No Tears For This Guy, Either

There's no question that police acted unacceptably in the wake of the G20 riots in Toronto.

The weak response to the initial riot was followed by a strong-arm response that was in no way, shape or form acceptable. Moreover, provoking that response was the actual goal of the Black Bloc rioters themselves. In effect, police simply gave the rioters what they wanted: a reason for the public to distrust the police.

That being said, some self-lionizing crusaders have also taken the controversy as an opportunity to take their attention-seeking behaviour to a whole new level.

Take, for example, Toronto's Derek Soberal. In a video being passed around the Canadian blogosphere, Soberal is trying to pass himself off as a victim of police brutality -- but there's reason to doubt his story.

The video begins with Soberal being confronted by police during the G20 Summit, demanding to see his ID. The video does not show any event precipitating the demand. Soberal showboats while he refuses to produce identification for police.

Not wanting to be arbitarily singled out by police is one thing. But Soberal's showboating becomes thematic as the video continues, as he recounts a story about randomly approaching a police car. He announces to the officer inside that he's been appearing on television and radio, then asks him a question about police activities during the G20 Summit.

He then insists that the police officer in question assaults him while arbitrarily demanding to see his ID. He offers security camera footage as evidence of this. But there's a problem. At approximately the 5:23 mark of the video, the security camera footage that will allegedly show him being assaulted skips. The security footage has clearly been edited at the exact time of the alleged assault.

Why?

It's a question the creator of the video doesn't seem to want asked, let alone do they want to answer:

At first Soberal insists he was "pushed" by the officer in question. He later insists that he was "hit". His story is changing.

He shows himself making a show of the incident to anyone who will listen, including bystanders on the street.

All the video actually demonstrates is that Soberal ran from the police. It doesn't demonstrate that Soberal was assaulted in any way, shape or form. The security evidence is doctored to eliminate any evidence one way or the other, so all the viewer has is Soberal's word.

There's a simple word for what Soberal is doing in the video: it's called shit disturbing. He seems to go to some rather spectacular lengths, including running from the police, in order to accomplish this end.

It seems fair to ask why the security camera footage has been edited. It seems fair to ask if the creators of this video are hiding something, and it seems puzzling until one looks a little deeper into the creators of the video -- in particular Press For Truth, and Infowars, both groups involved in the 9/11 "truth" movement.

As anyone whose paid any passing amount of attention to the 9/11 "truth" movements comical "Building 7" claims knows, the primary tactics of these groups is to present the illusion of evidence. In the case of World Trade Centre Building 7, they use dark, blurry and grainy YouTube videos to attempt to refute the eyewitness testimony of Firefighters, Police and EMTs who were on the scene.

They claim that Building 7 was a controlled demolition, and that the damage to the building was not catastrophic. Firefighters, Police and EMTs who were on the scene testify to the existence of a massive hole in the building, directly below a penthouse on the building which eyewitness accounts hold to have fallen first.

The illusion of evidence seems to be at play with the Soberal video as well. Soberal says he has video evidence of the alleged assault. The video doesn't seem to ever actually provide it.

In order to shed tears for Derek Soberal, one would have to assume -- simply assume -- that he's telling the truth, even despite him changing his story. It would be easier to believe him if he weren't being demonstrably evasive; but evasive he's been.

Worth Repeating: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Not Necessarily Batshit Crazy

Calculating Iranian President more dangerous than a crazy one

When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad drove the US delegation out of the UN General Assembly by alluding to 9/11 "truth" theories during a speech, the general media narrative was that he's batshit crazy.

This isn't without good cause. A quick perusal of 9/11 "truth" theories quickly reveals those who believe such theories to be demonstrably nuts -- Scott Stockdale's objections and all.

But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have seized upon a key strategic interest with his comments: keeping the international community divided.

As the University of Alberta Gateway's Ryan Bromsgrove points out, Ahmadinejad has managed to solidify his position at the head of an anti-Western, anti-capitalist global bloc (regardless of how genuine he could possibly as such, considering that he leads a mass oil-exporting country).

"The focus of the media has been on his suggestions about 9/11, and how the US delegation walked out on his speech. Relatively few news stories say much about what else he said -- he opened his diatribe with a religious criticism of capitalism, then moved on to the international response to 9/11. He described three potential viewpoints on the attacks -- that they were carried out by a terrorist organization, that they were the work of the American government, or that they were co-ordinated by a terrorist organization with the support of the US government -- and what groups he thinks holds each one. Critically, however, he didn’t reveal which he himself ascribed to. He then went on to remark that the wars spawned by 9/11 killed thousands more people. This was followed by a reasonable plea for nuclear disarmament and nuclear energy, and ending with a lengthy religion-infused call for peace, justice, love, and the end of capitalism."

Moreover, how "reasonable" a plea for nuclear disarmament from the leader of a country that is currently in the process of arming itself with nuclear weapons is also extremely questionable.

But aside form this detail, Bromsgrove seems to have seized upon a successful gambit to make himself look reasonable, and his global adversaries seem unreasonable:

"Regardless of what Iran’s actual motives may be when it comes to nuclear weapons, power, and world peace, what is key is that much of the speech had the appearance of being reasonable. But by provoking western countries to walk out with two minutes of conspiracy nonsense, Ahmadinejad cunningly allowed himself to appeal to his own country, allies, and those sitting on the fence, while also being able to claim that despite making some very reasonable calls for peace and nuclear disarmament, the West wouldn’t listen to him. Sure, the western media will predictably demonize him, but he has nothing to lose there. Where it counts for him, he’ll likely strengthen his own support -- indeed, Iranian MPs released a statement giving their full support to Ahmadinejad’s speech before the UN General Assembly -- while making it look like it’s the US who are unwilling to negotiate"

Of course we know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't interested in world peace by any means. He's more interested in keeping power in Iran, and he seems to know that repeatedly stirring up hostility against Iran will keep him entrenched among nationalistic elements within Iran, while continually feeding hostility against Israel will give Iranian nationalists something else to look at.

Underscoring Ryan Bomsgrove's article is a sobering reminder: while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may want the western world to believe him to be crazy, a calculating Ahmadinejad is much more effective -- and dangerous -- than he would be if he were merely crazy.

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Iran?

US declines to show at UN for Harper speech, shows up for Ahmadinjad 9/11 fibs

If any evidence were needed to demonstrate precisely how warped US President Barack Obama's priorities really are, it was found today at the United Nations.

With three countries -- Canada, Germany, and Portugal -- vying for a rotating seat on the UN Security Council, one would imagine that someone with a direct stake in whomever occupies that seat would take enough interest to listen to the speeches delivered by each country before the General Assembly.

As a permanent member of the Security council, the United States had such a stake. But where was President Obama while Prime Minister Stephen Harper was delivering his speech?

At lunch, with much of the rest of the General Assembly.

Obama would return for, of all things, a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmaedinejad took his moment in the sun before the US President to peddle 9/11 "truth" theories, which prompted much of the General Assembly to walk out.

“Some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy, and its grips on the Middle East, in order to save the Zionist regime,” Ahmadinejad announced.

At which point the US delegation walked out.

One delegation that didn't walk out was the Canadian delegation. Canada had the decency to boycott Ahmadinejad's speech.

If anything underscores the warped priorities of Obama's diplomatic agenda, it's unquestionably this.

The US delegation fails to show up to hear Harper's speech, and instead takes a lunch break that they should have scheduled while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was at the podium spewing his 9/11 "truth" conspiracy theories.

With friends like Barack Obama, who needs Iran?

Oh Please, God, Let This Happen

Charlie Sheen challenges non-9/11 "truth"ers to a debate

Yesterday, on the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Charlie Sheen decided he has a bone to pick with media commentators.

Sheen, a central figure in the 9/11 "truth" movement, has come out of the woodwork to challenge Meghan McCain, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to a public debate about 9/11. He wants that debate to take place on Larry King live.

The general intellectual abortion that is the 9/11 "truth" movement aside, this is a proposal that should be slid into the "be careful what you ask for because you just might get it" file.

Charlie Sheen -- forever parroting Alex Jones-flavoured stupidity -- is probably one of the few people who could be subjected to Bill O'Reilly's famous "O'Reilly treatment" and not elicit so much as an ounce of public sympathy.

Discussing Sheen's challenge on The View, Meghan McCain noted that Sheen's challenge may simply be wrought from Sheen's bitterness over having some of the skeletons in his own closet poked at.

"I quoted Charlie Sheen yesterday about his experience with prostitutes, so really you're the one I should be listening to about 9/11?" McCain asked. "I am not going to take my political advice from Charlie Sheen."

"McCain's sophomoric reliance on attacking Sheen on the foundation of decades old events in his personal life, while failing to address even one of the 20 pieces of evidence raised in his letter to Obama, is typical of the media response to Sheen's challenge thus far," Sheen complained via a press release.

The problem for Sheen and company is that their theories have been addressed and demolished -- at length. Yet they never learn.

They continually base their theories on grainy, shadowy and distant videos taken of the event -- consider the general stupidity that swirls around the Building Seven collapse -- that contradict the testimony of eye witnesses at the scene.

Yet Sheen, Jones and their fellow 9/11 "truth"ers continually fling themselves into the flames, much like lemmings following each other over a cliff.

"Let's do it," Sheen said on the Alex Jones show. "I issue the challenge to debate Meghan McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Sen Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, bring them all, Bob Mcilvaine and I will join you on Larry King Live and you guys bring whatever you've got ...and we'll show up with the truth and we'll just see how it goes - we're not hiding."

Frankly, it would be hard to hide stupidity of Charlie Sheen's magnitude.

Hopefully, Larry King, Meghan McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity accept Sheen's challenge. It would make for very satisfying theatre for those fed up with the delusions of 9/11 "truth".

The Politics of Loud Mouthery

The 9/11 "truth" movement has been known to be the refuge of aggressive and obnoxious conspiracy theorists, often searching for any opportunity to push their agenda on anyone at any time.

Their credo seems to be twofold, but rather simple: if someone says something about 9/11, the goal of the 9/11 "truth" movement is to make them regret it. If someone doesn't say something about 9/11, the goal of the 9/11 "truth" movement is to make them regret that, too.

No forum is considered off-limits to the Alex Jones-edifying loons of the 9/11 "truth" movement, and its members are almost always looking for any particular opportunity to strike.

One 9/11 "truth" nut in particular seemed to think he had found an opportunity on the Edmonton LRT yesterday. The opening he thought he'd seen?

I was reading a copy of Vast Left Wing Conspiracy by Byron York.

"Why is it that it's always the left wing that has the conspiracy," he asked, "when it was the right wing that conspired to destroy the World Trade Center, and fake the evidence so they could blame terrorists and go into Afghanistan?"

To which I could only tell him that he's an idiot, and that the US government didn't plan 9/11.

"It's physically impossible for a building like that to collapse in on itself without a planned demolition," the nut attempted to explain.

"Then I guess it's a good thing they didn't," I replied.

"There's 1.6 trillion reasons why they did," he insisted.

To which I could really only offer a dismissive "...ooooookay..."

Interestingly enough, I wasn't even reading this book out of the belief that there is any kind of a left-wing conspiracy. Rather, I was reading it for a chapter on viral politics.

The title was actually an adverse take on Hillary Clinton's speculation that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" had aligned against her husband during the clearly politically-motivated Republican effort to impeach him over the Monica Lewinski scandal.

Overall, the book is about the politically-motivated (duh) attempts to defeat George W Bush in the 2004 Presidential election, and the way many 527 groups (called such because of the tax code that allows them to collect unlimited donations) broke the law in order to contribute to the Democrat campaign (they're forbidden from acting on behalf of any particular political candidate).

Did this particular nut have any idea about that before he jumped on it as an opportunity to spread his 9/11 "truth" nonsense? Probably not. While one cannot pretend that the book's title isn't provacative -- no question it is -- this is clearly an individual who was waiting for what he thought was the perfect opportunity to spread his conspiracy theories.

Not much unlike the individual who was "generous" enough to donate a 9/11 "truth" book to a Raise a Reader event I staffed this past weekend. (I exercised my prerogative to dispose of that particular book appropriately.)

It's impossible to feign patience with the 9/11 "truth" movement. Not when virtually none of their arguments stand up to scrutiny.

It all comes down to minor details -- such as the fact that if the World Trade Center was really a planned demolition, as this particular kook insisted, it was the most poorly-executed planned demolition in history, as the building didn't fall in its own footprint, as planned demolitions are designed to do.

Rather, the debris field extended more than 500 feet in all directions, but not equally in all directions.

Even the "facts" regarding WBC Building 7 they attempt to pass off as evidence of the WTC having been a planned demolition turn out to contradict the accounts of the structural damage taken from firefighters at the scene, and are often based on comically poor-quality video taken of the building's collapse.

Even their claims that the World Trade Center was designed to withdstan the impact of an aircracft are based on smaller and lighter aircraft carrying smaller fuel loads than the planes crashed into the building that day. And conveniently ignoring the fact that, when designing buildings as tall as the World Trade Center, one cannot test the buildings for airplane crash scenarios in the real world, for reasons that are clearly obvious.

Not to mention the entirely contradictory nature of the majority of 9/11 conspiracy theories, ranging from theories that the building owner planned the attacks to collect on the property insurance on the buildings, to theories that the Juice did it (theories to which Alex Jones reacts rather viscerally).

This is, of course, the trouble in dealing with people who consistently cannot be taken seriously. The fact that no one takes them seriously only prods them to become more aggressive and obnoxious with their message. When speaking counter-factually to a room with 10 people in it becomes tiresome they take to the streets and accost anyone who they think offers them an excuse -- such as an individual minding his own business on the train.

But they may be in for a taste of their own medicine. They have a convention in Edmonton coming up, and someone just may be there asking them some uncomfortable questions.

Questions like "how many hijacked airliners have ever been shot down over US territory?" (Answer: zero.)

Questions like "how many real-world examples are there of a Boeing 747 being flown into a 110-story building in order to test its ability to withstand the crash?" (Answer: zero.)

Questions like "how many eyewitness accounts match the accounts of Building 7's collapse that 'experts' have made based on asessment of poor-quality video?" (Answer: zero.)

After all, what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander. If the 9/11 "truth" movement can indulge itself in the politics of loud mouthery, so can anyone else.

Let's Define "Slavery", If We May...

On November 19, American alternative historian Howard Zinn gave a speech at the Univeristy of Quebec in Montreal.

While Montreal's 9/11 Truth organization took the opportunity to vent their outrage at Zinn for refusing to join their movement, Zinn also made some interesting remarks about Iraq war resisters. In a question-and-answer period, Zinn was asked a question about how Canadians can force the government to start sheltering Iraq war resisters.

It's widely known that Howard Zinn is an advocate of nonviolent civil disobedience, a tactic that he and many of his students used to protest the Vietnam war. There's little surprise that Zinn's answer invoked civil disobedience, but Zinn's remarks on the historical context of the matter simply defy credulity:

"It's going to take a lot of civil disobedience. It'll be like what Americans did in the 1850s when Congress passed the Fugitive Slave act requiring that slaves be sent back to their masters.

What happened is that we had citizens organize to rescue these slaves. To refuse to allow the authorities to take them back.

So you will have these organized citizens actions to protect and defend and give sanctuary to GIs who come here. That would mean violating the law. That would mean organization and mass action. Even if it fails, and even if the police come in and don't allow the rescue to take place, it will bring dramatic attention to the situation that may then arouse enough Canadian citizens to join the movement for the defense and sanctuary, and force a change in policy."

Of course, the reaction to the Fugitive Slave Act is a great example of citizens banding together to oppose an unjust law.

But the comparison between the two leads one to wonder if Zinn understands what slavery was, or if he spent any amount of time considering such issues before answering this question.

The key distinction between slavery and Iraq war resisters is actually the same as the stark distinction between Vietnam war resisters and Iraq war resisters.

Slavery is not a voluntary condition. It involves forcibly putting people into bondage in support of causes for which they will be disproportionately reimbursed for the value of their labour. In the modern context, slaves are generally considered to be property -- although in Greek (particularly Athenian) antiquity, slaves were actually regarded as indentured (and, once again, involuntary) employees).

A conscripted soldier, such as was the case during the Vietnam conflict, could certainly be successfully argued to fit this particular definition.

But Iraq war resisters -- universally members of a volunteer military -- simply cannot. They volunteered to join the military. In some cases, such as that of Brad McCall, they enlisted after the Iraq war began.

In some cases, that of Corey Glass, the soldiers in question weren't facing Court Martials at all.

Glass almost seemed disappointed. "I had absolutely no idea that I had been discharged," Glass told American network ABC. "This is insane. This is so weird. There are no warrants? No one is looking for me?"

In fact, Glass had actually been discharged from the US Army before he even arrived in Canada. He insists he didn't know this.

Iraq war resisters hiding in Canada are far from slaves. No matter what delusions they entertain, those seeking to ensure the Canadian state shelters them are far from a modern incarnation of the underground railroad.

Howard Zinn is widely known as a man of intense social conscience. But that social conscience may have gotten the better of him this time around, as his allusions between Iraq war resisters and slavery prove to be, ultimately, vacuous.

As for the 9/11 "truth" movement, Zinn can be forgiven for his lack of patience. It's simply not worthwhile to continue dealing with people too stupid to admit that their consipracy theories have been thoroughly and constantly rubished.

Luckily, He Didn't Say "Jewish Bankers"

Anti-Israel Green candidate will stay on ballot

In the immediate aftermath of Green party leader Elizabeth May's decision to allow the candidacy of Qais Ghanem to stand, one question remains on the mind of those observing the Green party during this 2008 federal election:

Why, exactly, was John Shavluk's nomination scrubbed?

We've heard the official explanation: Shavluk's apparently anti-semitic remarks were "not consistent with Green party philosophy".

Meanwhile, Ghanem -- a physicist and immigrant from Yemen -- who along with Sylvie Lemieux, Paul Maillet and Akbar Manoussi (collectively, they are known as the "Ottawa group of four"), to sponsor a resolution entitled simply "Palestine". The resolution "calls upon Israel to end its forty-year occupation of all Arab lands without preconditions."

Ghanem has caught flack within the Green party for using a Green party message board to post messages that were "one-sidedly anti-Israel".

For his own part, Ghanem insists that I do not have to record the opposite point of view to every quotation I dig up, for the sake of so-called 'balance,'. The Israeli point of view is voiced non-stop by the North American media which is controlled by a small oligarchy."

Of course, it would be hard to pretend that when Ghanem refers to a "small oligarchy", he isn't referring to media owners such as the Asper family, who own and control Canwest Global.

So long as he doesn't refer to "a small Jewish oligarchy", it would seem, he's treading on safe territory.

Apparently, Ghanem can counter-factually claim that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to be inspected despite the fact that Iran has barred nuclear inspectors from its facilities.

So long as Ghanem restrains himself from posting bizarre references to Jewish bankers online, it seems, he's safe, even if such sentiments in his comments seem only thinly veiled.

There is, of course, one other element in play: Ghanem didn't mention 9/11 in the course of his comments.

Of course, he has voiced some rather remarkable views regarding 9/11 on his campaign website:

"2001-Sept-11 The Big Event!

Hijackers were Saudis with box cutters, NONE were Afghans or Iraqis.
2001-Sept-12: (ONE day later) Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz declared that Iraq should be attacked!

Here is a list of questions that need answers:
Why was the FBI investigation of hijackers shut down?
Why were military response stand down orders issued?
Why were distracting war games set up on 9/11 of all days?
Why did building 7, not attacked at all, collapse like controlled demolition?"

This is in the course of a post entitled "What are we doing in Afghanistan?"

(Interestingly, he can't quite seem to come to grips with the Taliban's harbouring of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan.)

Meanwhile, Kevin Potvin wrote an editorial wherein he cheered Bin Laden's escape ("Go Osama go!"), and encouraged Vancouver-area 9/11 "truth"ers to meet with him to discuss the matter. His nomination was rejected.

John Shavluk posted a comment implicating the Americans in a terrorist attack on their own soil upon "[their] shoddily built world bank headquarters", and his nomination was turfed as well.

Meanwhile, Qais Ghanem writes a blog post endorsing the 9/11 "truth" movement and advances resolutions that deny Israel's right to exist, and somehow he's still "within [Green] party policy."

While there's clearly a strong 9/11 "truth" movement within the Green party, it may seem that Elizabeth May really isn't trying to excise that particular demon at all.

From any mainstream party, this would be shocking. Fortunately, this is the Green party we're talking about here. One thing about being a fringe party is that eventually you have to embrace fringe politics, in one way or another.

What is It With the Green Party and 9/11?

Greens pull candidate over controversial remarks

Less than a week before the seventh anniversary of 9/11, the Green party has pulled yet another candidate over some remarks made on the subject.

On Thursday, the party rejected the candidacy of John Shavluk, the party's nominated candidate for Newton-North Delta. At the heart of the issue lie comments made on Enmasse.ca in the course of a post about drug laws, police, the Iraq war, and (that troublesome old topic) 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Courtesy of blogger Robert Jago, the post in question reads as follows:

"… you cops are on borrowed time as far as being the enforcers of bad laws and being used as society’s GOONS.
YOU soon will be seen as relevant again and as important as you used to be ,a pillar of the community. i realize how hard it would be to enforce stupid laws and i know i could not have thrown Rosa Parks from the bus. must be a redneck gene somewhere.

if we want to talk about laws,,why don’t you care that your country started an illegal war in Iraq,,arrest some one you law racists!!!!
everyone knows but you guys whats going to happen and its way over due
hey i heard some guy in Australia knows someone who says he had something to do with your governments complicate attack on your shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters. you know “the 2 towers” (who has the ring i wonder)better invade there too eh,,oh no oil?"

Apparently, John Shavluk isn't quite the kind of person any self-respecting political party (even the Green party) would want representing them. Go figure.

Of course, we've seen this kind of controversy with the Green party before. In fact, we've seen it within the last 18 months.

The Shavluk affair, as it will quickly come to be known in Green party circles, has quickly come to mirror the Kevin Potvin affair (as it has come to be known in Green party circles).

First off, you have a candidate oddly overconfident despite running for a fringe party with barely 5% popular support in the country. Secondly, controversial topics regarding 9/11 (although, for the record, Shavluk was removed due to the seeming anti-semitic nature of some of his remarks). Finally, both individuals seem to be completely unable to be honest -- even with themselves -- on the topic.

Kevin Potvin insisted that his words had somehow been misrepresented, and that he was being slandered by the mainstream media who found The Republic of East Vancouver threatening.

For his own part, Shavluk insists it's an insidious conspiracy against his particular political goals, insisting that the rejection of his nomination is merely intended to undermine his efforts to legalize marijuana. Shavluk reportedly had worked to bring members of the Marijuana party and like-minded members of the NDP over to the Green party.

Both candidates insist that the Green party will somehow be lost without them. Kevin Potvin imagined himself they would be denying themselves their first MP (although the recent defection of former Liberal Blair Wilson should have dispelled that particular fantasy). Shavluk insists "the Green Party are pretty much cutting their legs out beneath them".

Surely, they'll rue the day. And John Shavluk should totally hold his breath while he waits for that to happen.

As for Kevin Potvin, he's made his own views regarding 9/11 crystal clear. Not only was there his "Revolting Confession", but also once participated in a YouTube video in which another individual encouraged people to vote for Potvin based on his views on 9/11 (the video has since been marked as "private" by its creator).

Now, with John Shavluk's candidacy evaporating over some nutty 9/11-related comments, one has to wonder: does the Green party have an official policy regarding the 9/11 "truth" movement?

If not, does it need one? Apparently, it just might.

This Weekend in Farce: Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference

"Truth" likely to be in short supply at 9/11 conference

Somewhere in East Vancouver, Kevin Potvin is surely knee-deep in his own glee.

Starting yesterday, and continuing until tomorrow, the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Society is hosting a 9/11 Truth Conference.

Dr. Steven Jones -- pushing the envelope of credulity

Among the speakers at the conference is Doctor Steven Jones, a retired professor from Brigham Young University (an institution owned by the Church of Jesus Christ for Latter-Day Saints -- also known as the Mormons), who will claim that the official 9/11 report cannot explain that collapse of the World Trade Center. Dr Jones, whose specialties include "metal-catalyzed fuision, archaeometry and solar energy", claims the only way to explain how a pair of 110-story skyscrapers could collapse as they did is that they were demolished by pre-set explosive charges, as used by demolitions experts.

According to Dr Jones, the 650 degree celsius temperature generated by the fires from burning jet fuel from the two airliners would have not been enough to melt the steel girders of the two buildings. He also argues that, historically, when such buildings have collapsed (most often as a result of earthquakes) they have always toppled over sideways.

Dr. Jones even claims he can identify microexplosions, where thermite demolition devices are being detonated sequentially as the building collapses.

However, Dr. Jones' "peer-reviewed work" quickly falls into credibility pitfalls. For example, his work is consistently touted as peer-reviewed -- but it was never peer-reviewed by a civil engineer. He is noted to have no experience in building collapse forensics. Even his own university rejected his paper. Dr. Woodruff Miller, BYU's chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering said, "the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Dr. Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims."

Dr. Jones' "peer-reviewed work" was not even peer reviewed by the engineers at his own university. Perhaps there's some sort of "consipracy" at work here, too.

Dr. Jones' claims rely on skepticism regarding the alleged "pancake effect" where the floors fall neatly into each other at freefall speed, as in a professional demolition. For evidence of this, he relies on video footage. Yet, when the video footage is more closely examined, it becomes ovbious that this "pancake effect" never truly occurred. Much of the debris fell faster than the debris cloud, which fell faster still than the building itself. Dr. Jones' primary argument holds no credibility.

Not only are Dr. Jones claims refuted by examining the video footage which he, himself, uses to try to refute the official story, but they are also refuted by virtually every legitimately peer-reviewed study on the subject.

Even then, Dr. Jones' claims suffer from one fatal flaw: demolitions charges need to be set up before they can be used to demolish a building. Yet, no one working in the World Trade Center reported seeing anyone setting up such charges. Not one.

So much for Dr. Jones.

Robin Hordon and the politics of the 9/11 truth movement

Another speaker at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference, Robin Hordon, describes himself as a commendated air traffic controller, certified air, ground and facility instructor and designer of the Boston Center Descent and Metering Program. He has worked on numerous in-air emergencies, and two hijackings.

Hordon insists that he knew 9/11 was a "false flag" operation (an attack carried out under the guise of another country or group) hours after. He insists that "there is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen."

Despite the fact that no hijacked plane in the history of the United States has ever been shot down, Hordon does begin to make a persuasive case. He notes that a sophisticated system was in place, prior to June of 2001, that would enable fighter jets to intercept any suspicious airliner within 10-15 minutes of a potential problem.

Yet Hordon's claims over look two very serious issues: firstly, a number of war game exercises were being conducted on September 11, 2001, diverting figher jets that otherwise would have been available to intercept the jetliners. Secondly, the FAA was not dealing with one hijacking on 9/11. They were dealing with four largely simultaneous hijackings.

Hordon is actually much more revealling as to his true motivations for his claims when he begins to discuss his political views. "I see September 11th as being a symptom of a far bigger problem. A problem that Dwight David Eisenhower had brought to our attention as he left office in the 1950s when he he warned [the United States] about two significant elements of our economy looming above us: the Military Industrial Complex and the Military Industrial Congress. 9/11 served the goals of both those elements."

"That I can show how Rumsfeld's Military reshaped interceptor protocols so that 9/11 could happen without the airliners being shot from the sky, is but a small bit of evidence that is flooding past the Bush regime," Hordon insists.

Yet, Hordon is exaggerating the Pentagon's eagerness to shoot down hijacked airliners, particularly when full of civilians. Despite the 75-150 high-speed scrambles he notes were performed by military aircraft each year in the United States for ten years, not a single plane was ever shot down. Surely, at least one of these 1,500 scrambles would have been related to a plane off course for at least 30-60 minutes.

Finally, there is the matter of shooting down civilian airliners over populated areas, such as New York City. When examined on merely the basis of the procedures in place to deal with hijacked aircraft, Hordon's claims are very persuasive. When compared to the actual situation on 9/11, they don't hold water.

Furthermore, it isn't as if events such as those surrounding Hurricane Katrina don't demonstrate that the proper procedures can fail when human error causes them to be disregarded.

Like any good 9/11 conspiracy theorist, however, Hordon doesn't seem to let facts or even proper analysis get in the way of politics. While shooting down flights 11 and 175 could have prevented the World Trade Center disaster, it still would have resulted in thousands of casualties. The decision to shoot down the planes would have also had to have been made at a time when the applicable authorities couldn't have known the true goal of the hijackers.

Certainly, there is a degree of negligence in the FAA's handling of 9/11. But negligence doesn't demonstrate complicity, and certainly not in the conspiracy that Hordon and his cohorts allege.

In short, Hordon has traded his air traffic controller's hat for that of a base conspiracy theorist, and surrendered his credibility for activist cred. It isn't as good a fit as he'd like to think.

Rowland Morgan - Contradicting the conspiracy

Among one of the most amusing claims about 9/11 is made by British author Rowland Morgan, who will be speaking at the conference as well. Morgan actually claims that a drone Boeing 747, painted with American Airlines colours, was flown into the Pentagon.

This is an especially amusing claim considering that it contradicts one of the most popular 9/11 conspiracy theories, one that insists a missile, not a jetliner, hit the Pentagon.

He, along with his co-author Ian Henshall (who together wrote 9/11 Revealled) make this claim despite the positive identification of all 64 passengers & crew of the downed aircraft.

Rowland will also speak to his claims that United Airlines flight 93 (crashed in Pennsylvania) was actually shot down, as opposed to being accidentally crashed in the process of re-taking the plane from the hijackers. This, despite the number of family members of UA 93 victims who reported that their loved ones had told them of their intention to re-take the plane, and the lack of any confirmation of orders to shoot down the plane.

Remember also that one of Robin Hordon's complaints is the lack of any such order (an absense he feels lends credence to conspiracy theories).

This demonstrates the greatest weakness shared by the entire "9/11 truth movement" -- a myriad of competing, contradictory, and usually far-fetched claims about an event that unfortunately lends itself to shameless sensationalism.


The conference will also feature a collection of social and political commentators, whose area of expertise is related to the consequences of 9/11. This is a much fairer point. There is a litany of concerns shared by citizens of many countries the world over, ranging from US President George W Bush and his War on Terror to the errosion of civil liberties in many countries around the world -- particularly western democracies that are under threat of further attack.

Consider also that an order to shoot down a hijacked airliner is much more likely to be issued today, in the post-9/11 era, than six years ago.

These speakers, such as Ken Fernandez and Connie Fogal, have much more solid ground to stand on. At least they don't need to resort to trying to contradict facts, hide contradictory evidence, or (often) engage in often-vicious anti-semitic rhetoric or counter-factual arguments in order to make their case.

There is a great deal of room to debate the consequences of 9/11. The actual events? Not so much.

The fact is that all too many 9/11 consipracy theorists make it immediately apparent that they don't exactly represent the best and brightest our civilization has to offer. Take, for example, Youtube denizen Dadabase 2006, who posted a video in which he makes the suggestion that people should vote for the embattled Potvin based on his beliefs regarding 9/11 -- essentially turning a Canadian federal election into a referendum on 9/11.

"Dadabase", as well as his bestest-buddy Kevin Potvin, will most certainly be sitting front-and-center throughout this (mostly) perverse conference in Vancouver.

Fortunately, the public at large is more than able to identify these individuals for what they are: politically deranged kooks, looking to distort one of history's greatest tragedies into fodder for their own extreme political views.

In that sense, they really aren't that much different from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his guests at the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. Whomever may actually show up to attend their conference, one thing is certain: their minds are made up, and any conclusions drawn from the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference will reflect their predecided conclusions.

An Inconvenient Truth of Kevin Potvin, Elizabeth May

"Benefit of doubt" for 9/11 celebrator

Kevin Potvin, the Green Party’s recently acclaimed candidate for Vancouver-Kingsway, has attracted controversy recently, via an article, ”A Revolting Confession”. Within the article, Potvin refers to an internal attitude he discovered within himself that found the 9/11 attacks “beautiful”, insisting this was a response that many people shared. “Nor was I alone, I know for a fact,” he insists, “whenever I passed a TV or newspaper with a report on the ensuing US war to capture Osama bin Laden, and I secretly said to myself, "Go, Osama, Go!" I am happy he has eluded capture by the Americans. I am in love with those Afghans who, whenever asked, said, "He went that-a-way," and their fifty hands pointed in fifty different directions.”

Potvin has weakly tried to dismiss the article as symbolic. Yet one finds it hard to find the symbolism in rooting for Osama bin Laden. A response published in The Republic, however, is much more telling.

While attempting to invoke Keats, Potvin notes that, on the afternoon of 9/11, “I went home and got out my pad of paper and made notes of everything that I could detect I was feeling. This is one of my journalistic techniques, it’s a form of shorthand. Rather than make notes of speeches at press conferences and other events, I instead pay attention and focus on the speaker, and then afterward make notes of exactly how I feel. Later, when I need to write up the story, I refer to my notes, and by being reminded of my feelings at the time, I remember everything that was said, and what’s more, I retain the meaning.”

In short, Potvin, the “journalist”, doesn’t take any notes or make any records of statements or events. He notes his emotional response, then uses that to remember what happened, or what was said. He also uses this to reconstruct the meaning.

Reconstruct is actually a very appropriate term. The science of psychology tells us that human memory is reconstructive. As such, using emotion as a recognitive tool in the place of any sort of record about what was actually said is a recipe for journalistic disaster. It’s entirely unlikely that mr. Potvin remembers anything as it was said, or as it actually happened. Whether this journalistic technique is an actual form of mental shorthand – as he insists – or if it is simply an excuse to promote his bias within his writing only mr. Potvin will really know for certain.

There are deeper issues here, however, than simply those for Potvin and his publication. There are very deep issues at play for the Green Party itself.

In a blog entry on the Green party website, Elizabeth May reveals that she chose the riding of Central Nova so she could challenge Peter MacKay on the foreign policy portfolio. “By running in Central Nova I will be taking on the Minister of Foreign Affairs, raising the clarity of vision of our international policies versus the “aye, aye, Sir” approach of Mr. Harper,” May insists.

Meanwhile, the Green party website has begun to feature more examples of foreign policy, ranging from the predictable pro-Kyoto stance to “be nice to Iran”.

More so than anything, the Kevin Potvin affair could prove to be the latest in a series of events demonstrating Elizabeth May’s unsuitability as a political leader. As with her recent kowtowing to Stephan Dion ., May risks demonstrating that she cannot ascertain the gravity of her decisions. Even while she sends a crystal-clear message to her party membership that her party will not campaign for a mandate to govern (thus accepting perpetual fringe party status), May has excused Potvin at a time when she wants to run against Peter McKay in Central Nova on the issue of foreign affairs.

A leader who undermines his or her own credibility has no real future in politics – and for obvious reasons. Potvin himself falls prey to this, but mostly through what can only be described as his own hypocrisy.

The masthead for his Republic newspaper reads, “The Republic of East Vancouver supports no party, advocates for no cause, serves no master, and considers problems with no preconceived notions”. Potvin would be able to reconcile this position against his Green Party candidacy if it weren’t for the fact that Potvin has used his publication to vigorously promote his own candidacy. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong this this, but it does break his promise of non-partisanship to his readers.

Furthermore, Potvin’s celebration of 9/11 as an attack on capitalism comes off as disingenuous coming from someone who, as a small business owner, is effectively a capitalist himself.

Furthermore (but not necessarily finally), he dismissed criticism over his comments by saying, “Don't you think the Parliament of Canada requires people that are free thinkers, independent thinkers and people that bring other points of view to the table besides those that are commonly accepted and those that are credentialed by the newspaper columnists?" In short, Potvin, himself a newspaper columnist – if one considers publications such as the Republic to be newspapers – argues that he is a maverick because his views aren’t supported by newspaper columnists. It smacks of an attempt at double-sided populism, and not a very good attempt at that.

Ironically, Preston Manning and the Reform party provided a good demonstration of how to deal with a controversial candidate, also in a Vancouver riding. When Doug Collins, a Vancouver-area radio host who had expressed racially-charged sentiments refused to distance himself from such comments, Manning himself refused to sign Collins’ candidacy. The Collins affair was still used to paint the party as racist, but one can only imagine how much worse this could have been had Collins not been dealt with appropriately.

There is another lesson that the Green party desperately needs to learn from the Reform party – that of not accepting fringe party status. The Reform party always declared its intention to eventually form the government, and as such was able to engineer a fairly meteoric rise to go from having no seats in parliament to being the Official Opposition in only nine years. Having already existed for more than 20 years in Canada, the Green party, particularly under May’s leadership, seems content to accept fringe party status.

This is not the kind of leadership this party needs.