I am only just starting to realise there is more to the internet than shopping, sport and newspapers (did you think I was going to say porn?? – tut tut)! Over the past month or so I have been looking at a lot of websites and blogs which catalogue hundreds of conspiracy theories, ranging from Alien invaders, to Masonically-driven world takeover schemes, to 9/11, to the assassination of JFK et al. My problem is that whilst there may be some compelling arguments tucked away in these stories, they are often submerged in a sea of hyperbole and over-exaggeration, which tend to make the average person think less of those theories.
For example, I have seen countless theories about 9/11 and how the attacks were actually carried out by the CIA or other clandestine organisations, but nothing to date has convinced me this is the case. I remain sure that the attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda in pretty much the way described and witnessed by thousands of people. I don’t think the planes had been modified or loaded with explosives and I believe that the Pentagon was hit by an airliner rather than a missile. I have no real problem with the experts’ view that the hole in the Pentagon was commensurate with the impact and I also understand that the twin towers could have collapsed, given the magnitude of the impact and the huge amounts of fuel involved. Furthermore, I think perhaps the flight that came down en-route to the Whitehouse was shot down by the USAF, but I can understand why they would do this and why they would be reluctant to admit to it. If they did shoot it down, then maybe it was the right thing to do in the circumstances, however unpalatable this may be.
However, this does not mean that I do not have one major question that still needs to be answered. What happened to Building 7?? The way that building collapsed was strange to say the least and I don’t think a proper explanation has been forthcoming. It certainly looked like a controlled demolition – the building collapsed from the bottom up (as achieved in explosive demolition) and was seemingly not damaged to a massive extent by fire prior to its collapse. Another factor is that steel framed buildings do not collapse in a fire, no matter how severe. The steel will bend and bow, but this was different. It collapsed too quickly and too soon after the fire. It does not add up, but if someone can give me an answer to this, then my mind will be 100% settled on the 9/11 conspiracies, especially if they can clear up the small point of the announcement of the collapse of Building 7 before it actually happened!!
Another favourite conspiracy theory is the JFK assassination. I thought this had been done to death years ago. I am not interested in supposed quotes by FBI insiders or supposed clandestine meetings and deals, all of which cannot be substantiated. We will also never know about the so-called “second shooter” and the “grassy knoll” theories, but I recently watched the video of the procession and shooting and was amazed that the two runners (CIA agents) were withdrawn from the sides of the car as it drove slowly along. There were handholds and steps on the rear of the car, but they were ordered into the following vehicle instead …. very strange!
I am not usually one to read political diaries, but I was recommended to one written by Chris Mullins, entitled “A View From The Foothills.”
Mr Mullins was a junior minister in the Blair administration – he was probably a little too independent to climb too high up the ministerial ladder, but I believe he was generally well thought of by colleagues and opposition alike.
His diary entry for May 1st 2002 makes very interesting reading. I reproduce the relevant paragraph here in its entirety:-
Andrew Mackinlay dropped a little bombshell at this afternoon’s meeting of the parliamentary committee. Apparently, under the Freedom of Information Act, by January 2005 MPs’ expenses will be subject to public scrutiny, retrospectively. Goodness knows what mayhem that will cause. ‘We are in a jam,’ said Robin Cook. ‘Few members have yet tumbled to the juggernaut heading their way.’ He said he had been advised that we could probably get away with publishing headline figures and it would be desirable to start publishing a year before the deadline so that any fuss would have died down come the general election. It was agreed not to minute the discussion.
What an eye-opener that was! MPs knew that the storm was coming and even managed to delay it by a few years, but interestingly enough the fear of being exposed didn’t stop them claiming – most kepts their snouts in the trough for as long as they could!
I am not a writer, not an activist, not a radical and not an extremist. I find life interesting and often confusing. This is my first attempt at blogging and I have a sneaking suspicion that nobody will be even remotely interested in what I write ….. that would be a real shame. I don’t need to be agreed with (or disagreed with), but I would hate to be ignored
It is currently illegal to smoke in a place of work and to do so will render you (and the owner/operator of the premises) liable to a hefty fine. This also applies to people who smoke in company vehicles. In Wales, the WAGs (Welsh Assembly Government) are considering a new law banning any person from smoking in any vehicle at any time, if there is a child in that vehicle. That law will obviously leach into UK-wide legislation in time and will lead to an eventual ban on all smoking in vehicles.
I think it is important that we protect the health of young people as best we can, but only within the basic tenets associated with a free society. The introduction of such draconian legislation is, in my opinion, a clear sign that our politicians have lost the plot when it comes to running the country. This sledgehammer approach to legislation does nothing except undermine the confidence people have in our law makers. Education is far and away a better way to achieve results than legislation, but education is expensive and requires effort, whereas blanket legislation is simple and seems to fall within the mental capabilities of our politicians.
The law banning smoking in pubs would be a joke if it hadn’t had such a devastating effect on the public house industry. Surely it was not beyond the wit of the legislators to leave a degree of choice for the consumer? At no time was any non-smoker forced to visit a pub that allowed smoking – in fact, my (admittedly small) experience of ‘non-smoking’ pubs that existed before the ban came into effect seems to suggest that, in the main, they were unviable. Had the law continued to allow smoking, but only if air circulation/cleaning equipment was installed to a reasonable European Standard, then the pubs would have a choice and so would the consumer. Instead, we have the ridiculous example of the former MP for Cardiff, Julie Morgan, actively campaigning for the smoking ban and then supporting the refusal of a planning application from a local pub for the erection of an outside smokers’ shelter. Anything for a few more votes, eh?
I should point out that I am a non-smoker who dislikes the smell of people when they return from their ‘fag break’. I also dislike the smell of sweat and cheap perfume that seems to have replaced the smell of smoke in a busy pub.
notthinkingaloud 