbubble.net/work.6970071.1.flat,550x550,075,f.flies-and-shit.jpg

Well I guess silverfox has kind of nailed it. In a more simplistic way, I'd say that 'success' is simply hitting a set of goals or objectives. We tend to judge other people by our own goals - which means that we are only going to seee success in people who share our own aspirations and values. The value we place in home ownership, families, financial wealth or business achievement differs from individual to individual, and although we can abstractly empathise with other people's 'success' we don't really feel it. I sometimes think my own Dad struggles to see past the fact that I don't own a car to see the success I have in business. I could buy several cars if I wished, but would consider myself a failure. However, in some visceral way, I think my Dad believes that my lack of car ownership means that I haven't passed througha gateway to adulthood - even though I'm in my forties!

You seem to have confused my reference to your situation as an attack on you personally. It wasn't. I was merely pointing out that the problem with housing doesn't revolve around rich pensioners stealing from the youth of today so much as young people having increased expectations on living alone. You have also previously made clear that you're not prepared to do the kind of 9 to 5 job that would furnish you with the kind of lifestyle you want. Instead of accepting your own responsibility in that decision, you've decided to join a crowd lynching pensioners for their wallets. I don't expect you to do anything, I make no demands on you apart from suggesting that blaming rich pensioners for not giving you enough is cheeky. If you would be happy renting so long as there was rent control, why not pursue that campaign instead of asset stripping others?

I think it far more likely NN that you can't explain yourself because you don't know what you're talking about.

"Maybe tax earners today what people 30 years ago were taxed and then collect the required extra over from everyone rather than the current workforce..." This is where it all goes spectacularly wrong for your argument. Tax three decades ago was far higher that it is now. In 1978, the basic rate of tax was 34%, with the top rated tax at 83%!!! The basic rate now is only 20%. The tax burden is lower for the yoof of today than ever before. 'everyone other than the current workforce' is tansparent. Since we can assume you don't mean children, the sick or the unemployed, then you can only be referring to asset stripping pensioners.

There is already a system in place to increase the burden of tax in line with the contributors ability to pay - it's called progressive taxation. If you want to shift this around then you simply need to do the maths. Taxing property value is a disincentive to property development - it would result in property squatters ruining buildings to reduce the burden. Hence taxing land is more effective as it promotes development. Taxing people in multi million pound houses will not generate any meaningful change to the government tax income, and so would not support tax reductions for yoof. Hence your proposal isn't fit for purpose. In general tax cuts for youth won't give them access to buy property, it will simply result in a rent spike. The proposals most likely to deliver your residential objectives are the ones I outlined earlier. Besides, your claim of the deal for youth of today being crap is simply not true, we are in the middle of a major social transition created by a flawed economic model and increasing pressure on global resources. Tax breaks are not going to solve this for youth - their tax burden is low anyway. Additionally this obsession with house ownership is a particularly British thing. The youth elsewhere in the world aren't crippled by their inability to buy a house.

Why are you talking to suburban English people about setting up a medieval tribunal in a foreign political institution? What relevance has the debt ceiling to the criminal prosecution of scapegoats? Is this a copy and paste gone wrong?

Zeban, I distinctly recall you arguing a year or so back that the government should provide you with a free roomy single occupant flat - because it was your right to have one. It seems that in order to pursue that goal you're prepared to deprive pensioners of ones they have bought and paid for? Se?or C I don't think it's reasonable to claim that the economic challenges faced by today's youth can be heaped upon a small group of wealthy pensioners, nor solved by dispossessing them of their homes. Just from a property perspective a better start would be to deprive middle aged aspirant tycoons of the tax breaks that allow them to snap up multiple homes at low interest rates and force young people into renting from them. The second primary cause is investors 'squatting' on empty property for a long term return. Tax should be aggressively imposed upon residential properties not used as the primary residence according to land value. Young people are never going to be able to buy Multi million pound houses forcibly vacated from pensioners, it's far more likely that this housing shortage is generated by young people wanting to single occupy entry-level premises. It should also be noted that the housing crisis for youth is predominantly one of the South East. A better strategy than hammering pensioners out of their homes might be to engineer job opportunities elsewhere in the UK, where housing is plentiful and deserted, so that every 22 year old doesn't see moving to London as their only opportunity in life. So rather than abuse pensioners with an unsupported envy tax that is unlikely to have any impact other than impoverishing people, you either you need to legislate to prevent Zeban living alone, stop property squatters, create jobs elsewhere or build more stock. You make your most important point in the first sentence where you describe it as an 'equalization tax'. Within this you emphasize the foundation of your argument. It is essentially a socialist goal for the redistribution of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. There are no examples of successful socialist states in the world, so it seems illogical to state that pursuing their manifesto could have anything but a destructive impact. People need incentives - if you forcibly deprive them of the rewards for their labour, they simply won't work.