by frog
It was world toilet day yesterday!
NZ should follow Norway’s example on oil – The Standard. More oil @ Tumeke also.
John Key congratulates himself on being awesome. John Key should go to Copenhagen – Colin Espiner
Kevin Rudd talks up tough action on climate change (while doing nothing)
Low interest rates fuelling new bubbles all over the world
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
““New Zealand’s largely unexplored petroleum resource could be one of the country’s most significant economic opportunities. A successful and flourishing petroleum industry will be a significant and essential contributor to lifting New Zealand’s economic performance going forward and to improving the quality of life for all New Zealanders,” he said.
Currently the petroleum sector accounts for around $3 billion per annum of New Zealand’s export revenue. Should the estimated resources in our unexplored basins be developed, this could increase to $30 billion per annum in export revenue by 2025. Crown receipts alone could increase to more than $10 billion per annum over the next 40 years.”
Like or Dislike:
7 
9 (-2)
Like or Dislike:
11 
6 (+5)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
5 
20 (-15)
Like or Dislike:
11 
1 (+10)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
34 (-30)
For the handout crowd: http://tinyurl.com/yk2y7yc
Like or Dislike:
7 
9 (-2)
It is regarded as polite blogging AND writing, to at least NAME the person you are quoting.
I note that if I go to google any given quotation by some person there will be dozens of people repeating the quote and also caught in the net.
You were just being lazy. Admit it and forget it… I can be lazy too sometimes.
Which begs the question, what is your point? That we may have a significant (for us) petroleum resource? That is good news.
That we plan to burn it up right away? You didn’t say that, but Brownlee might. Let the other guys burn all of theirs first and we’ll get a lot higher price is a strategy that might benefit us as well. It’s an arguable decision though… not something I would regard as necessary and really sort of moot.
So what’s your point?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
11 
1 (+10)
Like or Dislike:
13 
2 (+11)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
the other week i suggested those greens who eat animals be called carni-greens..
your ideology/world-view/diet-choice has now been identified/named..
it is called ‘carnism’..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/why-we-love-dogs-eat-pigs-and-wear-cows/
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Ah, the Petroleum Angel, ‘fly?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Fill-ewe, you are so obsessed with what you/others eat/don’t eat.
Try relaxing and be at one with the food chain.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
17 (-14)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
16 (-15)
Yeah these thumbs-downs really aren’t harmful at Kiwiblog, but here it’s a gift to some petty tyrants. Why not just have a ‘tag’ function that sends it to admin, who can warn the offender, if such an action is warranted?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
19 (-16)
http://liberation.org.nz/
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
13 (-12)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
11 (-10)
Well, Bryce himself said:
It could instead be that the Greens have actually included in their expenditure return the money spent from their parliamentary budgets. To a tiny degree, they did this with their 2008 general election return. Perhaps in this new era of demand for transparency and accountability of taxpayer funds they’ve taken a highly-cautious approach of including the money that Russel Norman used from his MP expenses etc.
Hmmm. Doesn’t seem that likely this is what did it, but who knows?
As I’ve said before, you need a message that resonates. Advertising spend is quite useless without it.
Well they DO have a message (the party name helps I guess):
Frankly, the relative success of the Green Party can be put down to the fact that it has something “to sell” that the public wants, rather than anything to do with the way that the party has sold itself with billboards or advertising.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
The message doesn’t resonate with anyone outside their base, as evidenced by their consistent low vote in elections between 5-7%.
I think the reason for this is that they use the language and rhetoric of a well-educated elite. There is also not enough focus on the one factor that decides elections: the economy. Asking people to sacrifice in tough economic times is never going to resonate.
If it were me, I’d link the Green message with Kiwi identity, particularly in relation to the land, and activities related to it. Then focus on everyday scenarios. And abandon the condescending “we know best” language. And they need someone with a personality that works well on television.
Like or Dislike:
6 
11 (-5)
BluePeter said: I think the reason for this is that they use the language and rhetoric of a well-educated elite.
Okay, best I start using the language and rhetoric of the brown working class then BP. Worked well for Hone!
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
I think all parties would have received fewer votes in Mt Albert, if they had not spent what they did.
There are several things working against this:
* Most voters don’t make their mind up right before each election – they have a favourite political party, based on what they hear over many years. So a spike in election expenditure for one by-election won’t have immediate effect – but many of the first-time Green voters in the Mt Albert election will likely vote Green in future national elections.
* Sadly, electorates are decided by the First Past the Post system – so strategic voting plays a big part. If the media tell the public it is a two horse race between National and Labour, then they will vote strategically even if their sincere first preference was Russel Norman.
* Not all expenditure which promotes candidates is by political parties – but returns only show expenditure by political parties.
* Expenditure is not the only factor in the outcome of an election. For example, The Greens and Labour did better than National and ACT because the public don’t like parties which will strip-mine their assets, and divide their community in two by tearing down people’s homes and putting in a polluting motorway, especially an over-ground one.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
But it does! He holds a seat, after all.
The problem you have is that the people you surround yourself with aren’t like the people you need to vote for you.
I talk like the working class, because I am working class. People miss that with Key. He speaks in a working class mode.
Like or Dislike:
1 
9 (-8)
How delicate your flower Blue! The thumbs! The thumbs!
Getting in the way of open debate and free speech?
The only impediment to interesting debate, since you arrived back on Froggy Pond, has been your obsession with your thumbs.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
I’m sorry, but the data says otherwise.
Exposure can also have a negative effect. You know this, because Bradford was kept well away from the TV advertising during the last election. Why? Her message resonates, but negatively.
The message is the thing. The spend past a certain point makes no difference. Read Freakonomics?
Like or Dislike:
2 
9 (-7)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
12 (-10)
Yes! (I think you’re on target for today’s Lowest Score, Blue.
Stay focused and good luck!)
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Yet if I miss one link, the posting Police see fit to use their typing Tazers….
No BP, there is a lot to be said for the style. You didn’t used to be quite so insulting as I recall, so where have you been that you’ve so forgotten your manners? It wasn’t the forgetting, it was the suggestion that we google and then the suggestion that by asking for it we were requesting a handout.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
15 (-11)
@greenfly 11:57 AM
big bro is providing some tough competition over at this thread ‘fly – also currently on -14.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This place is also somewhat lacking in a sense of humour…..
Like or Dislike:
5 
12 (-7)
I’m being beaten?!?!??!?!!
Up-vote him!
Like or Dislike:
3 
8 (-5)
The point to the money thing is that it is a limiting factor. You can’t compete without it. You have to come within shouting distance of your opponent’s spend. It makes the playing field uneven.
In an FPP system it is less important than the perceived ability to beat the person people dislike the most. Perot showed that when he contested the 1992 election. No amount of money can push a 3rd party candidate into the running anymore. The major parties are entrenched and cannot be moved as long as FPP prevails and there are not riots in the streets.
If you have enough more than your opponent and you spend it wisely you can overcome a superior message by that opponent.
If you have enough so the spending is equal, you may still lose, but it won’t be because of money.
If you have a superior message and no money, you have no chance.
The money is not ever the ONLY thing, but it is important and in a reasonably democratic system it is more important than in an FPP system.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I disagree, and the data backs this up.
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/05/freakonomics_th.html
There is a point where very little exposure relative to your opponent will cause you problems, but a big spend on a message no-one cares about gets you nowhere. As the Greens found out.
The failure to move the vote was not lack of money – Greens spent plenty in the last election. The reason, obviously, is that the message did not resonate with anyone outside the base.
Like or Dislike:
5 
9 (-4)
I think Bradford didn’t get much airtime on TV because it isn’t in the short-term interests of wealthy bosses in the mainstream media to show someone who is opposed to the system which makes the rich get richer, and instead stands up for the marginalised.
On a slightly related note – it looks like National is putting the free trade arrangements with China, ahead of John Key’s own election promises, and the most basic acknowledgement of the human rights issues in Tibet, by boycotting the Dalai Lama: http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/government-clearly-boycotting- dalai-lama-visit .
The NZ-China FTA is not conditional on environmental sustainability, decent conditions for workers, or human rights improvements. What this means is that if Chinese companies can damage their local environment and treat workers unfairly, but NZ companies have to spend more to be sustainable and fair, NZ companies will not be able to compete on price with the Chinese companies. The right wing will of course argue that we should destroy our country as well; but New Zealanders don’t want our country turned into a barren, polluted, uninhabitable desert by 2100.
New Zealand’s autonomy is clearly being compromised by the Chinese FTA – firstly, because we are being forced to compete with China to see who can be the most short-sighted, rather than choose to protect our environment, and secondly, because the government is actively self-censoring itself to ensure it doesn’t do or say anything that China might not like – the Dalai Lama meeting being a case in point.
It is time for the government to shelve the FTA, bring back local, sustainable jobs, get price competition for better quality, sustainable products made under fair labour conditions in NZ back on the shelves, and get our freedom and autonomy back from China, until China addresses its environmental, human rights, and labour problems, and stops bullying countries over unrelated issues.
It would be a good first step for Key to meet the Dalai Lama.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
12 (-11)
> Suggest you read the book. There are various ways to do it, one of which is to
> measure the candidates own performance against herself.
That only measures short-term shifts, not long term shifts – and even then doesn’t take into account spending by people other than the candidates, which may dwarf spending by the candidates themselves.
> A little hysterical…
I agree that the scenario I described was bad; but that doesn’t make it untrue. This piece appears to be well researched and based on actual models built by climate scientists:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-cours e-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html
> No thanks. They should do what they do well and we should do what we do well and
> we’re all better off, as agreed by almost every economist.
While the theory of comparative advantage is often advanced to support free trade, and might make sense when it comes to, say, trade between Australia and New Zealand, the main advantage that companies in China have is that their government allows unconscionable activities that are harmful to humanity in the long term, but which allow cheaper production in the short-term.
With the exception of certain types of horticulture, which New Zealand can’t do without expensive greenhouses, because we don’t have the climate, we could make almost anything here, but free trade with countries with even more short-sighted policies than we have here stop our economy from developing the ability to do it. What incentive is there for New Zealand companies to innovate and build sustainable, low carbon home-grown industries, and create jobs for New Zealanders, when their competitors have no incentive to innovate in the short-term, and undercut NZ prices at the expense of the environment elsewhere?
China won’t be able to just keep destroying the environment forever – eventually it will catch up with them, and they will have to cut-back production. When that happens, would you rather live in a country which has home-grown, sustainable industries which continue to provide for people, who work to look after each other sustainably, or in one which is utterly dependent on China, with a high unemployment rate?
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
History shows conditions start poorly and get better, usually driven by the workers themselves.
We could make almost anything here but that doesn’t follow that we should. It’s not a good idea to have a lot of isolated states….recipe for invasion, besides anything else.
I agree with most economists – open trade is a net good.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Heh! BP beat my record with a resounding -18 “Karma Thumbs”.
Note to self: must try harder.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
The harder you try, the poorer you will perform BLiP.
BP’s a natural – effortless effort, kinda zen.
Curious though, the syncronicity of your two names -
B Li P
B P
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
I give the li(e) to BP.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
I am describing firstly a threshold delta in terms of electioneering below which one gets no attention and has no chance. As Will Rogers said, “it takes a lot of money just to get beat with”. Cutting spending in half at the levels of spending that take place in those elections STILL involves amounts of money that still dwarf the personal resources of most people buys a lot of advertisement.
The campaigns being all FPP, it becomes much harder to influence them. People in an FPP election usually vote for the guy who will beat the guy they like least. Almost never for the best candidate. FPP is NOT the case here however, and applying this message from Freakonomics to NZ is another mistake.
I know you don’t think it matters. I am equally certain it DOES matter, and there is ample explanation of how and why.
Since their second book I am no longer so impressed by those two whiz kids anyway.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Has there been any postings on Frogblog about the Conspiracy Theorist Richard Gage visiting N.Z and giving a speech on the Septemeber the 11th Conspiracy movement?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Richard Gage is also a guest on Kim Hill tomorrow morning. Surely someone from the Green movement has something to say about this?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
You seem to be on a one man crusade to discredit Mr Gage. He’s really got you rattled, eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gosman, why someone in “the Green movement” in particular?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not rattled BLiP meerly irritated that someone with so little in the way of Scientific evidence to support his belief gets away with such an uncritical level of interest amongst certain sections of society.
It would be like if Lord Monckton was in N.Z. giving a speech against AGW. I’m sure you would agree that this would be worthy of some comment wouldn’t you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Oh I don’t know StephenR, perhaps because the Green movement in N.Z. has seemingly been linked to the organisation he has set up.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
A1kmm – your 1:32 account re: China, innovation and horticulture makes good reading. Gwyn Dwyer wrote a piece in today’s Southland Times that would interest you very much, on China’s moves toward mitigating climate change. I’ll search for the article and post it if it’s there.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BLiP – easy on Gossman! You’re rattling his Gage.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
I’m curious if anyone would be worried if it is correct that senior Green Party members are seemingly being used to help promote Mr Gage’s organisation. Isn’t this of interest to someone in the Green Movement?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Greenfly
As least some one got it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh I don’t know StephenR, perhaps because the Green movement in N.Z. has seemingly been linked to the organisation he has set up.
“seemingly”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And someone didn’t think it was funny. Ngutu reemana.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
I’m curious if anyone would be worried if it is correct that senior Green Party members are seemingly being used to help promote Mr Gage’s organisation.
What’s with all the “seemingly”? Be more specific.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
I write seemingly because so far it is only the use of a prominant name against a statement which is supportive of the aims of Richard Gage and his organisation. However it would be interesting if the Green moverment has a more official position on this.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
This poster has been banned.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Talk about yer whispered asides!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Is that a self-imposed ban Blue? We’ll miss you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
This poster has been banned.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8 (-6)
It’s a transparent attempt to get some upvotes
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
ngutu komekome tamaiti
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
I’m just trying to get some comment about the comment in this link
http://www.nz911truth.org/?q=node/9
Isn’t this of interest to anyone here?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I think you meant ‘panned’.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Actually, it’s 20.
I’m surrounded by amateurs….
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
That’s the kind of crowd you attract.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
C’mon, you love it
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Grossman
I’m sure that in your little universe someone having an open mind is akin to heresy but here on Planet Earth its actually encouraged.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
So you would have no problem with Lord Monckton giving a speech in N.Z. and getting an endorsement from someone like Rodney Hide or even John Key then BLiP?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
They haven’t endorsed him already?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t believe they have. How about you answer the question though.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
If John Key and Rodney Hide were to endorse a speech by any climate denialist it would be completely consistent with their position on the environment.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Face facts BLiP, if Lord Monckton was giving a speech in N.Z on his usual anti-AGW platform and it was endorsed by someone on the Right of the political spectrum you would be all over it.
It looks like Jeanette Fitzsimons is allowing her name and comments to be used to endorses Mr Gage’s very controversial Conspiracy theories and yet you think noone should raise this as a talking point?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stability has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 parts per million (17 %). The very people that had long called the science settled, and those that went so far as to say the science behind global warming was “unequivocal,” are now admitting that “nasty questions” must be raised.”
http://tinyurl.com/y8sjfhk
Looks like the man-made climate change farce will soon come to end….
Like or Dislike:
3 
8 (-5)
Gosman
If you had posted the link at the beginning we might have known what you were on about instead of wasting quite so many posts and so much of our time.
Beliefs about 9-11 are all over the lot and quite irrelevant to environmental concerns. I note however, the goals which Osama Bin Forgotten explained to us back in those days… and how neatly Dubya managed to achieve all of them as supportive of the notion that there was more to it than meets the eye.
However, I can’t generate a lot of excitement either way. The USA is being run by corrupt people for the benefit of corrupt people… it has little left of the original democratic and free society that it started as and it is in deep trouble both economically and socially. I am saying that as an American and I am as proud of our spirit as the next, but I recognize the failing strength and the cancerous growths that blight my nation.
So actually, I don’t know much about it and if Jeanette reckons that this is interesting and real that is her privilege. It isn’t a “Green” issue.
OK?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Face the facts Grossman – no where in your link does Jeanette mention or even allude to Mr Gage’s visit to New Zealand. Your argument is a weapon of mass delusion.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
That’s what you think. Unfortunately for you, its inconsistent with the data.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Inhofe is an idiot and he is a member of the US Senate ( I apologize for repeating myself ) and he is lying with both sides of his mouth… which isn’t hard for him, he has had a lot of practice.
Here’s the temperature of the planet analyzed blind.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-17 4088.html
Now given Inhofe’s record, almost anything he says on this topic is going to be false. I suggest you find another source.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
too many in the States are yearning for a strong leader, someone who will tell them what to do. A great man, who will exercise authority with a directness and little or no discussion. Someone who will ‘put things right.’ The primary question seems to be less policy than fashion, whether to wear brown shirts or black, and whether torchlight is too ‘retro.’
http://www.jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Recall the Guardian beards chastising our fine country for not signing up to an economic disaster strategy ? Why don’t they look in their own back yard?
http://tinyurl.com/y9lbywy
“Britain is set to plunder the lungs of the world to feed its growing hunger for wood to burn in power stations. A series of biomass-fired plants are being built in the UK that will trigger a 150 per cent surge in timber imports from 20 million tonnes today to 50 million tonnes by 2015, according to the Forestry Commission. British power plants are already shipping wood from Canada, Brazil, Scandinavia and South Korea.”
How inconvenient.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
The data is inconsistent.
Like or Dislike:
1 
8 (-7)
So says Exxon.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
BLiP – as I said, go easy on Gosman – you are flaying him and it’s unsettling to watch.
Monkton and Hide are conjoined twins – inseperable, both sharing a brain and a delusion.
BluePeter – you need to read the Guardian’s follow-up. It gets worse for us. No one has defended Britain’s back yard, btw, especially us.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Well, this is interesting, and not in a good way.
It was done in JUST the way I would expect it to be done if it was done by the evil empire and it is just as certainly going to destroy public confidence forever.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/real-files-or-fake/
It is either wholly true and a massive betrayal of trust, or partly false, and a criminally fraudulent effort to undermine the scientific position.
The difference is that in one instance the mail is untouched, and in the other false mail entries are inserted into the hacked set in order to create trouble.
Knowing which is true is IMHO, likely to be forensically extremely difficult, particularly given that the server for this file is in Russia.
Both possibilities involve hacking the mail. Which is why there is no wholly false option. That’s not an un-possible thing and I have noted on many occasions that people with sensitive things to talk about should encrypt.
The question has to be asked, who did it and how. It would almost certainly be an inside job… and I’d first guess that this would be a physical back-up tape of the mail server that got misplaced on purpose.
The inconsistencies are there to wonder about… most are spelled out on the link. If someone is worried about mail and tells people to delete it… I would expect that request to be deleted as well as the stuff that is missing… and before the stuff goes missing… but I’ve seen some pretty gormless behavior by scientists when it comes to security issues so I don’t know.
Nor am I going to comment further until I DO know more about it.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
The whole BP=BP thing is gaining traction.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Like almost every UK resident, I didn’t read the Guardian when I lived in the UK, so I’m hardly going to start now.
I have nothing to do with BP or any oil company. I own the same number of shares in oil as Greenfly does in weapons manufacturers. Zero.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Coming from you, I’ll take that as a compliment. As it turns out, what ever flaying the Gross Man received was entirely due – he has been acting as an agent provocateur for the sewer.
WARNING: Link will expose you to the true nastiness than can only be made manifest by ignorance and hate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Ummmm…. BLiP that page I posted was linked to Radio NZ National’s page about Kim Hill’s interview with Mr Gage. I think you will find that the organisation that Ms Fitzsimons is giving favourable comments on is involved with the vist of Mr Gage.
As stated if this was a right wing politician endorsing the visit of someone like Lord Monckton you and your ilk would be all over this.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Gosman
What you fail to take in, is that this isn’t a Green issue. It is a conspiracy theory and its truth or falsehood does not make any difference to the Green Party.
Monckton OTOH, is an inveterate faker of graphs and knowledge he does not possess who has as his aim the confusion of listeners and the delay of any effort to combat AGW.
AGW IS a Green issue. One we take seriously enough to have official positions on. We have no official position on 9.11. It is not relevant to us.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
A link to a page with another link to another page about a radio show that hasn’t taken place yet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
He doesn’t own shares cause he makes them himself!!
He is currently working on an intercontinental swede chucker, or so my intelligence source tells me.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
bjchip said:
Here’s the temperature of the planet analyzed blind.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-17 4088.html
“AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling” written by Associated Press’s Seth Borenstein.
Another great link – thanks. This is true investigative journalism.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ohhhhh, now I see what gosman (most men don’t advertise their fascination for gossip, if they be shallow enough to suffer it, btw Gosman), he’s been showering under Farrar’s f*eces-spreader and has gotten an eye-full! Farrar regularly posts transparently anti-green tripe for his over-het ferrets to writhe about in and Gosman has drenched himself in it and nekeneke’d over here to spread the infection. How trite Gossip Man. How feeble you are, Farrar.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Ah Greenfly I love it when someone makes assumptions. Because you know when you assume things you just make an Ass out of U and me. Well in this case just you actually.
LOL!!!
Kiwiblog has posted this after I e-mailed them about the link not the other way around. Check the timing of his posting and my postings here. Anyone with half a brain would have done so already.
Also my name is Gosman because it involves my initials, not anything to do with gossip. Then again you obviously have unsubstantiated BS on your brain so it is understandable why you might take the simple option on that one.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
I would like to know if it is official Green Party policy to ask the US Government to reinvestigate the events surrounding September the 11th 2001?
While you are at it perhaps you would like to ask the US to look at the Moon landing, the JFK shootings, and whether or not Aliens crash landed at Roswell New Mexico.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Ah, Gossip Man – you admitted to emailing Farrar with gossip and proved me correct, all in the same post!
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
And you forgot .. Or whether Farrar leaked the Brash emails ..
( Farrar btw, is an old Brethren name … just a little gossip for you to feed on Gos!)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
I presume you are a little bit embarrassed to be associated with Fitzsimons endorsing the reinvestigation of the causes for September the 11th based on some Conspiracy theory given you have resorted to attacking me personally rather than dealing with the issue at hand.
Why don’t you answer the question rather then engage in infantile abuse,( which I thought Green member’s were above BTW)?
Does anyone know if it is official Green Party policy to ask the US Government to reinvestigate the events surrounding September the 11th 2001?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
BJ has already answered you:
We have no official position on 9.11. It is not relevant to us.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
So did Ms Fitzsimons clear her comments with you or do the Greens allow their MP’s total free range when it comes to controversial topics such as this?
Would it be acceptable for a Green party MP, (let alone Co-leader), to endorse anyone they wish or would they have to get clearance first?
If they do normally need to get clearance and Ms Fitzsimons did make this statement, was this cleared by the party leadership?
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
I doubt she would need any sort of “clearance” so say what she did.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Gosman
We’ve told you we’re not interested. We’ve told you WHY we’re not interested. I know it is hard for you to believe, but please try to believe so you can get complete on this… we are not interested. It doesn’t affect Green policies or Green issues at all.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
I know you are not interested, mainly because you are a little embarrassed by what she has done. Understandable I know as I wouldn’t really want to be associated with such a wacky conspiracy theory as well. It is kind of like the Birther movement in the US at the moment. Banging on and on about Obama’s right to be President without much evidence at all and demanding an investigation. Just interesting to see that a former senior member of the Green party endorses similar attitudes that is all.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
No, BJ has not referred to Jeanette, just party policy as you asked, so you’re the one spinning and stretching here, as comparing just about anything to the Birthers certainly shows.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Gosman… did someone drop you on your head when you were born? YOU can’t prove squat about 9.11, why worry about it ? You’re as bad as that moonbat who keeps rattling on about the monarchy. There isn’t anything dumber here than putting words in someone else’s mouth. You haven’t got a clue what I am thinking except for what I tell you, and you’re ignoring that.
Trust me, if you knew what I’m thinking about you this instant you’d have to be embarrassed to be seen in such a position.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Well some people here might like to put their collective heads in the sand over this but it looks like the supporters of Mr Gage are leveraging the fact that Ms Fitzsimons signed the petition calling for the investigation to be reopened as evidence that inroads are being made amongst politicval movements like the Greens in N.Z.
http://www.911oz.com/weblogid/285
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
I especially like the following passages
“Although Jeanette wishes to emphasise that she signed the petition as a private citizen first and politician second it remains a fact that she is the first sitting front bench MP of any country willing to make a stand and sign a petition demanding a new investigation into the events of 911.”
and
“…when I e-mailed her with the news of the new website and the request that perhaps she would sign the petition I was pleasantly surprised to find my request fulfilled within hours.”
Given the fact that the supporters of Mr Gage are spinning Ms Fitzsimons signing of the petition as some sort of break through in terms of spreading their ideas and that they are implicitly linking her signing the petition with the Green political movement in NZ don’t you think it might be wise to at least make a statement about this?
Also was it wise for Ms Fitzsimons to only spend only a short time before she willing ascended to the request to sign the petition? During this time of deliberation did she bring the topic up with any other Green Party MP’s or senior party members?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Gosman! I wanted to thank you for publicising Mr Gage’s visit to New Zealand. Your efforts at the sewer have ensured that bald headed, knuckle dragging red necks whose radios are permanently stuck on talk back have been informed about what, quite possibly, is yet another travesty of justice perpetuated by the Bush Jr Regime. Single-handedly you have managed to reach into that dripping cavern of ignorance and bring the issue to light. Thank you.
The question now is: are you a man of your word? I know there are a few people looking forward to meeting you at Mr Gage’s talk and hearing you speak. Don’t be shy. Bring a friend.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
I’m certainly not attending the full seminar. I don’t like hours of propaganda and misinformation shoved down my throat. On top of that I have a life, which means I can’t waste several hours of my weekend. I will attempt to attend in some capacity though, which is all I promised BTW.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
BLiP, I thought you didn’t care about this topic one way or the other. Why are you thanking me for publicising his seminar then?
Truly Bizarre.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
So. You’re a liar and a bully.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
How am I a liar and/or a bully?
Are you going to back those rather personal insults up with anything in the way of supporting evidence?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
BLiP – if you’re looking for Gossip Man at the seminar, he’ll be the one in the Darth Vader costume. Try to enGage with him discretely but don’t let him see your 666 tattoo – you’ll never hear the end of it (he has the tenacity of a tapeworm and goes on at length).
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Greenfly – I agree. He seems the prototypical troll. He was probably born with a yellow stripe down his back, has a face permanently frozen just short of an apology for being so much smarter than everyone, and exudes a Klingon-like menace; the only human feeling I could imagine him experiencing is a nightmare about being forced sing the national anthem in Maori.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
I take it from your ad hominem attacks on myself that I have you rattled over this issue. Playing the man rather than the issue is rather infantile and an admission of defeat.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
A private person signing a petition calling for an independent enquiry is an issue? I thought you said you had a life.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Rattled, Gossip Man? As entertainment value, I’d give you an 8 but only because you provide us with so much great material to lampoon! Are you David Farrar’s con-joined twin?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Oh I think we both know it is a little more than that BLiP.
It would be like trying to claim that Hone Harawira’s comments in his e-mail were just a private correspondance between two individuals and there was no issue.
Ms Fitzsimons did a little more than sign a petition. She made some comments which are being used to promote the organisation who brought Richard Gage over here.
On top of that her support is being spun by member’s of this group to suggest that their views are making in roads into the political mainstream in NZ.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
That’s it? A private citizen states that she has seen evidence from both sides of a position and still maintains an open mind then signs a petition calling for an independent enquiry; meanwhile a third party seeking to drum up support for an event makes an exaggerated claim? What a scoop! Stop the presses! Quick, call Jimmy Olsen! Shock. Horror. Metropolis in peril.
Gotta go. Mr Gage is on.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Is Jeanette a 9/11 conspiracy loon?
“Anyway the local NZ truth 911 website has a quote from Jeanette Fitzsimons: There is so much that does not make sense about the official version of 911. I have read all 600 plus pages of “Crossing the Rubicon” and it appears to me to be well researched, though I still have an open mind on the matter of what exactly did happen. It is time we knew the truth one way or another, and an independent enquiry is the way to achieve this. If we do not know the truth of our history it will compromise our future.”
Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. The alternative, presumably, is that the US government attacked their own country.
Whatever next? People will start believing that man is warming the planet….
|
|
V
Downvote now!
Like or Dislike:
6 
8 (-2)
Or that the market has a brain.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
14 (-12)
Well . . . I’m convinced.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
That was simply a thing of beauty! Kim Hill just ripped Mr Gage a new one.
Anyone wish to comment on the views of a man that the former Co-leader of the Greens supports?
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
Odd that the Twin Towers should have their lifts “upgraded” just prior to 9/11.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Gosman wrote:
“That was simply a thing of beauty! Kim Hill just ripped Mr Gage a new one.”
It was a cr@p interview. Kim Hill’s interviewing was unnecessarily combative, and Mr Gage was unnecessarily combative too. I didn’t feel I learned anything from it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Copious amounts of nano-explosive residue . . .
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Oh I don’t know… you should have picked up that Richard Gage denies he is a conspiracy Theorist when he actually is.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
What would you have liked to hear anyway? That Richard Gage actually has persuassive evidence that September the 11th was a massive inside job and that this is being kept secret from us all?
I think you were barking up the wrong tree if you expected someone of Kim Hill’s intellect and ability to allow BS like that to be peddled without critiscism.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
BLiP wrote “Copious amounts of nano-explosive residue .”
Plus a massive conspiracy theory to set up and keep quiet this dastardly plan. This includes killing some of the people who might reveal the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
Gosman wrote: “Oh I don’t know… you should have picked up that Richard Gage denies he is a conspiracy Theorist when he actually is.”
I think what he meant by that is that he isn’t presenting a detailed theory of who conspired with whom and for what purpose. But yes, he is a conspiracy theorist in that he’s clearly interested in reasons for suspecting a conspiracy. ‘Conspiracy’ in itself does not mean ‘nutty nonsense theory’ – by the legal definition of ‘conspiracy’, twenty men separately entering the US and going to flight training schools, then simultaneously getting on 4 planes armed with the same kind of weapon and simultaneously hijaciking those 4 planes to crash them into buildings is a conspiracy, and a pretty big one. Anything of the sort Richard Gage believes he has evidence for would be an even bigger conspiracy, and does seem somewhat improbable because of the number of people who would have to go against the basic aims of the organisations they worked for.
I guess what
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
I think you know what is meant by ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ in this case kahikatea and it goes far beyond the textbook definition that you just wrote about.
Richard Gage displays the same sort of thought process that people who think the Moon landing was faked or that Barrack Obama is not legally entitled to be US President have.
There views require the active collusion of not just a few individuals but a whole army of highly organised and efficient people all conforming to a version of the Code of Omerta.
On top of that they claim their evidence is so amazingly obvious that the only way anyone can disagree with them is they are stunningly incompetent or part of the Conspiracy. It is an outstandingly arrogant position to take.
What I find interesting is how members of the Green movement like Ms Fitzsimmons, who are usually so big on pushing scientific consensus when it comes to something like Climate change, are quick to claim some sort of ‘Open minded’ position when it comes to this stuff.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
And I suppose a nation state politician supporting an independent/UN inquiry into the international financial/capitalist system is
1. congratulated by social credit movements
2. congratulated by those who believe in Jewish control of global banking
3. congratulated by pensioner movements because so many retired people lost money when uninsured banks and finance companies went bankrupt
4. congratulated by the heads of IMF and the World Bank
Thus “proving” the “open-minded” politician is part of a conspiracy of old anti-semites peddling social credit theories who have already taken over the IMF and World Bank.
FFS Gosman are you a F.M.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Ummm…. SPC What the F@@k does a ‘nation state politician supporting an independent/UN inquiry into the international financial/capitalist system’ got to do with Ms Fitzsimmons supporting the ideas and goals of a Nut job Conspiracy theory movement like the 9/11 Truthers?
Did you listen to Kim Hill dismantle Richard Gage on this mornings show on Radio NZ National?
Do you really want the Green movement in NZ to be associated with supporting someone with such a bizarre grasp on reality?
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Do I have to explain to some F.M. – that guilt by association, and by association with an issue which is much larger than any individual or particular group of individuals, is … no guilt whatsoever. Well apparently I do … and that is what makes you a F.M.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Did you listen to Kim Hill dismantle Mr Gage on Radio NZ National this morning?
Do you really think it is a good look for the former Co-leader of the Green Party of New Zealand to be linked with the organisation and aims that this man is promoting.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
Lets guess, you think by repeating ad nauseum your mantra over and over again this will become some beltway issue and the media will take it up. And you believe that you can get the media to do this – quite delusional.
Did Kim Hill mention Ms Fitzsimmons once during the interview …
I’ve expalined to you why this won’t get any traction – if it did where would the media end up.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
i just went to jeer at that smackers-march..
nat-rad are calling it as 1,000 marchers..
it was both ’sad’..and hilarious ..
at the same time..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/comment-whoarthe-biggest-demonstration-in-new- zealand-historywas-a-big-fizzer/
(schadenfreude..y’know yr soaking in it..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I wonder what those hundreds of FEMA personnel were doing at the Twin Towers the day before 9/111 . . .
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Phil u – so you went to jeer at people who want democracy and the best outcomes for their kids. That speaks volumes.
New research with 9000 families shows tough love produces the smartest AND most empathetic kids – see
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/10/2738773.htm
It backs up the world famous Otago long term study.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Photonz
I’m not sure how old men demanding the right to spank little girls is good for democracy?
BTW, Neither study you refer to nor the organisations behind them advocate the pre-determined application of violence upon a child – in fact, they promote the opposite and that’s because corporal punishment doesn’t work.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz..i went to report on it for whoar..
the jeering/schadenfreude was a bonus..
(shame about those references you gave..eh..?
was that it..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Apparently there is to be an increase in driver age.
My opinion is
1. that there should be a full licence available from age 18.
2. That there is a one year provisional licence for the first year of driving (at whatever age).
3. Provisional licences should be available from age 15 in rural areas (last for 3 years).
4. Provisional licences in other areas should come in from either age 16 (2 years) or age 17 (1 year).
5. Those on provisional licences – whatever their age have a zero blood alcohol level and there being no right to transport alcohol in these vehicles.
6. There should be a curfew (hours of use limitation) on provisional licence holders.
7. And compulsory third party insurance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tigger on The Standard said:
I can hear Key on the phone with the Chinese now “So Chinese, did you like what I said to the Dalai? Was it nasty enough for you? Want to mine in my backyard? Cool!”
Poetry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
I’ve just listened to the Kim Hill interview and she certainly did not own the guy. In fact she had no answer for what Gage claims as the forensic facts of the matter, nor any comment about the official reviews not looking at such evidence (assuming it actually exists, which I have no idea about). All she really did was express her incredulity that anyone could believe such a thing and then move on to the next claim.
Of course, there should be an extremely high bar for seriously considering such a possibility. No one wants to believe that a govt could conceive of doing something like that, though certainly some have done far worse. Nor should it be easily accepted that the details could be easily hidden, as Hill based her entire argument on. But she seems wrong to claim Gage is acting irrationally in the face of forensic evidence. The best way to shut Gage up is show his evidence is wrong or that there is another explanation for it. Gage admits that Hill’s incredulity at the implications is natural, but points out how incredulous his forensic evidence is and asks so how do we deal with this? Hill had no answer, but could only state again how unlikely such a conspiracy could have occurred.
For my part, I can believe the Bush administration could conceive of such a thing. One reason I’ve never believed they actually did it is because they appeared so incompetent in almost every other way, I just can’t see them pulling this off. However, I can at least agree that there’s never been a proper investigation. Bush resisted doing any at all and was only forced to in the end by public opinion and a concerted campaign, but then conducted a narrow investigation, which does seem to have ignored parts of what occurred and had no power of subpoena or immunity, as Gage said today.
So though I don’t know the veracity of Gage’s claims – because I don’t know their veracity – I can’t see any reason not to look formally at ALL the forensic evidence that exists. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist? Well, I know that governments lie all the time and some of the lies are very large, ironically such as Iraq, Bush’s corrupt response to 911. Perhaps there’s an element of political world view at play here? I know the majority of those Kiwiblog posters think Iraq (and other things Bush did that we’re be appalled at) was just fine and I bet Gosman feels the same.
So having heard the interview, I’m fine with Jeanette having supported an investigation. I wasn’t sure before hearing it and wouldn’t have listened if not for Gosman’s games, so thanks for that.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
BLiP – corporal punishment actually works very well. Any biased survey that sets out to prove it doesn’t can do that.
However independent thorough surveys like the Otago one show that kids who have been corrected with occasional light smacks have come out as good as or better than kids who were not smacked in every measure tested (i.e. mental health, criminality, drug use, academic success, carreer, marriage success etc).
Now we have another throught survey of 9000 families that shows that kids who are given good boundaries come out better.
As for the democracy march, you are a pretty sick person if you’re trying to say the people marching for democracy are paedophiles.
Do you regularly make serious false criminal accusations against people you disagree with?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Hmmmmmmmm…….no traction eh SPC?
How about this article in the HOS then?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid= 10610841
Gotta love the headline “‘Naive’ MP in meeting”.
Do members of the Green movement wish to re-evaluate their decsion not to make a comment about this?
BTW I was at the meeting at the end yesterday. Lovely to see some of the supporters of Mr Gage come up with some really logically and rational debate, such as there isa FEMA camp that has been set up in Upper Hutt as part of the New World Order.
LOL!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
I would have been surprised if Herald had not printed something derogatory of the Greens. They do that on every possible occasion, and I would have been more impressed if they had found an Engineer to explain how the questions being asked about it were wrong. Seriously.
Conspiracy theory specialists are going to see it as a conspiracy theory without examining ANY evidence. Not caring much either way though. Engineers have to think about masses and vectors and temperatures and JP5 burning. If they are having trouble working out an answer that is possible then they have to ask what else is possible. I haven’t examined either the claims or the refutations, so have no opinion…
However, I have no doubt that they went out of their way to find someone to say something derogatory.
No traction with the party mate. We.Don’t.Care.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
They don’t need to find an Engineer to refute these bizarre and irrational claims by Mr Gage. There is already a wealth of scientific evidence. You remember Scientific evidence don’t you? It is the same type that Green’s use to push the view that AGW is irrefutable. The US Nation al Institute of Standards and Technology has investigated the collapse of both the Twin Towers and WTC7 and have completely discounted the ‘Controlled Demollition’ theory. But then again you only like the Science that suits you don’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Jeannette joins the wacko brigade?
As DPF points out:
““What I’ve found is that there are a lot of highly trained people who say [the Twin Towers] could not have collapsed the way they say it did.”
Asked if she was a 9/11 sceptic, Fitzsimons said: “I would say I’ve got an open mind. I’m not interested in conspiracy theories, I’m interested in evidence.””
Is pretty much like…
“I’m not saying the moon landings did not happen. There are some unexplained matters and a lot of highly trained people saying the landings were not possible they way they happened. I’ve got an open mind on the moon landings – I’m not interested in conspiracy theories – I’m interested in evidence.”
Dear oh dear.
Like or Dislike:
3 
11 (-8)
The US Nation al Institute of Standards and Technology has investigated the collapse of both the Twin Towers and WTC7
Good, and that is where I would start looking myself, rather than a popular book, but you see I AM an Engineer and I don’t mind at all if Jeanette reads and enjoys and believes the book sufficiently to ask questions. Which is all that is happening here. Contrary to your foolishness. Please take yourself somewhere else rather than insinuating that I believe anything.
I do of course, but it is not actually very flattering to you.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
You can leave with Gosman BP. I’m not interested in what DPF thinks… this is a swamp, he runs a cesspool. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
BluePeter – while you were wallowing in Farrar’s effluent, did you have a wee tantrum about his thumbs-up, thumbs-down system? I’m sure you find it as intolerable as you claim to have found it’s use here, so I’ll pop over (having suited-up as Phil suggests – a visit there isn’t something a couple of ‘Handy Wipes’ can protect you from) and look for your comments.
With the posting of another ’smear the Greens’ post on Fartblog, (as I fondly call it), doubtless there’s some new misstep, rort or dishonesty from Hide, Douglas, Key, English, Smith etc. that is about to the hit the news, that needs to be masked by a vacuous and shrill post such as the one Gossip Man has been charged to advertise so incessantly.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
So, not comment on the hacked server, then?
“If genuine, and there’s every reason to suppose they are (even if the words Ian Wishart are included in some of the alleged verifications of them), the emails take you “behind the curtain” in the preparation and presentation of the last several years of warmist revelations. If what’s been uncovered is genuine, there’s evidence here of systematic deception:
concealing inconvenient facts;
misdirecting attention;
massaging of raw data to fit the AGW theories;
and cynically blackballing of climate skeptics to avoid confronting their arguments.”
http://tinyurl.com/y8ewsru
Like or Dislike:
5 
6 (-1)
BluePeter – this phrase that you’ve used; ‘is pretty much like’, is a twisty little expression that I’d like to use when I’m responding to some of your claims, if that’s okay with you.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I’m glad you put that last line in there. It’s so witty. It’s like there’s a swing door that, when you walk out, it hits you, presumably because you weren’t being careful. It’s best to be warned of these things.
Strangely, if you fly a plane full-throttle into a building, it falls down. Or, the alternative is that the inept Bush/Cheney team pulled off the biggest scam in history, involving a lot of people, and not one of them has said anything?
No wonder the AGW story appeals to so many….
Like or Dislike:
4 
11 (-7)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
14 (-10)
No wonder the AGW story appeals to so many….
I’m glad you put that last line in there. It’s so witty.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
You can do better than that.
The reference is obvious. The human need for big scary events to have a quantifiable reason behind them. If you can quantify it, you can control it, and you don’t feel so scared. Fear drives AGW.
In reality, a bunch of nutters crashed a few planes as part of a religious war that has been going on since the Crusades. Irrational. Uncontrollable.
Much like the weather…
Like or Dislike:
3 
11 (-8)
Not sure how you can have a voting system that favours the mob whilst at the same time being against binding citizen referendums.
The majority inflicting their will on a minority. The tyranny of the masses.
How telling it is when you watch people’s actions as opposed to listening to their empty words.
And rather than have Greenfly evade the point of the post to grasp on the throwaway line – as usual – let me make it crystal: you can’t support free speech and down-vote people below a viewing threshold and not be a hypocrite.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9 (-6)
The weather is irrational? Complex, difficult to predict for sure, but irrational? Well I never!
‘Big scary events’ do have a quantifiable reason behind them, I’ve always thought. Do you, Blue, think that they are the result of some mysterious force, some Pantheon of Playful Gods or some other influence that’s beyong our ken? Are you one of the Suspicious, Superstitious crowd?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
http://tinyurl.com/yz3y5gw
“At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review”.
Why would they block data?
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
‘viewing threshold’ – you are aware that you can ‘click to view’ Blue?
Why so upset at having your comments faded? Does it offend your sense of self (no one fades me and gets away with it!!)
You bring to my mind a quivering gnat, timorous and fragile.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
>>‘Big scary events’ do have a quantifiable reason behind them
I mean the need to indulge in elaborate, systematic rationalisations about events born out of fear. If there is a big event, it must have a big, complex explanation as opposed to a simple one.
If 9/11 could be caused by a bunch of young lads on a mission from God, as opposed to an audacious, elaborate, monumentally risky one-off government conspiracy, then it could easily happen again.
Like or Dislike:
3 
11 (-8)
>>‘viewing threshold’ – you are aware that you can ‘click to view’ Blue?
It’s not the point.
What matters is the default setting. Very few people change defaults. So, most readers will see posts disappear after 4 votes. That makes the posts invisible to most.
As I say, your house, your rules.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8 (-4)
BP
The comments on the hacked server are firstly WAY up on this thread where I noted it and then over on the thread
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/12/how-the-ipcc-works/
and finally here…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
I didn’t think it necessary to repeat myself.
Sorry you missed it, Gosman has been flooding the blog with sewage.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
9/11 – ’caused by a bunch of young lads’ – how cavalier of you Blue! Pish! A mere trifle!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
That is what makes people most scared. Repeatability.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
Sorry, I missed it.
It strikes me that the AGW movement is missing an opportunity. Make all the climate data they are working with public domain. It could silence critics, or blow the thing wide open.
A mining company used this method. They had a problem in that their in-house scientists couldn’t come up with areas worth digging. They were very experienced, they were well qualified, but they weren’t producing results.
So the company released the data into the wild.
Within a few months, groups of people from all round the world were crunching the numbers. Students. Amateurs. Professionals. Teams of mathmeticians looking for a challenge. All sorts.
In short, they came up with areas worth digging that turned out to be lucrative.
It wasn’t that the inhouse scientists were incompetent, it’s just they were used to a certain way of working. A fresh set of eyes saw things in the data the in-house scientists missed.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7 (-2)
For what it is worth BP, I argued for a higher default setting myself. It is however, optional and it is a matter of choice for people.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Are the scientists who are gathering climate data ‘in-house’ or are they out in the field, representing a vast range of organisations and institutions. They are not a closed set, are they?
Exciting to her about the mining company, employing the skills of amateurs to find new sites to mine, Blue. What great progress we could make here in New Zealand if we did the same. There could be opportunities for Gerry to send the excavators in to all sorts of places!
In fact, I support the ‘open source’ model. Careful how it’s applied though. Law and Order is one area that has risks.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
If you read through the comments on the realClimate thread you’ll see some echoes of that sentiment.
Problem is that there IS money involved in collecting the data. It gets pretty expensive, and there’s not all that much charity in places like Russia. You pay or you don’t play. That’s part of the reason for McIntyre not getting data direct from Briffa… but overall this can work to our advantage because there is, in 15 years of selected posts, damned little that suggests ANY corruption of the data.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
“in 15 years of selected posts, damned little that suggests ANY corruption of the data.”
Except when they reduced the number of temperature stations and suddenly the planet warmed up, or the total inability to properly correct for the urban heat island effect.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
It’s not the point, is it.
It’s about how data analysis can be compromised by process, politics, personalities and other very human factors.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Not wishing to put ideas into her head, but I wonder if Jeanette has considered that global warming could be a Jewish plot, like 9/11?
Like or Dislike:
4 
12 (-8)
It’s nothing compared to the expense governments are spending on this issue, or going to spend. It’s chicken feed.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Why can DPF’s moon landing analogy be dismissed on the grounds that a lot of his commenters are yucky?!
Open mind on 9/11 – fine.
Open mind on AGW – not so much?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
it seems three days is also too long between general threads..
this one is an unwieldy 180 already..
would it be difficult to program a gen debate thread to pop up each morning..at ..say..8.00 am..?
this will generate more traffic etc etc..
(surely i don’t need to belabour this point..?..)
why not just ‘try it out for a week’..?
see how it goes..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Considering a wide range of possibilities around an issue seems to be a sensible thing to do. Naturally enough, that approach can be demonised by agents from each side of any issue. Seems pointless to labour that aspect of problem solving, imho.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Smirkin’ news from the Standard.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/key-opens-rich-mates-marina-slaps-local- maori/
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“Not wishing to put ideas into her head, but I wonder if Jeanette has considered that global warming could be a Jewish plot, like 9/11?”
I understand that she has considered the possibility of global warming being a hoax, and concluded that it isn’t.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Phil could be right about the need for a general thread every day or two days. Though I notice that the other threads see to be getting less and less traffic.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
18 (-15)
Wat an ars*hole you are Wat.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
Lets see… the bit about the moon landing? Being that I worked for NASA myself I might tend to simply dismiss such things rather quickly and likely with extreme prejudice. I hardly need to guess about it.
Understanding that the money for the data gathering effort comes out of those grants and the people who gather it own the data unless/until the required agreements are made,.. it really doesn’t matter. The point was clear enough… and McIntyre had the data in hand while he was raising the stink with Briffa about not having it.
Somehow this takes away from the notion that Briffa wasn’t giving it to him, does it not?
Shunda, Shunda… we’ve been over the “urban heat islands” more than a few times. With the bulk of the warming at the poles… one has to question your assumptions on this issue and can you point to where they discussed doing that in this set of e-mail? If you want to bring up general questions about the science I am fine with that, but I WAS trying to focus on what was in the archive of e-mail rather than what doubts you may still have.
OTOH, this IS a general thread. So….
You have something specific you want me to address? Possibly you could point me at some reference to where the issue is raised?
Thanks
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
You are obviously part of the conspiracy to keep the faked Moon landings quiet bjchip.
A simple question for Ms Fitzsimons, Has she read the NIST reports on the causes of the destruction of the Twin Towers and the WTC7?
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
Just out of curiousity I visited the source site… for the two towers I saw nothing particularly suspicious but the 3rd building is actually QUITE odd. Seriously odd… and I watched some of the NIST stuff relating to it and was not particularly convinced….
…on the flip side of this are the serious questions of motive and ability to create a plot this complex without someone suddenly remembering which country he pledged allegiance to in school.
…which leaves me dubious. I am fairly dissatisfied with the NIST examination of the 3rd collapse. That doesn’t look like what they claim it has to be at all.. but if some terrorists got bombs into THAT structure it needn’t involve the US government at all either… and the security there was not I think, as complete as for the towers.
So there is a simpler explanation available than the notion that the US government did it to itself in an elaborate conspiracy to justify going to war or anything else.
I note that this permits both the engineers with doubts about the collapse mechanics and NIST to be partly right and does away with any requirement to find traitors in league with a demonic Dubya. It also plays well with Occam’s razor.
…and I worked for AVIRIS at the time, and spent a fair few hours on the overflight data for the Trade Center, doing the aerial spectral analysis. We had the only plane flying over the site that wasn’t military. That effort was to measure the spread of the airborne dust, particularly asbestos, and to locate hot spots in the rubble. Which doesn’t make me an expert on this topic, just a background coincidence that connects me to the event.
http://aviris.jpl.nasa.gov/ql/01qlook/f010916t01p01_r12.gql.jpg
So it is perfectly fair IMHO for someone to examine the NIST stuff and the engineer’s site that questions it and come to the conclusion that something is not quite right. Coming to an alternative answer to both as I just did, tends to quell any compulsion to get involved with the questioners, because it really isn’t important if true.
Which probably won’t satisfy the moonbats out there, and there are plenty of them…. but it is quite satisfactory to me. Which means that I am not concerned with it further.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
A simple question for Gossip Man, can you see that your overly-intense interest in the destruction in the Two Towers, causes you to come across as moon-batty-plus?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Some years ago I was invited onto a TV panel where there were the Alien group and us skeptics to slug it out.
They had shown the famous film of the repressed operation on the Alien.
I had arranged to have a still of one scene available “on call”.
So when I was asked to comment I simply pointed out that the operation was supposed to have taken place in 1957 (or whatever year the saucer had landed) and at which point I called for the still.
I then pointed out that the telephone on the wall was a Bell model first released in 1965 (or whatever).
There was a stunned silence and the Alien mob simply gave up and from then on argued that while this might have been a hoax there was all the other evidence. But they had come to the panel using this film as their main evidence. None of them stayed around for coffee after the show.
Sometimes myth busting is quite easy – and wonderfully satisfying.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
Why was the 911 Commission not allowed to subpoena witnesses and why were the witnesses that did give evidence not sworn in and why have the 911 Commissioners resiled from the findings . . . just asking.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
would a small forum be better than a new general debate blog post every day?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BLiP Why don’t you address the issue of why, if the evidence that Mr Gage presents is so compelling, the NIST report categorically denied that the three buildings collapsed as a result of controlled explosions? Remember the NIST team actually egaged proper Scientists, not the amateurs that Mr Gage relies on for his Conspiracy theory.
Does this mean that like Mr Gage you believe that NIST is also in on this conspiracy cover up? If so how is that view different to climate change deniers saying the IPCC is part of some shady underhand effort to impose Socialism on the world?
I look forward to you answers with interest.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Also waiting to see if Ms Fitzsimons has read the NIST reports in their enitirety, or at all.
She claims to have an open mind but does this only extend to researching the wacky conspiracy theory side of the discussion?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
“..would a small forum be better than a new general debate blog post every day?..”
um..!..why..?
(why do you try to complicate everything..rimu..?
why not just a new general debate thread each day..?
it isn’t rocket-science..eh..?
if you are scared/nervous..
how about that trial for a week..?
should civilisation end..and mass confusion ensue..
you could stop it..
straight away..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jump to it chaps! Gossip Man has made his requests quite clear and he expects your answers quick smart !
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Was there ever such a jumped-up, shrill, pompous twerp, as Gossip Man?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
I suppose I should have said reputable media. Obviously I did not mean Kiwiblog and those who get their news stories from that sewer.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Why has the FBI not charged Osama Bin Laden in relation to the 9/11 attacks?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Given the fact that Ms Fitzsimmons claims she is open minded I presume she can confirm that she has read the entire NIST reports detailing the scientific analysis of how the buildings collapsed on September the 11th?
Has anyone else read these reports by the way?
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Have you read the NIST report on the WTC7 building collapse BLiP?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
I presume (there should be a little warning bell that goes off inside of your head whenever you hear yourself say ‘I presume’, Gossip Man),
she can … there you go! The little bells were right, you were wrong to presume!
Ms Fitzsimons, btw, seems to be totally disinterested in your plaintive whining, Gossip Man. I admire her even more than I did before!
You, not so much.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Why has the FBI backed off on its identifications of the alledged 9/11 hijackers?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Isn’t only reading and listening to the 9/11 Truther side of the debate like relying only on Lord Monckton for you information about Global Warming?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
BLiP, Have you read the NIST report.
Yes or No?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Where are the 911 flight recorders?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Yes, Gossip Man, it is! Exactly like it! At last, some straight talking from you. Try, try, try not to ‘presume’ that the target of your transparent attempts at discrediting, looks only at one side of any issue. If you do that, the tiny amount of respect we are accrediting you will be lost, like a mote of dust, blown on the Winds of Pedant.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
The 911 thing isn’t what we have to worry about folks…
http://www.alternet.org/story/144109/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ummm – the NIST report? Is that the one where:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gosman is sort of like Wat I think. Obsessed with irrelevant issues. I wonder if they are related.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
By nature, for sure. Odious.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Why do the names of the 19 alleged hijackers not appear on any 911 passenger lists?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
If something is undergoing continuous peer reviewed academic research, there is some basis for drawing conclusions from what is found.
If something is not undergoing continuous peer reviewed academic research, then there may not be enough information to come to any conclusion. From this there are only two answers –
1. you would like an investigation of the matter and would keep an open mind on it until this occured.
2. there is already consensus on what the answer is and so no investigation is required.
Given the work of 9/11 official story critics, citing mysterious factors which are unaccounted for, some will opt for 1 over 2.
Some will prefer 2 over 1 simply because they don’t want to be associated with conspiracy theories and the language of ridicule which is heaped on those of an alternative reality outside the reality of the faith orthodoxy of the official paradigm – a means to suppress/marginalise another world view as “alien/unAmerican”, not of this world order (lets say USA leader of the free world, capitalism and its Judeo-Christian religion).
My own theory, is formed on the basis of a few facts.
1. Apologists for a regime change in Iraq (PNAC) approached Bush early in his Presidency. He said there was no public support for such a war.
2. In 2001 prior to 9/11 Italy held an international gathering and had air defence systems to protect a building from a hijacked plane bomb.
When Bush became President he was warned of 3 threats to national security – 1 terrorism, 2 a flooding of New Orleans (despite this the army failed to do its job of maintaining flood prevention systems).
3. The Americans knew hijacked planes was a terrorist threat. They knew their air defence system was only in place to prevent foreign sourced airborne threats.
4. There was a warning of hijacked planes in September 2001 – some Americans did not fly on national routes on 9/11 because they were aware of this. The person in the main role in air defence on 9/11 wanted the morning off and took the morning off.
5. The Americans took a dim view of those who opposed their regime change in Iraq from late 2001 – long before WMD were invented as a reason for self defence.
My conclusion – most of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 are diversions – some of those involved maybe creating myth to distract people from the real issue – did the US government allow the attacks because they wanted a pretext for war in Iraq?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Worst flooding in 1000 years in Northumbria, fires and 40 degrees-plus temperatures in Tasmania and NSW and extreme weather events in Turkey.
Nothing going on here. I’m relaxed about this.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Has anyone read the NIST reports? Anyone at all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
I went to the movies the other day…
THEY DON’T STOCK JAFFAS ANY LONGER!!
My life is in tatters!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Why did the now discredited NIST report not include an analysis of debris for explosives?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
My life is in tatters!
Then you’ll have to settle for potato chips, Samiam.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the “puffs” below the collapsing towers are not explosions then what are they and why did the now discredited NIST report ignore them?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
1. Gage has hired him as his publicist.
2. Gosman really hate Greens and thinks this mindless on message repitiion will annoy us a lot.
3. He’s been stalking Ms Fitzsimmons for years – he’s always wanted to date a politician and this might be his last chance to get her to notice him.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
So which Scientist or groups of Scientists have discredited the NIST reports BLiP?
Please note I’m talking mainstream Scientists not the usual collection of Conspiracy Theorists you might dredge up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Why was the US continental air defence system disabled on 911?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
“Why do the names of the 19 alleged hijackers not appear on any 911 passenger lists?”
didn’t they? If not, the obvious explanation would be to guess that they booked their tickets under false identities.
What I want to know is, how did the US intelligence community go from not knowing enough on September 11 to stop the attacks, to knowing so much on September 12 that they could give the media names and photographs of all 19 hijackers?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Yep, that’s an amazing feat! Also, related to this is: how were the intelligence agencies able to “secure” the vehicles left behind by the alleged hijackers on the day after 911?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
greenfly
Posted November 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM
wat – how thoughtful of you to visit Frogblog in order to insult our highly regarded friend and doyen, Jeanette.
Wat an ars*hole you are Wat.
That’s rather hypocritical of you Greenfly/Village Idiot considering your 2nd lifetime ban on kiwiblog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
The US continental air defence system was not disabled. You obviously have not read anything about this as this was a major point for the official investigation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
My query was actually a trick question because its impossible to know whether its true or not because the US government has refused to release the passenger lists – the lists printed in the media following 911 were incomplete and/or falsified.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Greenfly
In answer to your 4.46 pm
Yes
I wonder who that could be
Hint: think blowfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Oh yes it was. On 911, NORAD was running a series of “war games” which bore so striking a similarity to the actual events that fighters dispatched to intercept the hijacked planes were unable to locate them due to the overwhelming radio chatter in relation to the games.
The fact that these games and their impact on possibly preventing the Twin Towers’ strike is ignored in the government reports speaks volumes.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Wow! That must mean that the US Government investigators are also in on this conspiracy BLiP!!!
It keeps getting bigger and bigger all the time.
Can anyone tell me why the Conspiracy involved the use of largely Saudi nationals in the plaot when they obviously were planning on using the attacks as an excuse to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq to get control of the Oil?
Kind of embarrassing don’t you think that they decided to include nationals of a US ally?
Hmmmmmm…. perhaps there are some flaws to this amazingly complicated and successful Conspiracy theory after all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
BLiP
1. Some of the more massive chunks are penetrating floors on their way down rather faster than the main collapse,
2. Some of the doors into the core were left open allowing air pressure to do the job.
3. Backup Terrorists.
There are at least half a dozen ways that the main towers could be falling as a result of the aircraft in much the manner that they appear to fall.
The third building CLEARLY collapsed rather differently…
Which doesn’t mean it was done by the US government. The likelihood of having a second team working on this job to make it likely that the towers WOULD come down is much higher. Hell, some guys with cop and firefighter outfits could have carried bombs IN once the planes hit. Security would have let them in without checking what the hell they had in their tanks, packs and whatever.
The problem with the conspiracy theory is that it smells way wrong. Not even the Bush administration would have tried to get away with something like that and nobody in government COULD have gotten away with it IMHO. Too many people involved, and no few of them would rebel against such orders.
That’s an important objection that the full conspiracy theory fails to successfully overcome.
The alternative explanations for how explosives could have gotten into the buildings, as suicide bombers or other… dressed up as emergency workers and carrying heavy equipment ? That EASILY overcomes the problems.
Which makes the theory moot. The only problem I have is the question of why nobody has raised this explanation. I saw it after looking at the evidence for 30-40 minutes. It isn’t that bleeding difficult if you actually use an open mind and have an Engineering background.
Most people don’t have either of course, but still…
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why did US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, change the instructions in relation to a NORAD response to potential hijackings in July 2001?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
And here’s a link to a blog which discusses a problem with a key point in the argument of people like Mr Gage, i.e. that Active Termitic materials were discoved in the dust debris after September the 11th http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-cla imed-in.html
Interesting to not that the Scientists involved in the study that found this material involved people in the 9/11 Truther movement. Isn’t that similar to Scientists being paid by the Oil industry finding results inconsistent with AGW?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
To be perfectly honest, I am only feasting on the delicious irony of watching Gosman, an AGW denialist, stamping his little hairy feet seeking to defend official science which, under other circumstances, he’s only too happy to clamber all over Google in an effort to undermine. I note that he has been unable to answer any of my questions. Still, while its been hugely amusing, its probably time now to stop teasing the less fortunate than myself.
Still, there are hugely significant questions surrounding 911 to which the public is entitled answers. Anyone who can’t see this is due more scorn and ridicule than those seeking an independent enquiry.
Nighty night all – its been fun.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Please note the following quote from the article I just posted
“Yet the researchers that signed the study do not appear to have considered and investigated correctly this possibility before claiming residues of “active thermitic material” in Ground Zero dust.”
Hmmmmm…. why does this 9/11 Conspiracy Teory stink more and more like the anti-AGW ‘Science’ that the Green movement dismisses out of hand?
BTW did Ms Fitzsimmons read anything like this article or does she restrict her ‘Open mind’ to dodgy scientific studies which support her own prejudice view of what happened?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Ummmm…… where have I ever denied AGW BLiP?
I believe you are creating a Straw man to knock down here. Extremely bad form.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Pentwiggle! If I ever ‘insulted your highly regarded friend and doyen’, then I regret that deeply. Who exactly is that person?
(Not Farrar, surely to God!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Greenflyting you have never insulted a friend of mine.
I think I understand your humour and sarcasism, but I also think you were being just a little harsh on one passionate enough to express a point of view.
Just my POV.
As an aside, where do you jab now? SOMETIMES your humour is worth a laugh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
pentwig – my apologies for any excessive combatitiveness and I do take your original point – Gosman and I share a characteristic, as you ably pointed out.
I’m a homebody now, spending my idle hours on Frogblog, through choice and because The Penguin lost his cool and chilly-binned me (again). People here are very civil and I get starved for caustic debate of the pointless sort, such as is found on other blogs, and sometimes, foolishly, try to initiate some of my own. That said, I never expected the Tory Defence squad to pull their punches over there, so I’m not very remorseful about calling Mr Gosman a cheeky name.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ooooooh how sweet greenfly and pentwig. Do you want some privacy?
Anyway here is a link to some decent analysis of the claims of the 9/11 Truther movement, as represented by Ms Fitzsimmons favourite American Wacko Mr Richard Gage.
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
“Oh yes it was. On 911, NORAD was running a series of “war games” which bore so striking a similarity to the actual events that fighters dispatched to intercept the hijacked planes were unable to locate them due to the overwhelming radio chatter in relation to the games.”
surely the simplest explanation would be that Al Qaeda found out that the exercise was planned for that day, and rescheduled their attack to coincide with it to cause maximum chaos?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Gossip Man – how will you manage reid, over on Kiwiblog?
He’s making you look a fool.
His ‘Kim Hill’ response made your claims here sound as weak as wees.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
What the heck – I’ll steal it! (apologies reid)
Back to topic, someone said yesterday Hill tore Gage a new one yesterday on her show.
That person is wrong. Profoundly. Listen to it, objectively. (Bet you can’t.)
Hill tried to put ridiculous suppositions and postulations into his mouth. He stuck to facts throughout. When discussing 911, there is a glaring gap between what people actually say about this and what others think they are saying in their own hallucination. Many, perhaps most people can’t face those facts squarely because of the implications of what that means to their own world view.
18:30
[Hill] On the 2 WTC towers the planes would have cut some of those support columns, ignited fires sufficient to weaken the remaining steel structures. The perimeter columns buckled, the weight of the collapse of the top stories generated a momentum, the rest of the building couldn’t stop.
[Gage] This is the official story
[Hill] Why couldn’t that have happened?
[Gage] Because we have something in Western civilization called Laws of Momentum, Newton’s Law. You can’t have a building falling as fast, just about, as fast as the debris is falling outside the perimeter. You can’t have a building falling that fast through 80,000 tons of structural steel designed to resist that with a safety factor of three to five. These buildings are that much stronger than they need to be to resist any such collapse and by the way there was no pile driver driving the rest of the building down, it’s destroyed itself. The point – the 15 storey section above the point of jet plane impacts – has destroyed itself. There’s nothing driving the building down after that. The photos and videos are very clear, the building’s tearing itself apart, at almost free fall acceleration and ejecting perimeter wall units 600 feet laterally at 50-70 mph (I don’t know the conversion there, but it’s very, very fast). These can only be propelled by explosives.
[Hill] You point to puffs of smoke coming out of the structure and you assert that they are the controlled explosions, yeah?
[Gage] Indeed. These are…
[Hill] Why can’t they just be puffs of smoke?
[Gage] Because they’re 160-200 feet per second, that’s their speed. Ah, we need a conversion there but these speeds can only be propelled by explosives and indeed they occur 20, 40 and even 60 stories down below the canopy of destruction in each of the twin towers. And they’re perfectly engineered to [unclear] between the mid-points of the columns and they are not puffs of air, they are pulverised building material that are being blown out of the side of the building. It’s very clear.
I haven’t seen on either of these threads any analysis of science but I have seen plenty of angry, confused people alleging that it couldn’t have happened in any way other than the official story simply because they don’t know how it could have been done otherwise. That’s childish, simplistic and plain f*cking stupid. Listen to him and analyse his evidence. Try not to get all emotional.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Photon – didn’t see you there:
No, I’m not saying that at all. What a funny thing to pop into your mind. Even though Bob McCroskie likes to use a wooden spoon and Larry Baldock has spanked his grandchildren, it would be a long bow to stretch to say that everyone on the march is a paedophile. But don’t you think its kind of creepy that these people believe spanking little girls is something that they should be able to do as a “right” and is so important that making such an act illegal is a threat to democracy itself?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Perhaps you could explain how the building were rigged with explosives to enable a controlled demolition.
You can picture the scene.
“Excuse me sir would you mind just shifting your desk, we need to do some maintenance on the pillar behind your desk.”
Seriously you need to take these few points
You need a few weeks time frame to place demolition charges (for steel you need shaped charges placed just so to be effective plus for concrete you need to drill holes). So while the building are fully operational and 10,000 odd people are working there, demolition teams can crawl all over a building and no-one notices?
To detonate the charges you need wiring. You can imagine another scene in the building. Office working to demolition agent. “What are those red and yellow wires for? Oh early chritmas decorations” Yeah fully plausable?
In controlled implosions there is a great deal of work done to weaken the structure prior to implosion. You would not be able to do that in a fully functioning and tennated building without being noticed.
Then consider the number of agents required to place the charges. And not one has a conscience to come forward? The US militiary is not the most moralist so to expect not a single “whistleblower” is feasable?
So could it be controlled explosions. No, impossible from the simple view point that no-one could plant explosives without being seen. There are no crawl spaces near the pillars to place the explosives and run the firing lines.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Reid’s a pussy greenfly. He’s looking like a complete an utter moron, mainly because he is misrepresenting the science behind the 9/11 events. This is similar to how AGW debunkers attempt to pervert Science for their own ends. But hey so long as perverting Science serves your political purpose it is okay eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
BTW you missed Andrew W’s latest comments on Kiwiblog where he stated that compressed air is more than capable of moving debris at the speed the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists claim.
Oh that’s right, they are all wrong because they are supporting the estabishment position and thereofre are part of the conspiracy.
Where are the main stream scientists supporting Ms Fitzsimmons position on this anyway?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Gossip Man – perverting science doesn’t suit my political purpose at all and that’s why I don’t do it. My interest isn’t in 9/11 incident (yawn!), it’s in your dogged and poorly executed attempts to draw Jeanette Fitzsimons (and Green posters here) into your argument/fascination with the American event. She’s not biting, most here are bored to tears with your harping and reid is making you look silly.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Perverting Science is what Ms Fitsimmons and you are doing here. You may like to deny it greenfly but it is hard to ignore reality sometimes.
BTW Reid is getting his ass kicked on Kiwiblog by more than my good self. Mainly because we are using Science and logice. Something you seem to have a lack of knowledge here for some reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
GossipMan (I’ve developed your handle a little further, you’ll notice),
I do like to deny it, oh yes, because it’s true! Science Perverter! What a despicable charge, you cad! How dull your line of argument – even for the sake of amusement, I’m bowing out now, so ordinary has the discussion with you become.
You did make one excellent and accurate observation though, GossipMan!
You quite rightly point out that I lack knowledge of logice
Logice is something I’ve struggled with ever since primary school and just can’t pin down at all! Could you, kind sir, illuminate the darkness of my ignorance, and tell me what logice is?
Many thanks.
Greenfly
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
How ridiculous the attempt to guilt by association trick gets when it redacts down to claiming that supporting an investigation on something is “perverting science”.
The call for further investigation, research, examination of the evidence etc, is not perverting science, it’s calling on more of it to determine the facts of the matter.
Someone feeling threatend by this approcah, because they “believe” in the rpevailing orthodoxy, is the anti-thesis of science, which is based on peer review and continued challenge to the status quo. Belief is challenged by scientific method.
Now why does Gosman misunderstand this, or does he simply choose to as a political device for witch-hunting lefties/Greenies who dare to mistrust those who have proven to be untrustworthy.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Oh my goodness greenfly.! You picked up on some mistake I made writing a reply late on a Sunday night. That must mean your counter argument is irrefutable. (Did I spell that right BTW? I might have had an extra r in there I don’t know).
Perhaps you might like to deal with the actual point of the discussion next time rather than being a pedantic pri%k?
Then again it is your choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
Oh wait, SPC has written approcah instead of approach. Where is the upholder of all that is good and great in spelling and syntax, greenfly, to set him, straight?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Bec”ua”se (sic) Greenfly has already worked out I am a two finger typist and occasionally one finger is faster than the other, when it should not be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is pretty ridiculous actually. Gosman has totally obliterated our general thread with his obsessive disorder with respect to 911. Which is still an emergency telephone number or a particularly nice Porsche to me. Not nearly as important as he seems to think.
I have explained how an Engineer with an open mind can look at it and get a third answer. Which fits nicely thanks… but remains irrelevant because 9/11 is pretty irrelevant to the future of our planet, which is what the Green party looks at. I note that Gosman does not respond to me at all.
I think that Gosman has not quite grokked that he is arguing with individuals, not the party and that there is no party position on this. We don’t have one because it is not important.
It remains “not important” despite the time he has devoted to trying to make it important.
If Gosman wishes to continue to comment on this blog, I’d be happy to entertain him on topics that are relevant to Greens. THIS topic needs no more discussion and because of him we need another general thread rather sooner than later… and I am (and I have never advocated such a thing before) suggesting that discussion of 9/11 be dropped from the blog forthwith. Gosman being permitted to discuss anything else he wishes here of course.
I would like to ensure that our regular guests and loyal opposition concur in such an action before it is taken but I am appalled by the amount of time, effort and blogspace that has been devoted to this non-issue, and I suspect that most of them would agree with this.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Hey if you don’t think having a senior member of the Green Party supporting wacky anti-science conspiracy theories is a Green issue then I guess that is your choice to stick your head in the sand.
I just think it highlights a certain doble standard when it comes to the Greens and the use of the Scientific consensus on something like AGW (pleease note that I have not stated that AGW is not supported by Scientific evidence BTW).
This is similar to Rodney Hide railing against Parliamentary perks while taking advantage of them. It is a matter of Political Hypocracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Gosman you d!ckhead, I answered this here and I answered it on Kiwiblog now and you still do not get it.
We don’t care and have no official position on 9.11. However at this point I DO care that you have virtually taken over our blog with your obsession.
It is quite possible for NIST to be wrong without any US based conspiracy. Jeanette didn’t speak to that issue. Several of us have pointed it out. You have ignored this part of our response.
There was plenty of time for additional terrorists to carry bombs and other material into the buildings. An hour and a half for the First tower, and far longer for the other two. You have ignored this part of our response.
Good Engineers and Architects don’t believe that there was a proper explanation for the third building collapse. There is stuff-all science involved in this, it is an engineering problem. You have ignored this part of our response.
You have no answers for these observations, you just have a crazed obsession with putting words in Jeanette’s mouth. Something Farrar did as well, and I called him on it there.
You are a boor and a sorry excuse for a human and it is dubious that your feeble brain can comprehend anything beyond your ridiculous obsession but WE DO NOT CARE.
Nor do we care for you in any form. This is a generally civilized place which you have disrupted with your insane disregard for logic and blog etiquette. When people make a point HERE they expect it to be considered in the replies.
I think everyone here has noticed how you’ve avoided answering me at this point.
Why don’t you go here and try to get a first one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen, you get around don’t you!?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Perhaps you could explain how the building were rigged with explosives to enable a controlled demolition.”
Richard Gage’s claim was that the explosive charges were placed in the lift shafts, where a lot of the structure holding up the building was. This would have required infiltrating the lift company that was upgrading the lifts over the few months prior to the attacks, but nopt crawling over the other areas of the building. He also said they would have been raido-controlled, so you could use batteries rather than wires.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ and Kahikatea,
it is amazing that you both find it plausable that explosives where placed in the twin towers,
yes feasable except for the space in a lift shaft is 95% taken of with the elevators. Not much space beween the lifts and the wall.
Now add the fact you need to drill holes in the concrete to make the charges effective (placing charges on the wall wont do a thing, the explosive force finds the weakest point – the free air in the lift well.
Now you cant drill these 40mm holes with a DeWalt battery drill. You need serious (usually air or hydraulic powered) to hammer drill these to any depth (remember you are not just drilling concrete but also rebar steel)
All this activity (and noise) without alerting building maintenace and security and manangement staff plus all those tenants.
Adding lift company personel to the list of militairy people who would be in the know is an even longer bow. Lift maintenance people dont usually sign secrecy agreements.
Now to radio controlled fuses. Can you imagine the number of frequencies in use in that building and the risk of a premature explosion?
BJ, You would be more familiar then me to what radio frequencies are in use but can you honestly lay hand on heart and say that not a single stray frequency could set off these charges prematurely?
I think the USA government insider job conspiracy is a false one.
It is simply to big a job, requiring to much explosives (about a tonne) with too many people in the know to make this viable.
Even in the militairy, yes trained covert staff are no doubt careful to maintain secrecy on foreign nationals they may have targetted, but to blow up your own people and maintain complete silence by maybe up to 400 to 500 people?
Nah, totally busted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit,
But they used anti-matter bombs! Did not need to steal them from CERN either, America has tens of massive secret accelerators working constantly to refuel the stockpile…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit
First: I said nothing about a US led conspiracy. You have the wrong guy.
What *I* said was that the people involved could have carried ANYTHING up into the building in the hour and a half between the first impact and the collapse. That includes penetrators to blow away the concrete if they as well as submachine guns to stop anyone from interfering. They could have created a FAO bomb in the enclosed space. So MANY ways to ensure destruction once the occupants were fleeing in confusion and panic had started and emergency services were given free access to the buildings. The MINIMUM time was an hour and a half.
Those people would have been Al Quaeda trained terrorists in Firefighter’s uniforms. Not Americans. They would own the whole floor on which they were operating and could string det cord wherever they wanted and wouldn’t be concerned about dying in the process, any more than the highjackers.
I also said I didn’t see the NIST report as necessarily wrong with respect to the two towers… but with respect to the third one it is bizarre.
I don’t think you read what I said very carefully… did you.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Read back and yes you did not say what I implied. I withdraw and aplogise (slaps hand and looks mournful).
I hear what you are saying about foreigners but heck there were at least 3 floors blown up according to the report.
And nobody knew? Not the managers who leased the floors? Not the real fireman who would certainly notice a bogus fireman not working in conjunction with them to evacuate the building and not answerable to the fire department control and command centre.
Still to big to be hidden.
Anti-matter bomb? As likely as a Dan Brown novel, last used in a plot to blow up the Vatican.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmmm… I think you mistake the conditions in those towers and the security arrangements for something effective
A. The Uniforms would have been sufficient ID once the situation started. The folks at the security desk would have waved them in and knowing ahead of time what was to happen and roughly when, they would have been the first to go in. So they’d be ahead of the real firemen and probably the best physically trained of the terrorists. Best able to get to the target floors first.
B. Arriving on a target floor they could yell at everyone to evacuate. They are firemen, there’s a known emergency, the office floor would be emptied, immediately and no floor manager wouldn’t have stayed behind. Anyone who refused to leave could have been shot but I would bet that those floors would simply be emptied.
C. Once the doors to the floor were closed and marked as cleared the doors to that floor could have been jammed shut and marked cleared on the doors. Not THAT hard to do. Once the floor is theirs they can do whatever they like without interference. Anyone breaking in the door anyway could have easily have been shot.
Who is there to question them? As far as other firemen are concerned they have disappeared from the face of the earth. They are behind doors in the building that are blocked. If that floor is marked clear on the fire doors in some way, they’re going to ignore it. I did the WTC tour myself a year or two before the event and I know how New Yorkers and the security staff would have been reacting.
There’s no realistic limit to the numbers beyond the financial resources for AlQuaeda to rent safe-houses and get trucks to make up as emergency vehicles for transport. The lower floor elevators would probably still have been operable for them and security would have HELPED them override the locks… even to lock the empty floors out of elevator access.
Just think about it. If the plane hijacking failed nobody goes anywhere and a backup plan is used or the whole thing called off but as soon as even a single plane hits a building they can go through security based on a costume and once inside they can send everyone else OUT without any argument… and they have hours to make it all work.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nor was the US keen to admit that there were a lot of terrorists involved. Whether THAT affected the NIST report, I can’t say for sure.
I am pretty clear about the ways the towers could have collapsed without any additional help… I have suspicions but no particular Engineering intuition about what I am seeing being “wrong”.
The 3rd building however, sets off most of my bullshit detectors and the NIST testimony video about that building set off the rest. That was one uncomfortable Engineer.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BJ,
All is feasable including explosive where “planted” (or the holes drilled at least) at construction time.
Feasable but probable?
Seen the implosion of the third building and while it looks like a perfect implosion, to achieve that would require a great deal of shaped charge placements on the steel structure. Not easily done on a steel framed building where multiple charges in the exact right place were needed to be placed and wired in a very short time frame. On steel that is (if in New Zealand) with fire retardent insulation. Copper covered shaped charges would only effectively work if placed directly on the steelwork. The insulation would reduce the effectiveness of the copper “knife” from the charges. Would also require the weakening (cutting) of steel members to make sure it “fell” exactly as it did.
Feasable, yes, plausable, nah.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The security on the building 7 was never as good as on the towers.
The problem here is that the building did something you and I both know is damned unlikely to happen simply on account of debris hitting it.
The degree of difficulty you are claiming is clearly and really present, but the collapse as it happened HAS to be explained… and NIST didn’t. It is possible for it to have been according to NIST. The problem I have is exactly that degree of difficulty of achieving such a symmetrical collapse by accident.
Yet assuming someone wanted to take it down, the only people who could have done it would be the ones who knew the planes were coming. Building 7 had the most time of all of them for set up, most of 8 hours. I reckon that insulation comes off easily enough with a liberal use of a sandblaster or simply firing something like a small claymore mine at it. Nobody is on the target floor but bad guys… they can do whatever the hell they want. For 8 hours.
What doesn’t fit THIS scenario is that they’d bother to do such a neat job when sloppy would make a bigger mess… Which can be argued as a symbolic gesture regarding the towers but building 7 is almost unnoticed beside them. So maybe NIST is right and it is all just a coincidence of things happening just exactly so as to make that collapse possible in just that way.
It would be interesting to look at who leased what office space there. It was a fairly open building in terms of security when I interviewed for work there but I remember little more than a bunch of people who seemed to think that the world revolved around MS and worried about parking. Not interested in real-time engineers
So it could be that a lot of stuff was pre-positioned. Lease an office on the appropriate floor and you could move all manner of hardware in there over a month or two of “renovation”. Stuff still in packing crates. Desks full of Thermite. Tons of stuff.
Look at the coordination of the preparation for the aircraft. Could someone smart enough to plan that have missed the opportunities for a ground team that their impacts would create?
It isn’t nonsense to believe that it MIGHT have been done. The NIST report isn’t nonsense either as nobody designed any of that structure to resist that sort of attack or uncontrolled fire. According to the reports, there was no firefighting being done inside building 7. At all.
The way it came down however, is astonishingly similar to controlled demolition and, I think I have made the case at least, that such demolition was possible. I don’t think the NIST story is any MORE credible than the scenario I just gave you.
Most discrepancies in the tale have simple explanations… missing gold and other claims.. but the way 7 went down (look at what they had to do with 6) is just plain weird.
Now I think we’ve spent way more than enough time worrying about it. I remain quite disinterested except in terms of technical curiousity, about how it came down. I don’t need a massive conspiracy to explain it either way. People who want to know the truth have a point about the way things were investigated… but it is pretty irrelevant now.
Lets look at the world our kids will inherit instead of trying to find demons in the past.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was much more interested in a discussion about world toilet day… what a waste of time this whole thread was!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)