Nanny takes educahsun seriously, aside from ensuring that all pupils achieve a 100% pass rate so that they can all go to "university" (ie so that they don't go on the unemployment register), Nanny is also teaching children about citizenship.
Her new citizenship classes are aiming to help children to get into the mind of the terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks.
Teaching packs entitled 9/11: The Main Chance, which invite pupils to imagine organising a terrorist attack, have been distributed to schools running Nanny's much vaunted citizenship classes.
One worksheet in Nanny's pack asks the pupils to imagine what terrorist targets there are in their neighbourhoods. They have then to suggest what weapons and methods should be used to ensure the most effective results.
The worksheets also contain a number of links to other terrorism-related articles, including one on food terrorism and how fast-food chains could be attacked.
Not content with attacking fast food chains?
Then why not attack our water supply? Another article is headlined "How safe is our water?"
Many of the links in the packs expound totally daft conspiracy theories, eg that the suggestion that the American military shot down flight United 93.
Nanny's chum, Tim Window a creator of 9/11: The Main Chance, said that the packs had been used with great success at a pupil referral unit he works at in East London before they were introduced across the borough of Waltham Forest.
Window claims that packs are culturally sensitive, and said that they were about teaching pupils to bring "impartial and unbiased information" to a subject.
What utter bollocks!
Nanny claims that teaching all children about British culture and traditions would allow Muslim children to integrate better into society.
It seems to me that this is will just encourage pupils to reject the society that they live in, and teach them methods of disrupting it.
Ken, you refer to "daft" conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. Well, they are not quite as daft as you think.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, can you please explain to me just exactly how the twin towers fell at close to 'freefall' speeds, defying what should be the laws of physics. If, as the official explanation states, the steel in the towers was 'weakened' by the burning jet fuel, surely they would just buckle and bend but offer some resistance to the floors collapsing from above them.
No, they must have offered pretty much 'zero resistance' to the floors falling from above, which strongly suggests demolition charges already placed in the buildings. (Ever seen a film of a large building using controlled explosives, looked very similar to the way the T/Towers came down, does it not??). And the third building wasn't even hit by a plane, Larry Silverstein collected a huge payout for his 'terrorist attack' insurance placed just weeks before 9/11, didn't he!!
And as for the weakened steel, jet fuel burns at something like 1300 degrees, steel melts at something like 2500 degrees, so how come the steel 'melted'. If steel melts with burning jet fuel, then how come the steel engines in the planes I fly in don't melt??
Sorry ken, but before you call the theory 'daft', just think about things for a moment. I'd love an explanation as to how the laws of physics were ignored that day.
I agree with Spiv. I can understand that it seems daft as you would have to accept something so unpalatable it is beyond belief but look at the science.
ReplyDeleteAlso the debris from flight 93 was found miles from the impact site
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
Clearly it was shot down and why not? They knew exactly what would happen if they didn't. I would expect any government to do the same.
I see the nutters are out in force.
ReplyDeleteI cant be bothered to take issue with all the nonsense about 9 11 conspiracy theories, its all been done before, but here is one point for you; Some steels melt at 2500 degrees, some melt at 1650, it depends on the steel. All steels used for things like girders, which are not actually meant to resist heat much, start to weaken drastically at about 800 degrees, and is basically like toffee by 1300 degrees. How do I know? I work in Petrochemical, and I need to be able to spec materials for different temperatures. Jet engine components contain quite a bit of Nickel and Titanium, in other words, they're made to resist heat.
Twats
Robert
Back on topic.
ReplyDeleteThe best terrorist target near me is the local mosque, and should my son be sent home with this shit, thats where we'll plan the attack.
Think that'll be OK?
Robert
Robert, you think I'm a "twat" to believe in all this 'conspiracy nonsense'. Clearly you 'know it all'.
ReplyDeleteSo please explain to me why three highrise buildings fell at free fall speeds that day, in contravention of the laws of physics. To help you, please refer to
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
And explain why no other steel and concrete skyscraper has ever fallen before or since through fire.
I would suggest that, before you call people "twats" that you just check out why the official American Government's explanation just cannot be true. There is a ton of information out there, it is just a matter of opening one's mind and asking very difficult questions. By the way, the steel in the buildings was certified as being safe well within the temeprature range of jet fuel burning, and the buildings were even designed to withstand aircraft crashing into them.
Twat!!!
Spiv,
ReplyDeleteI called you a twat because you are one.
Firstly, any building who's support structure has failed will collapse as quickly as gravity can drag it down; had you bothered to look at pictures of the inside of the towers, you'd have seen how they were mostly huge empty spaces, with light partitions added later. The strength of this construction depends on the intrgrity of the skin of the building. rupture that,weaken thesteelwork with fire (rememberthat!) and down it comes. Its nor physics, its engineering.
Secondly, no other building fallen through fire? News to me. I presume you likewise think that the two fully loaded and fueled jet airliners which were filmed hitting the buildings were fakes too. But hey! why expect common sense right? Everyone knows it was just a plan for Bush to take over the world.
Keep drinking the Kool Aid twat.
Robert
Robert, I said no other "steel and concrete skyscraper" has fallen because of fire. Well, maybe this is news to you. Some have burned for many many hours, yet still their structure has not fallen, despite their contents being gutted.
ReplyDeleteBut, hey, never mind, I can tell your mind is not receptive to the enormity of the questions raised, or the substantial evidence which points against the fact of this being the work of 20 arabs with their stanley knives. You prefer to just counter questions with accusations of "twats". No worries, the truth will be accepted one day, and I hope that we shall see the perpetrators brought to justice.
Ken, I had to check the date, but it is clearly not April 1. You have to wonder whether at some point the chap pushing this stuff will be arrested under Blaireys lovely new preventing terrorism bill? Or perhaps they might just shoot him!
ReplyDeleteps love the spat, but its off topic chaps!
Know it's off topic, but the worms are out of the can so they may as well wiggle their tails a bit before they get stuffed back in.
ReplyDeleteMany of the 9/11 "con" theories have Mossad lurking in them somewhere. Those who believe this are in illustrious company. Every Al Qaeda "operative" and rabidly anti-Western Islamist in the world accepts and actively endorses these views. Which is what makes some of us think twice about accommodating them.
But we're not supposed to think like this, or talk about it if we do, because Nanny has taught us to be PC.
Spiv,
ReplyDeleteI think you are as crazy as a shithouse rat, but don't take it personally, I think this of all conspiracy loons. It is my belief that you all suffer from an inability to reason in a logical manner, and as an engineer, I cannot relate to this in any way shape or form. Should you wish to discuss the matter openly, I work in Paddington and live (weekdays) in Hounslow. Pick your pub and the first round is on you.
Robert
For the record, the subject of the twin towers was covered in a series of comments on a much earlier artcile.
ReplyDeleteI remind you all again to watch "Why Did The Twin Towers Collapse" (I think that is the title).
The programme has contributions from engineers and architects who explain why the conspiracy theories are bollocks, and why if you crashed a plane into the right point of the towers coupled with the resulting firestorm and fuel burning its way through the metal they would collapse.
Ken
Well Ken & Robert, we'll just have to agree to differ in our opinions. I'm afraid that the wealth of evidence to the contrary makes the official 9/11 Commission report, and hence your own assertions, extremely suspect.
ReplyDeleteAnd still, Robert, you have not explained to me just how the towers fell at freefall speeds, collapsing with hardly any steel or concrete not pulverised. For your theory to work, none of the steel would have had any strength whatsoever, and I saw with my own eyes video showing that not all the building was alight (the firefighters were even reaching upper floors, so couldn't have been that hot!!), and certainly had not burned for hours to heat all the steel up to the temperatures you claim steel melts.
No, the towers fell just as structures do when demolished with preset demolition explosives.
And why were fighters not alerted and sent to engage the first three planes which swannied around for 1 1/2 hours over American airspace? Can't see the Russians being able to do that, can you? Many many other unanswered questions also exist, but won't go into them as this is slighty (but not completely) 'off topic'!!
i can't resist diving in, particularly in response to the second post. either 9-11 was a government-led conspiracy, or it wasn't. if it was, then why on earth would the military have to shoot down flight 93? any technological tinkering capable of making not one but two airliners crash into not one but two skyscrapers could surely have been made use of to force flight 93 into a suicidal dive. so why shoot the thing down? you then comment at the end of the post that this is what any sane government would have done, which would seem to imply that this was in fact a terrorist hijacking. if, under these circumstances (i.e. an actual hijacking) flight 93 was shot down, then, in my opinion, this is not 'an action unpapalatable beyond belief.' in fact, knowing what we now know about the plans of the hijackers, it would be the most humane course of action. if everyone on that plane was doomed, then why sacrifice other lives as well? in fact, i think what happened was that some of those flight 93, in constant cellphone contact with family members on the ground (or was that a hoax as well?) decided not to die like sheep. just more government propoganda? perhaps, but please keep in mind that in embracing this theory one is attributing to this administration powers of organization, manipulation, and technological expertise that are on a daliy (if not hourly) basis belied by this same adminstrations manifold bumbling failures. do you really, honestely believe that THESE people are capable (i mean intellectually, not morally) of succesfully organizing a deception of 9-11 proportions . . .or is the bungling and fumbling just a another ruse?
ReplyDeleteThere is an enormous difference between a mind open to any possiblity and one which races to endorse whatever theory reinforces its preconceptions. in my experience, most conspiracy enthusaists - at least, on this topic - fall into the latter rather than the former camp.
but in deference to nanny, let me say that if any of these comments have 'offended' any of you, i grovellingly apologize ahead of time.
So what happens when some adventurous youngsters take what they have learned and blow up the local power supply.
ReplyDeleteDepending on who your service provider is, the answer might be "an improvement in delivery."
:)~
Could have a mini series of these citizenship comparisons I suppose.
ReplyDeleteCompare the experiences of freedom of choice of partners versus arranged marriages and honour killings.
Compare the benefits of rip off western banking versus the Asian cash economy and the Islamic system.
Compare the treatment of thieves and rapists in different cultures around the world.
Compare the effect on Africans of western abuse through slavery and exploitation to the continued abuse, exploitation and genocide of african on african in the modern world. Which offers the better potential for the future? Scratching a living in the malaria zone or achieving high office in the USA?
In each case imagine what it is or might be like to experience the situation.
Why are educated humans seemingly only capable of 'seeing' things in the short term? That term being further realted to about half their current lifespan, however long or short that might be?
As for conspiracy theories - if it comes from the same sort of people whose mind-set screams 'global warming', and I strongly suspect most of the theories that seek to encourage controls over the populace do, then I think it is time to ignore the warnings about salt consumption (from much the same sources) and take a LARGE pinch with everything.
First two post are nutjobs.
ReplyDeleteMy sister lives 1 mile from the 93 crash site. Yes it did crash there, no debris was not planted. Yes the towers did implode due to weight from the top floors. No the Jews were not warned to leave the buildings.
Smell the coffee you freaking enablers before you will be bowing to Mecca.
You know, it never ceases to amaze me how, in relation to questions raised about the many flaws in the official American 9/11 Commission's report, nobody actually answers any of the questions raised, they merely resort to name calling and intimidation (not that this frightens me a jot).
ReplyDeleteI'm still wating for an explanation from those commenters above who think I'm a nutter and a twat as to why the towers fell at freefall speeds (one was not even hit by a plane!!) - I don't doubt that they fell, I just question the speed and way they fell - and also why no American fighters were scrambled to intercept the planes once they knew they had flown offcourse. Is this latter not standard procedure??
I'm waiting to know the answers with baited breath. Calling me a nutter does not actually answer the questions. Unless... no, couldn't be, could it?? Well, OK then, unless you actually don't know the answers perhaps???
10:54 AM, Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYou've not quite understood me.
Firstly
Maybe, just maybe, the entire American Military were not in on it?
Secondly
What is unpalatable is the notion that is wasn't simply 19 hijackers.
Also you drive your agenda without really addressing the issue.
Okay, spiv, try these answers on for size:
ReplyDelete1) why the towers fell at all: Something between 25 and 30% of the mass of a fully loaded 757 is jet fuel. Jet fuel burns very very hot and very very fast -- much hotter and faster than most materials involved in building fires. No other skyscraper has ever been exposed to the heat of a jet-fuel fire. In the case of the Twin Towers, the burning jet fuel rapidly weakened the support structures and eventually they failed, "catastrophically" as the saying goes.
2) why the towers free-fell: Films of the collapses show that the structural failures began on the floors that were hit by the jets. Once those supports started failing, all of them on the same floor failed within a second or two. That floor and everything above it fell more or less straight down. The next floor down was immediately subjected to several times the load it was designed to hold. Hence, it too failed almost instantly. This process continued all the way down, each lower floor being hit by the load from all the failed floors above it, and failing in turn, faster and faster as the cumulative load increased. This sort of cascading collapse is a well-known phenomenon in structural engineering.
3) you wrote "(one was not even hit by a plane!!)" -- this is just plain (or plane) nonsense. Films exist of both towers being struck. One film of the second plane hitting the second tower also shows the other tower already alight. One or more other buildings at the WTC Plaza eventually collapsed because of secondary damage from the collapse of the Towers. The fact that those buildings weren't directly hit doesn't change the fact that they came down as a result of the terrorist attack.
4) you wrote: "and also why no American fighters were scrambled to intercept the planes once they knew they had flown offcourse. Is this latter not standard procedure??"
No. It isn't. There was no standard procedure for dealing with commercial aircraft that had been hijacked with the intent of using them as guided missiles. There was no combat air patrol at any airbase within effective range of the target areas, either in the air or on ready alert. Depending on which report you believe, the F-16s that were eventually scrambled to intercept Flight 93 (an interception which failed because the passengers took it down first) were either completely unarmed, or armed only with shells for their 20mm cannons. They carried no missiles.
Seeing as the engineer(s) have disposed very capably of the conspiracy theorists ignorance of metallurgy and civil engineering, lets for a second assume that the Twin Towers were blown up by person or persons unknown - just for an exercise in reductio ad absurdam.
ReplyDeleteHow did this team of malevolent Fred Dibnahs ( in league with George Bush, Mossad and the Reverse Vampires ) lay the expolosives and weaken the structure without being noticed by the thousands of employees and security and maintenance staff ? Were they all in on it as well ?
Maybe Zionist mind control rays blanked their memories afterwards ?
Yes, that's it - mind control rays.
Ahh... at last, someone is trying to debate the questions in a sensible manner, thank you wolfwalker, very much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteNow, your theories on the pancacking effect are interesting. I placed a comment elsewhere on this site that if each floor below offered at least token resistance to the floors crashing down from above, there would be some delay in the total collapse of the towers. The arguments are placed there, so I won't waste time repeating them here. The question has not been created by me, I am not intelligent enough. No, it is Professors of Physics who raise them, I'm simply reiterating, searching for answers.
I accept that two towers were hit by two aircraft. However, you seem to have overlooked that three towers came down, and WTC7 was not hit by a plane, at least, no one has told me it has, and certainly I haven't seen any newsreel of a third plane crashing into it. A third plane supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, but that is many miles away from the WTC building.
And as regards your comments about scrambling aircraft, my understanding is that it is normal procedure to intercept. It takes about one minute from the FAA notifying the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) for NORAD to scramble fighters to intercept aircraft for which contact has been lost. NORAD states that they can scramble fighters "within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States". An F15 can go from a 'scramble' order to 29,000 feet in only 2.5 minutes, and fly to intercept at 1,850 nmph.
My understanding is that this is quite a common occurrence, and routinely happens over 100 times a year. Of course, I'm not suggesting that over 100 aircraft are shot down over the USA, but they are intercepted, and would be shot down if necessary. All very odd that on 9/11 not one aircraft was intercepted whilst swannying over America for an hour and a half on a happy day trip!!
And as regards hsld's very intersting point, there is a great deal of information available, and many witness reports, which shows that there were emergency evacuations and fire drills on the buildings during the fortnight prior to the atrocities. And one final afterthought, do you know who was in charge of security in the World Trade Centres? Yup, none other than Bush's brother, whose contract was due to end on 9/11. Check it out, don't take my word for it, I'm just a nutjob, as you like to think.
Try reading
ReplyDeletehttp://www.utne.com/web_special/
web_specials_2003-02/
articles/10292-1.html
or google "Marvin Bush" 9/11 security. As stated, don't take my word for it.
OK, spiv, I went and looked at one of the links you posted earlier. Like it says, it's grade school math. But after the math part ends, the rest is nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThe author wrote: "But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully suported the mass of the tower for 30 years."
Nope. Here's why: the lower floors were not part of the tower's strength structure. You can look this up yourself. It's the primary reason why "implosion" style demolition works at all: the charges are designed to take advantage of the way a building will naturally fall under the right conditions. The structural strength of a skyscraper comes primarily from the steel beam structure, which is mainly in the vertical girders. There is no structural strength in the interior floors. Each individual floor is expected to support its own weight and nothing more. When you drop a weight of ten or twenty times its rated load on it, that floor will give way more or less instantaneously.
To sum all that up in one sentence: you and the 9/11-conspiracy-theory nutjobs have been deceived by the fact that imploding a building by explosives imitates what happens when a building's structure fails catastrophically for accidental reasons. You mistook the real thing for the imitation.
You wrote: "And as regards your comments about scrambling aircraft, my understanding is that it is normal procedure to intercept. It takes about one minute from the FAA notifying the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) for NORAD to scramble fighters to intercept aircraft for which contact has been lost. NORAD states that they can scramble fighters "within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States". "
This is all true now. It was not true on 9/11/2001.
You also wrote "An F15 can go from a 'scramble' order to 29,000 feet in only 2.5 minutes,"
This is true.
"and fly to intercept at 1,850 nmph."
This is not. 1800 knots is the F-15's maximum airspeed under full afterburner. No fighter currently flying can sustain afterburner flight for more than about fifteen minutes without running out of fuel. Without afterburners, the F-15 is limited to about 650 knots -- yes, that's right, an F-15 can't even go supersonic without using its afterburners. It would have taken at least forty-five minutes for any F-15 to execute an intercept on any of the four 9/11 jets once the plane's status as "hijacked and dangerous" was confirmed -- time that they didn't have.
The rest of your claims about WTC security are simply irrelevant.
And the third building which came down that day, the one which wasn't hit by any aircraft......??
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to bet that all the millions of tons of falling building that fell around the 3rd WTC building brought it down.
ReplyDelete"And the third building which came down that day, the one which wasn't hit by any aircraft......??"
ReplyDeleteAlready asked and answered.
Popular Mechanics - Debunking The 9/11 Myths
ReplyDeletehttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
Oops. Sorry about the URL. Showed up in preview.
ReplyDeleteIt's getting much more difficult to find the truth among the bs being spun by the masters of illusion parroted by their popular pals in the public square.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
If that URL doesn't show up, Google:
"Popular Mechanics - Debunking The 9/11 Myths."
AND PLEASE READ IT IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE MILITANT JIHADISTS DIDN'T WILFULLY MASS-MURDER CIVILIANS ON AMERICAN SOIL DURING PEACETIME, 911.
spiv,
ReplyDeleteThank you, and please keep up your good work. You and your ilk make it so much easier for Republicans and other conservatives.
Amazing!
ReplyDeleteSpiv witnesses with his own eyes the photographic record of the WTC towers' collapse, and STILL denies that they could have fallen as they did!
They offered as much resistance as possible AFTER having several supporting main beam TORN BY THE IMPACT, but 'zero resistance' is about all they COULD offer, when a half-million tons started moving ground-ward, gathering kinetic energy FROM FALLING, and ripping away lower floors as it came down, in PERFECT ACCORD with the laws of physics!
But accepting THIS means accepting that America's chosen government was NOT involved in a conspiracy to hurt the American people...
...and we just cannot accept the possibility of Bush having acted in a decent manner, now, can we?
Wow! Just read the whole thread, and I must applaud Spiv for courageously showing his deep ignorance to all of us.
ReplyDeleteGood on ya, Spiv! I wouldn't have the moxie to show myself to be as ignorant as you.
Well sorry fellas, if you think I'm ignorant then I'm in good company, as many scientists and academics are also raising these questions. It just does not cease to amaze me that, if, as you assume, my questions are those of a raving looney, why so many people respond with venom, yet fail to answer the questions posed. Confirms to me that I am indeed joining up dots correctly, and certain quarters just don't like it. Well, not my problem!!
ReplyDeleteA far more eloquent and scientific equivalent of my question regarding the freefall collapse of the three buildings is also raised by Dr. Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering at:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
I don't know the answers, but I do know that another complete investigation into 9/11 is needed - and one conducted independently.
I understand that the original 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.
The American Government spent many times more money investigating Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinski than the 9/11 commission spent investigating the world's worst ever "terrorist attack".
Instead of all this childish and extremely silly behaviour and name calling from those who completely support the official 9/11 'conspiracy theory', may I humbly suggest you read David Ray Griffin's book 'The New Pearl Harbor' and visit www.scholarsfor911truth.com to see that there are some highly intelligent and credible people who actually seriously question the official story of 9/11. 'Spiv', like all of us who are seeking the truth about what happened on that fateful day (I'm an ex-British Army officer and trained in disaster management)are simply wanting a new, genuinely impartial inquiry into 9/11 unlike the highly dubious Kean Commission run by NeoCon Philip Zelikow.
ReplyDeleteJustin Walker
I notice that spiv links to the Utne Reader. That in itself is enough to tell us that he is full of moonlight and gas. Teehee. The Utne Reader indeed.
ReplyDelete