223 2 mins 9 yrs

Putin is a thug, well on his way to being an imperial Czar, and even as Russia goes down the toiler demographically speaking, his tyranny increases;

Three members of Russian punk band Pussy Riot have been jailed for two years after staging an anti-Vladimir Putin protest in a Moscow cathedral. Judge Marina Syrova convicted the women of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, saying they had “crudely undermined social order”. The women say the protest, in February, was directed at the Russian Orthodox Church leader’s support for Mr Putin. The US, UK and EU all criticised the sentences as “disproportionate”.

On the up side, I hear Paul McCartney is on his way back to the old USSR to perform a Hey Jude-athon until Pussy Riot are released. The only reason for these women to be behind bars is that dreadful music they performed. But on that basis, I would also imprison many modern pop stars.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

223 thoughts on “THE PUSSY RIOT SENTENCE..

  1. Russia has never had either free speech or the rule of law through an independent judiciary at any time in its history. This was a show trial worthy of Stalin, with an openly biased judge.

    On the bright side, it will galvanise the opposition to Putin both in Russia and abroad. His thuggocracy is exposed.

  2. Demonstrations, protests or stunts conducted in houses of worship should be punished.

    But this goes too far.

  3. And I doubt that this is entirely unconnected. From the LA Times:

    [Moscow] Police broke into opposition leader Ilya Yashin’s apartment the same day. When he arrived home, he said, he found the furniture broken and everything turned inside out, his computers and other personal items missing.

    Despite his absence during the ransacking, Yashin didn’t avoid an encounter with police. He was visiting another opposition figure, popular television host Ksenia Sobchak, when armed, masked police showed up there. Among other things, they confiscated more than $1 million in cash. Authorities are reportedly trying to prove she planned to use it to finance opposition rallies.

    The CIA won’t see that money again.

  4. Demonstrations, protests or stunts conducted in houses of worship should be punished.

    Why? As long as no physical damage is done to the premises then no-one is harmed and free speech is protected. This was a one-off stunt designed to highlight the Orthodox Church’s support for Putin. It was totally justified and the court case and sentence are both outrageous.

  5. There is no freedom of religion if any jamoke can hop around and do hostile antics in what believers think to be a special place. None.

    You have no ” free speech ” rights that apply when intruding upon another’s property and special place. To say that there is makes a mockery of the very notion of free speech.

  6. C’mon, they’re just a bunch of slappers that desecrated a church.
    Two years in a penal colony; that’ll learn ’em.

  7. Of course there should not be an absolute freedom to behave as they did in the church, but the penalty should be no more than a reasonable fine not a lengthy jail sentence.

  8. There seems to be a lot of slang terms in Britain for ‘loose’ women; Slapper, Slut, Slag, Scrubber, Trollop, Tart to name a few 😉

  9. Phantom

    It’s great when one gets the chance to expand one’s vocabulary 😉

    Agree with you and Colm re the issue of the thread.

    If someone comes into my house they leave their rights of free speech and at the door and subnit to the rules of the house, even if they do no physical harm.

  10. There would be no end to the disrespect across society if this type of protest or speech became widespread.

    And if the arguments on their behalf are really being made on ” speech ” grounds, I’ll send an amicus brief to the Russian judge to ask him to double the sentence.

    How far have we sunk when some believe its OK to do stuff like this in a church? I scratch my head.

  11. Interesting that “slut” used to mean just slovenly. I think that there is a prejudice about untidy women that associates them with promiscuity.

    I suppose the corollary would be that house proud women are sexually circumspect or perhaps repressed!

  12. I hate to disprupt the echo chamber, but anyway:

    If the Orthodox Church wasn’t such a blatant cheer-leader for Putin this protest would not have happened. It was NOT a protest against religion and it was over in a few minutes. The reactionary authoritarian streak of some commentators here is depressing. You guys are on the side of Putin, think about that.

  13. Aileen

    Someone (I think it was Shirley Conran) famously said ‘Life is too short too stuff a mushroom’ – I guess sexually voracious women could say “My sex life’s too busy to make the bed” 🙂

  14. Peter

    You are on the side of desecrating houses of worship

    There are plenty of other ways of protesting, even in Russia.

    This strategy is never OK

  15. Peter

    I don’t disagree with you and I don’t particularly share Phantom’s view that Churches should be specially hallowed places. In a world where for example Church leaders can preach against gay rights or abortion issues then they have to expect the rough and tumble of street politics to affect them too.

  16. I only ‘saw’ this on a TV with the sound turned off so I didn’t hear them sing but just for the record, they can’t dance either. However, I liked the bags or whatever on their heads…reminded me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8 (Rubberbandits: I’ve Got A Horse Outside”…it’s sexist, yeah I know but…

    You men have to watch out for those slappers with snappers!

    I don’t think it was necessary to sing and dance in the church…a protest outside would have been fine by me.

  17. You are on the side of desecrating houses of worship

    No. There was no “desecration” because there was no damage, and no service was taking place. If a protest was staged in a mosque whose preachers called for jihad, would that be “desecration”?

    Your support for prosecution is anti free-speech.

  18. Peter

    “I hate to disrupt the echo chamber”

    Sure you do!

    So if we agree with previous comments are we supposed not to comment or pretend to hold a cortrary view?

    That it was over in minutes only means that the punishment should be less than if it was longer, not that there should be no punishment!

    I think I should come to your home to protest at your “sky god” insults. I won’t do any physical damage and it will be over in minutes but it would be authoritarian to deny me my free speech.

    The bit about supporting Putin is nonsense! I don’t think it would be right to break into Butcher
    McGuinness’s house and kill his pet. That doesn’t make me on the side of that ****!

  19. Oops edited out by mistake the bit that the punishment was outrageously disproportionate.

  20. Colm

    I think that there is also the association of not wanting to do anything that would create a mess, not just want to clear it up quickly!

  21. Colm

    They shouldn’t have to be affected inside their churches.

    As Marin says there is outside.

  22. Aileen

    Sigh. The Orthodox Church has chosen to enter Russian politics on the side of Putin. If it doesn’t like the heat…

  23. So Peter if you supported a political party it would be okay for a group of people to come into your house to sing offensive songs about you and your beliefs?

  24. Seamus

    As far as I am aware, they didn’t sing any anti-Christian sentiments. They simply sang a song asking the Virgin Mary to save Russia from Putin. You can call it a crass stunt but it wasn’t blasphemous or offensively targeting people’s faith.

  25. The phrase in a chapel “Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!” isn’t offensive to people’s faith?

  26. So Peter if you supported a political party it would be okay for a group of people to come into your house to sing offensive songs about you and your beliefs?

    False comparison. The Orthodox Church is not comparable to an individual.

  27. It isn’t a false comparison just because you don’t like the comparison. They have a right to not have their property desecrated just because one of their leaders openly supported a political party.

  28. The Guardian posted the lyrics of the song they sang. The chorus was “Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!”.

  29. Do I agree with the sentence? No. Do I think they should have got away with it? No. A heavy fine or a minor sentence would have sufficed. This is an over reaction by the Russian authorities, not a clamp down on free speech.

  30. Under what circumstances should protests from outside be permitted in houses of worship?

    In my view, under no circumstances. I’m quite amazed that there are some who think this is an acceptable thing to do.

  31. No matter what the issue making a statement like this in a place of worship is wrong.
    Had it been a mosque or gurdwara they might not have gotten out alive..

  32. Phantom –

    Irina Galusko, writing in ‘Russia Today’, points out: “Could it be because their very same performance a week earlier, performed in the Red Square, didn’t manage to garner as much attention?”

  33. Red Square is an important place, but at least it doesn’t raise ” freedom of worship ” issues

  34. Red Square would be seen to belong to all the Russian people. It would be a logical place for Russians to demonstrate?

  35. It isn’t a false comparison just because you don’t like the comparison. They have a right to not have their property desecrated just because one of their leaders openly supported a political party.

    Bullshit Seamus. You are saying that an individual is the same as an established church. What planet are you on?

    And this idea of “desecration” is quaint. The only desecration here is the denial of liberty to protest against against a corrupt murdering kleptocracy and its bearded church cheer-leaders.

  36. Do churches pay taxes in Russia? Just curious. It came up in an entirely different water cooler-type conversation stemming from a comment that “if churches want to get involved in politics, they should pay taxes.” In the US, Russia, anyone know?

  37. Maybe McCartney will invade St.Annes Cathedral tomorrow and entertain us all with a rendition of ‘Give Ireland back to the Irish’?

  38. No I am saying they have similar rights. Do the rights to not have their views abused on their own property not extend to Churches in your opinion Peter? What about other organisations? Do I have the right to walk into the DUP offices and start singing the Boys of the Old Brigade?

  39. This has nothing to do with anyone’s speech rights.

    It has a lot to do with the right of believers not to be harassed inside their house of worship.

  40. Seamus

    I think you should stop digging. You have allied yourself with the reactionary murdering regime of Putin and his outriders in the Orthodox Church. Let’s just leave it at that. We all know where you stand, and at least you are consistently reactionary.

  41. It has a lot to do with the right of believers not to be harassed inside their house of worship.

    But they weren’t. There wasn’t a beardie in sight at the time, no service in progress. Again, if it was a jihadi mosque, would that protest have been ok with you?

  42. Wonderful attempt to evade the questions there Peter. How about you try them agian.

    Do the rights to not have their views abused on their own property not extend to Churches in your opinion Peter? What about other organisations? Do I have the right to walk into the DUP offices and start singing the Boys of the Old Brigade?

  43. Peter

    You’ve lost the plot on this

    It is not ok to use any house of worship, mosques included for protests, stunts, or anything else against the wishes of those who own the building or who pray there etc. its a major offense in a civilized country.

  44. Seamus

    Why should sky-god churches be exempt from protest? If a bearded imam was preaching jihad agaisnt Israel in a London mosque, is he exempt from protest because of the sky-god thing?

    Phantom

    See above.

  45. It isn’t a case of them being exempt from protest. You aren’t asking for the same rules that apply to everyone else to be applied to them. You are asking for the contrary to that position. You are asking for new special rules to be applied to Churches.

    I ask again:

    Do I have the right to walk into the DUP offices and start singing the Boys of the Old Brigade?

  46. Sorry Phantom but why should ‘houses of worship’ enjoy a special status not accorded to non-religous organisations. . When religous organisations campaign politically to restrict the rights of people who may not be churchgoers why should they then be able to say ‘back off’ if those agrieved individuals protest back at the religous organisations.

  47. Colm, are you telling me that if a group of people enter into a building of a non-religious organisation and start using the premises of that organisation to attack that organisation that there wouldn’t be a police intervention?

    If these women had sung that song in the middle of the street, or in another venue, then that would have been fine. But they didn’t. It was the location of the protest not the protest itself that I have problem with.

  48. Churches have a special status via freedom of religion. Chip away at this freedom at your risk.

    But people have the right notbto be harassed in their homes or other private property also

    This has nothing to do with Putin or his government.

    Its a religious freedom issue. If churches don’t have the right to control their own religious buildinga, they have no other rights that any random punk band must respect.

    Everyone has a beef against someone. But society has rules and these women broke one of the more importqnt ones.

  49. Do I have the right to walk into the DUP offices and start singing the Boys of the Old Brigade?

    Another false comparison Seamus. You seem to think that the DUP in Northern Ireland is equivalent to the Orthodox Church in Russia. Or have I missed something?

  50. Answer the question Peter. Do I have the right to walk into the DUP offices and start singing the Boys of the Old Brigade?

  51. Seamus and Phantom

    I am not arguing that it is a right. I accept that it is an infringement of the law and those who engage in such protests must be prepared to be penalised. I am only arguing against the special status that applies to ‘places of worship’ or relgion in general as oppose to say Humamist or other secular social organisations or beliefs.

  52. Why should political parties be exempt from protest? I should have the right to walk into the DUP offices and sing Irish rebel songs and if the Police intervene they are clearly draconian Nazis. Aint that right Peter?

  53. Colm, I think if someone walked into the middle of a Humanist organisation’s building and starting singing things that would be deeply offensive to Humanist then he or she should and probably would face punishment.

  54. Its a religious freedom issue.

    No it’s not. It’s a freedom of speech issue. The protest did not deny the freedom of the beardies and their flock to believe in their sky-god, but they objected to the political support of the Orthodx Church for Putin and his murdering kleptocracy.

    But I can see that you and others here don’t get that. Sad.

  55. Seamus

    You are spot on

    In a civilized society, you respect the other person’s rights, even if you disagree with him. Especially if you disagree with them.

    Some think that since Putin is bad then all protest in any location is therefore justified

    Well, no.

  56. Seamus

    Agreed – but in the ‘Pussy Riot’ case , I wonder if the same penalty would have applied if the protesters had been pro-Putin supporters invading a church that supported the opposition ?

  57. I think if someone walked into the middle of a Humanist organisation’s building and starting singing things that would be deeply offensive to Humanist then he or she should and probably would face punishment.

    LOL! Would the humanists demand the death penalty for “desecration”? Pathetic.

  58. Phantom and Seamus

    Please answer my question: Would a protest in a mosque against a jihadi preacher be justified, or should the protesters go to jail because they have offended the head bangers?

  59. Colm, Russia isn’t perfect. And anti-religious bigots like Peter have latched onto the current state of the Russian government and their disrespect for the rights of others to attack the Church and religious belief (just look at Peter’s claims that if you support freedom of religion then you are allying yourself to reactionary murdering regime).

    I will admit that if those girls had supported Putin in that particularly way then they probably wouldn’t have been prosecuted. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have been prosecuted now. Just because the State would have failed to do the right thing if it was the other way round is no reason to suggest they shouldn’t do the right thing this time around.

    Peter, is anyone calling for the death penalty?

  60. Peter

    I don’t necessarily think that protesters inside private property should go to jail.

    But I do not condone any protests in mosques by intruders from outside the congregation.

  61. Seamus

    Thanks for your honesty. You are a reactionary religious zealot, which I’m sure you will take as a compliment.

    A five minute protest against a murdering kleptocracy has led to a two year prison sentence, and you are comfortable with that. Fine, we all know where we stand.

  62. Phantom

    Please see above. I’m struggling to see any difference between you and Seamus on this, but maybe I’ve missed something?

  63. Colm 1155

    No – you respect the legal and political and religious rights of all, not just those who you agree with.

    Unless you do this, no one has rights, except as bestowed by the mob.

  64. Your haze of bigotry has clearly harmed your ability to read Peter. I have already stated that the sentence was wrong.

    I am also, on most issues, not reactionary nor am I a zealot.

  65. JM

    The arch-reactionary of ATW (compliment intended). I’m sure you would have been even happier with a 20 year sentence?

  66. Phantom

    Would you have opposed a Jewish group protesting inside a Pro-Hitler Church in 1930s Germany ?

  67. Seamus and I are in agreement here.

    We think that people should be left alone and that they and their buildings should be reapected.

    Which is not to be construed as support for Putin or the policies of this church.

  68. Hard cases make bad law.

    No.

    They should not protest in a ” Hitler church ”

    Better to blow the heads off a few SS men

  69. This has been a defining issue for ATW.

    The reactionaries who pretend to be liberals/ libertarians have been flushed out. And the unashamed reactionaries have been reactionary. And you guys know who you are.

  70. Peter, here is something you need to understand. Firstly no one is a reactionary, conservative or progressive. People are reactionary, conservative or progressive on some issues. That you feel reactionary is somehow a slur just shows you lack the ability to comprehend that fact.

  71. Peter

    We forgive you and Colm for this reactionary anticlerical transgression

    Say three ” Hail Allah”s and do not sin anymore

  72. “Do the rights to not have their views abused on their own property ”

    There is no such right. If you open your property to the public, the public may come in and say or do something you do not like. As long as they don’t damage property or engage in violence, your sole remedy in that case would be to require them to leave, and not necessarily even that much.

    Demanding that they should be subject to a prison sentence of any kind let alone 2 years simply because they offended you should of course be out of the question. Otherwise, be careful what you wish for, as someone else may find what you say offensive.

  73. So I’d be allowed to walk into a shop and start shouting abuse at people and wouldn’t face any criminal sanction for it?

  74. Seamus

    Walk into a shop and start singing an anti-government song is a more accurate analogy.

  75. The line “Shit, shit, the Lord is shit” is not anti-government but anti-religious. To do so is offensive and abusive.

  76. I suppose it was a trespass issue or disturbing the peace, but it deserves a small fine, not a custodial sentence. I wouldn’t even sentence them to listening to their own “music”.

  77. The anti religious cabal are having a bit of fun with this tortured logic.

    I guess anything short of burning the church down is ok.

    Using Frank’s logic, its ok to yell out during a play or to scream curses in the Malagasy dialect when students are sitting for exams.

    ” The public ” does not have a right to disrupt all they dislike, not in a civilized country. There were women in this church praying, and they have rights too.

    These tortured reasonings don’t stem from any logic. They stem from the fact that you lot don’t like Putin. Welll I don’t like Putin either but the protections of law apply to all, incl those alliec with those you don’t like.

  78. Phantom, when a church decides to engage in a contentious level of partisan debate on the body politic it leaves itself wide open to irreligious acts of non-violent political protest.

    Imagine a group of anti-pedophilia protestors doing something similar in a Catholic church.

  79. Except that his reply is neither reasoned or logical and isn’t applied in any other setting. If someone was to shout abuse at people in their own property, even if the area was open to the public, they would be subject to criminal sanction.

  80. Personally, I think two years jail is a very harsh sentence for these ladies. I wouldn’t want to see anyone jailed for two years just for prancing about and disrupting a church service.
    But more importantly, it tells me that their music must be shite. If they were writing really good music, they would not need to resort to such exploits, as their songs would speak for themselves. It’s always the talentless who resort to these “right-on” gestures.

  81. Its all religion hating prejudice.

    The church has the right to take positions. If you don’t like their views, join another church.

    You guys put Putin in a sympathetic light, which is some accomplishment. He, and the judge, are right on this one.

  82. Tom

    Of course there music is Shite. Apart from that supposedly Lesban duo Tatu can you name any other Russian pop stars ?
    Ps – They didn’t disrupt a Church service.

  83. Phantom

    You are the one putting Putin in a sympathetic light. He will be pleased at your views.

  84. They disrupted people lighting candles and praying in the church

    You can mock these activities but they are important to some

  85. I once got in trouble for playing hide-n-go seek in a chapel (including the altar and the nether regions)…I only got caught because the same fudgsicle smears that were on the altar cloths were also on my lips and white blouse…think of what would become of me now-a-days…omg…;-)

    LANSING, Mich. – Gov. Rick Snyder has signed legislation making it a misdemeanor to disrupt a religious service in Michigan.

    The governor’s office said Wednesday that the new law includes a sentence of up to 93 days in jail and a $1,000 fine for disrupting a worship service. The law increases the possible fine to $5,000 for repeat offenders.

    First-time offenders could also face up to 100 hours of mandatory community service, while repeaters could get up to 200 hours.

    Snyder says freedom of religion deserves government protection because it’s “one of the founding principles of this country.”

    Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/lifestyle/religion/jail-time-for-disrupting-church-services#ixzz23rLvOxqs

  86. Phantom, so if one doesn’t agree with a church’s political views or criminal practices they should turn a blind eye?

  87. You should not need a law

    This is what happens when simple morality leaves the public space, and people want their adversaries attacked anywhere and in any place

  88. Daphne

    By all means no

    Protest all day long, just dont invade the church

    Protest is a sacred right but no one has the right to invade a church to disrupt its activities.

  89. @Colm

    T.A.T.U aren’t lesbian.
    Julia (the dark haired one) now has 2 children. They admit now that the whole lesbian thing was a bit of an ‘act’.
    Their second album, Dangerous & Moving, is a criminally neglected masterpiece.
    Try this one…trust me 🙂

  90. No they didn’t cause no disruption. Not at all.

    No never no how.

    Y’all justify this in a church, any church?

  91. Having seen the video which Phantom has posted, I have no problem with that jail sentence. The doors of a Church are open to the public i.e. that majority of the public which will not attempt to create such disgraceful scenes as what we saw. When I visited cathedrals in Prague and Vienna as a non-adherent, I would never consider such disrespect nor should it be attempted in a mosque or synagogue. If these idiots wanted to protest against the Church, why not do it outside?

  92. They disrupted people lighting candles and praying in the church
    You can mock these activities but they are important to some”

    Aah,
    But the RIGHT to demonstrate, the RIGHT to demand that your cause be heard, trumps any sense of respect and decency for others’ beliefs and practices.
    The ONLY thing which is sacrosanct is the RIGHTNESS of the cause I am espousing, and that cause and those demands must not be questioned..

  93. This band should have had some respect for those patrons of the church who were there, praying. Could the protest not have been held at a time when the church was empty, and if so, would this be ok with Phantom and Seamus? Also, they knew the church’s allegiance with Putin, so must have had an idea of the possible repercussions of such an action.

    I find myself agreeing with both ‘sides’ to a degree here. The location of the protest was stupid, but obviously designed to shock and create media attention. Part of me feels that any place of worship should be free of this type of stunt. Then again, isn’t it the perfect place for it, protesting to the people in the house of their god? But to use lyrics like those mentioned somewhere above, is wrong, as, if they are accurate, moves the protest away from being a stunt against political leadership, to being a mockery of the religion, and that isn’t why they said they were there.

    The sentence handed down is totally out of proportion to the crime, though. A fine and some sort of community service, like cleaning the church for a month, would have been fairer.

    Just on the point of whether this is sacrilegious or not – some people here are saying that this was totally wrong, because it’s attacking someone’s faith and beliefs, which is a bad thing. Were all the same people saying the same thing a few months back, when that American pastor burned the Koran? Just wondering, because I can’t remember, and surely that’s an attack on someone’s faith and beliefs too?

  94. There is no such right. If you open your property to the public, the public may come in and say or do something you do not like. As long as they don’t damage property or engage in violence, your sole remedy in that case would be to require them to leave, and not necessarily even that much.”

    Civilised society means that we treat each other civilly. So for example, I would not go up to group of handicapped people and ask “what’s a bunch of retards like you doing out on the street?
    Or a group of elderly or the limbless etc.
    I could
    It’s probably written down somewhere that it is my “Human right” to do so, but I don’t; out of respect for them as human beings -whatever their primitive origins Frank.

    In the same way when I go into a Catholic church I treat the building and those in it with respect; despite knowing that some priests and Cardinals and Bishops have abused little boys and girls.
    It is what a Church stands for, not how some of its adherents behave that commands my respect. The same goes for mosques, gurdwaras and any other place of worship.

    Showing respect to places of worship is a mark of a civilised society. Shouting your mouth off and effing and blinding is the mark of a society which has lost its bearings.

  95. The protest was a public order issue becasue the church has a right to not have their property hijacked in this way.

    But the reason that the punishment is so harsh- rather than a small fine- is because the Putin runs a corrupt gangster state where dissent is not tolerated. The Russian Orthodox Church supports this.

  96. The punishment is one issue.
    The principle of civilised behaviour in churches/places of worship is another.

  97. Ross

    Didn’t you get the memo?
    If you think that the church has a right not to have its property hijacked in this way you must be a supporter of Putin! Apparently it must follow.

  98. Agit8ed, I don’t think the fact it was a place of worship matters that much, this style of protest- disrupting the space of others because you feel your views are so much more important than others, is wrong in other contexts.

    I’d compare it to the idiot who disrupted the boat race this year, the “Plane Stupid” campaigners who closed down airports a while ago, the moron who threw a pie at Rupert Murdoch or the protesters who tried to stop Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time.

    It’s not the religious aspect that makes their behaviour wrong.

  99. Interesting that “slut” used to mean just slovenly. I think that there is a prejudice about untidy women that associates them with promiscuity.

    Aileen- there is a connection between literal disgust- at a untidy house ripe with infection- and moral disgust- in this case at sexual behaviour. It activates the same part of the brain
    .

  100. Ross

    Quite right (and sod it if anyone considers it part of the echo chamber). Although I qualify it a bit because the nature of the disruption is more disruptive in the process of worship than singing at me as buy my pick and mix. It is the degree if disruption rather than it being an affront to sensibilities that is the issue for me. The lak of respect for religious observance for me falls into what you shouldn’t do rather than what you shouldn’t be allowed to do.

  101. Ross

    That could be part of it but I still think that there is an (often unconscious) assumption that one is an indication of the other.

    It is very unfair on us sluts (in the old sence of the world) and probably unfair to house proud tidy slappers!

  102. There seems to be -with one or two exceptions – a concensus here, that the protest was crass and yobbish but that the State’s response was unjustifiable and dictatorial.

  103. “Using Frank’s logic, its ok to yell out during a play or to scream curses in the Malagasy dialect when students are sitting for exams.
    ” The public ” does not have a right to disrupt all they dislike, not in a civilized country. There were women in this church praying, and they have rights too.”

    Who said it was ok? The question is what is the remedy. Yes the woman might have the right to ask the disruptive people to leave. They could even call the police and get them removed. They might even have the right to get them barred from coming into that place again – and if they did THAT might be an offence (as it becomes harrassment).

    But that’s it. Why would 2 years in prison come into it?

    “In the same way when I go into a Catholic church I treat the building and those in it with respect; despite knowing that some priests and Cardinals and Bishops have abused little boys and girls.”

    Well that’s an interesting point – would someone have the right to stand quietly at the back of a church or a cathedral holding a placard protesting the institutional cover up of that? I don’t see why not. Would it be different if there was a mass going on? I don’t see why it should be. Would it be different if the priest or some of the congregation was offended? Why? Would it be different if the person was themselves a Catholic too? I don’t see why that should matter either. People often make such protests at political gatherings and that’s ok.

  104. The Church would be private property so the merits of the protest would not be the issue. The protest could be removed to the outside. No one would have a right to protest or disrupt on someone else’s property.

  105. Can I suggest that people introduce themselves to CIA man Gene Sharp? I suspect the Russians have.

    Using hot chicks to attract media attention is right out of his playbook. In fact if a revolution has a colour or hot chicks involved, his ideas are bound to be behind it.

  106. “CIA man Gene Sharp”

    he has faced […] wild accusations of being a CIA front organisation

    Indeed

  107. Putin is not responsible for the prison sentences , but the U.S. is ; these women are dupes of a typical CIA disruption operation . As in South America , the Middle East and now Russia , the American Government tries to decide who runs these countries . The mighty Yank decides on regime change , so now it’s Putins turn .

  108. the doctor,

    “The mighty Yank decides on regime change , so now it’s Putins turn .”

    What a pity they couldn’t have taken a similar clandestine route when dealing with Saddam’s Iraq, eh? Might have spared so many thousands of lives.

  109. Justice and the concept of “retributive justice” – “let the punishment fit the crime” – is probably as old as time – and obviously, the punishment does not fit the Pussy Riot’s crime, and is the very definition of tyranny.

    “these women are dupes of a typical CIA disruption operation .” hilarious! coming soon: Bush did it!

  110. the doctor has a very poor impression of the world’s non-American population. He must think all non-Americans are docile dumb fools who never act for themsleves but wait to be controlled by the CIA.

  111. But joking aside, it’s a bit condescending to think that Pussy Riot and others weren’t simply staging their own protest, uninspired by shady foreign operatives.

    Putin appears to be seeking a new form of imperial Russia. Forget any Stalinesque aspirations. His alliance with the Orthodox church fathers bears more resemblance to tzardom than Communist dictatorship.

  112. It isn’t merely condescending, it is Putin’s party line. An attempt to diminish critics as merely stooges for the West.

  113. Mahons,

    True. But that doesn’t mean that some here on this thread have to go along with it.

  114. Sure, they’re just a bunch of girls, out of nowhere, who decided to take on Putin.

    In fact the “group” never seems to have recorded or actually written a single song.

    They do have some interesting backers in addition to the usual Western entertainers, however. As is well-documented, PR has open connections to the National Endowment for Democracy (surprise). Oksana Chelysheva, listed as the head of the group’s support campaign, also happens to have been “Deputy Executive Director” of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, a strange pro-extremist outfit which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy. Chelysheva also has other extensive US government ties through her leadership roles in other NED and George Soros-funded outfits like the Finnish-Russian Civic Forum and the EU-Russia Civil Society Forum.

    Does Chelysheva funnel State Department money to the members of Pussy Riot through these front groups? It would not be the first time such support is covertly given to an organization seen as undermining a foreign leader viewed as out of favor with Washington.

    The National Endowment for Democracy is, of course …

  115. … a CIA front group. That might explain why NED members were up to no good in Egypt and ended up arrested during the overthrow of Mubarak … which of course was a spontaneous uprising, oh yes.

  116. Going back to the civilised society thing..
    the difference between civilisation and ‘rights for all’ is respect.
    Deference recognises difference. It recognises that there is a time and a place for everything.
    Rights recognises no boundaries, because “we all have rights.”
    So by this logic it is perfectly acceptable to make lewd jokes and sing bawdy songs in a room where someone is dying of cancer, because it is “my right to express myself, and if you let me into your room, I can exercise that right any way I choose”.

    So places of worship are de facto, places of worship. They are open to the public on the assumption that anyone may want to come in and either pray or join in an act of worship, not pull a stunt completely at variance with the intended purpose.

    I find it funny how some demand this right and that right, but do not extend that privilege to others they may disagree with.

  117. Russia has recently brought into force a law which requires that all politically-active non-profit organisations receiving foreign funding be registered as foreign agents. The law is based on the US law requiring registration of foreign agents.

  118. Pete: in 2009, President Obama inaadvisably scrapped the Bush-era Europe missle shield. More recently, Obama was caught off-guard whispering to Medvedev that things will be different with Russia after he (Obama) is re-elected.
    and you think that Obama’s CIA is planting the Pussy Riot in order to start a Russian Revolution?

  119. Agitated: the problem is not with the recognition that Pussy Riot’s inappropriate conduct in this place of worship is a “crime”

    The problem is that the punishment does not fit the crime. The Pussies should be banned from the church and/or charged a fine and/or required to do some minor public service like cleaning graffiti.

    But 2 years in prison?? 2 years imprisonment is tyranny.

  120. Patty –

    “Obama’s” CIA? There’s much which happens in the CIA, the Pentagon etc, that presidents aren’t told about.

    I don’t mean the doctrine of deniable plausibility, where senior officials know they are being denied information to protect their positions. I mean that much happens entirely outside of administration knowledge and control.

  121. so, the CIA is acting as a rogue agency now, outside the bounds of any external oversight??

    have you seen my “write your novel” post, Pete? Im think you’re a big candidate for the fiction award.

  122. Patty –

    The CIA has always been a rogue agency to some greater or lesser extent. Certainly its record is unmatched for fomenting foreign revolutions.

    Come on, you don’t think it’s staffed only by upright, moral patriots raised behind white picket fences, do you?

  123. The CIA controls much of the world’s drug trade. By so doing, it can acquire finances for operations ‘off-line’ i.e. neither financed by nor known to the American taxpayer, and the banks act as launderers:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18522

    – Other institutions with a direct stake in the international drug traffic include major banks, which make loans to countries like Colombia and Mexico knowing full well that drug flows will help underwrite those loans’ repayment. A number of our biggest banks, including Citibank, Bank of New York, and Bank of Boston, have been identified as money laundering conduits, yet never have faced penalties serious enough to change their behavior.22 In short, United States involvement in the international drug traffic links the CIA, major financial interests, and criminal interests in this country and abroad. –

  124. Patty,
    I have heard it said that the Russians like a strong man, a strong leader. That is why even today some reverence Lenin and Stalin.
    I personally think it;s a very harsh sentence, but perhaps Mr Putin wants to send out a strong message to his critics.
    If they can come over here to London and assassinate a man who has crossed their government, then this is nothing at all.
    We may disagree with it, but have you ever noticed that the people who get the most respect are those who can carry out their threats. It ain’t civilised, but it is effective and it is the Russian way…

  125. The sentence to me is far too harsh. But anyone who pulls a stunt like this should be punished.

    The only legitimate debate should be what the punishment should be. i’d vote for 30 days and a fine.

    ///

    Went on a nice 20 mile bike ride from North Philadelphia , not the fancy part of town, to Valley Forge. They have a good web of bike trails in Philly. This one follows the river. Love it.

  126. “We may disagree with it, but have you ever noticed that the people who get the most respect are those who can carry out their threats. It ain’t civilised, but it is effective and it is the Russian way…”

    It’s gang thug Mafia behavior, you mean. Of course its effective! As David notes, Putin is a thug.

  127. Pete: “Come on, you don’t think it’s staffed only by upright, moral patriots raised behind white picket fences, do you?”

    classic straw man argument…your argument is that weak and you know it.

  128. Patty –

    My argument would be weak if that’s all there is to it. Look at some of the links I have posted on this thread, the point of which is to be my argument.

    “As David notes, Putin is a thug.”

    Of course he is, all politicians are. It’s noted, however, that Russian presidents have of late killed far, far fewer people than American presidents.

  129. The sentence is not really too harsh. If the desecrators of the Church were given a short custodial sentence, they would be out to a heros’ welcome and others would be pulling the same disgusting stunt. Over their two year sentence, the perps can have time to reflect on their stupidity and, when they get out, they will have been forgotten – but they won’t forget and they won’t do their stunt again. Punishment has to deter as well as punish.

    Whilst these idiots who soiled a Church are financed by non-Russian interests, when it comes to funding by foreigners of political activities in the US, whilst anyone who would resist the system has to register as a foreign agent, the Establishment candidates can collect as much money from foreigners as they can get their filthy hands on:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/12/foreign-cash-disqualifies-romney-from-presidential-bid/

    – Romney has raised millions in foreign cash at fundraising events across Israel and London, those that we know of so far. One table alone gave him a million in cash. None was from American citizens. Fewer than 10% of Romney’s contributors in Israel are estimated to be “dual citizens.” Others may have just flown the money in.

    – A real question many might ask, why would a presidential candidate travel outside the US to seek campaign money at all? As the Supreme Court points out, in the decision Bluman, et al., v. Federal Elections Commission, no foreign cash, especially collected overseas, can ever be used in an American campaign. –

    So why is Romney getting funds from Israel if he (supposedly) can’t use them?

  130. so the KGB is running Russia and Allan and Pete believe that Russia and any other nation for that matter i is a better place to be than the U.S.

    Your sad and pathetic.

  131. I invite them to emigrate to Russia.

    The anti Americanism and conspiracy theory rich society will be just the thing for our Dynamic Duo.

  132. “The only legitimate debate should be what the punishment should be. i’d vote for 30 days and a fine.”

    Why not two hail marys and a rosary?

    It would be no less odd for our bauld agnostics to be asking for that as to be talking about ‘desecration’.

  133. Can we stop the temper tantrums please?

    Troll –

    The KGB is defunct, and where you get the idea that I think anywhere else is better than than America, well that’s between you and your hooch. In fact I’ve said a few times that I have great admiration for the country which Americans have built. However, your Washington repeatedly besmirches your name and is now rapidly building a police state at home. Unlike statists and collectivists, I don’t conflate society and state.

    No, to criticise government and state is not to criticise the people or the country. Stop being a touchy socialist and accept the difference.

    It’s noted that while the two year sentence for this bunch of stupid girls draws condemnation, Bradley Manning has now been imprisoned for 816 days without trial. Yes, I know, you think he’s a traitor who should be shot. Fine, but stop spouting all that crap about the Constitution then. You don’t believe it and you insult others when you pretend to do so.

  134. Frank

    That wouldn’t be a punishment.

    Being agnostic doesn’t mean incapable of grasping the concept of desecration. I don’t see it as relevant to the law but what is the problem about talking about desecration on a discussion site?

  135. Aileen

    “That wouldn’t be a punishment.”

    No punishment for desecration would be appropriate in this case since no desecration actually took place.

    “Being agnostic doesn’t mean incapable of grasping the concept of desecration.”

    No it doesn’t but in that case it means something specific and typically involves destruction – for example, kicking over tombstones would be desecration of a grave. Many religions also define it along similar lines – you have to break an altar or similar. (I suppose it would be unkind to mention that most religions also have a history of doing exactly this to the sacred places of other religions, e.g. Christianity vs the Pagan religions.)

    If making a political statement in a church, or praying for political change there, or jumping around banging a tambourine and a guitar for such a purpose, is enough to constitute desecration then the jails ought to be full of religious leaders and their congregations.

    So since no desecration actually took place what are people here talking about when they mention it? I think they must mean something like blasphemy. But it’s not blasphemous to sing a song, even a bad song, to the Virgin Mary asking her to remove Putin, is it? And blasphemy should have no place in civil law anyhow.

  136. Frank

    But you seemed to be suggesting it as a punishment.

    Depends on how you define desecration. The damage may not be physical (similar to some home owners who consider their home – or it’s sanctity has been damaged by a would be burglar even though nothing has been taken or physically damaged).

    Why unkind? It was not the religions but specific people who desecrated. It’s not unkind to the perpetrators and not unkind to the non perpetrators.

    Why would you consider that if those things constitute desecration that the jails ought to be full or religious leaders and their congregations? Leaving aside the point that these things would only be desecration if they disrupt the purpose (eg the praying), your comment surely implies that desecration should involve a prison sentence.

    No blasphemy makes no sence as you indicate, so I have no reason to think that they mean that.

    I agree that blasphemy should have no place in civil law.

  137. Aileen,

    “But you seemed to be suggesting it as a punishment.”

    Only with tongue in cheek. Why not a religious sentence for a religious crime, if it has no other dimension? Probably a better example would be to sentence them to 30 days in hell or purgatory.

    “Why unkind? It was not the religions but specific people who desecrated. It’s not unkind to the perpetrators and not unkind to the non perpetrators.”

    Well the thing is that the people who did it aren’t generally fringe characters or disowned by the religions involved but generally more like the heros and founding fathers.

    Martin Luther nailed his theses to a church door. St. Augustine and various Bishops and Popes encouraged people to annihilate pagan superstitions, and that’s what happened – those other religions were exterminated and their temples, and in many cases the people themselves, were destroyed.

    Today we have religious leaders commenting on elections and ballots from the pulpit, and the people in the congregation have been known to talk back from time to time. It’s not obvious that this is any kind of desecration. Even Jesus wan’t above going ballistic in a temple.

    “your comment surely implies that desecration should involve a prison sentence.”

    Well real desecration (destruction of temples, gravesites, etc) should involve a prison sentence.

    Other examples aren’t so clear. For example, the blogger PZ Myers has desecrated a consecrated host. I don’t think that should involve a prison sentence and have mixed feelings about it, but I generally think it was an assholish thing to do. Similarly if somebody wants to burn a Koran etc.

  138. Frank

    Ah but punishments are only really punishments if those in receipt of them consider them to be so. So something that would punish the victims would not be a great punishment for the perpetrators in these cases. Bit like an Everton supporter being punished for harassing Liverpool supporters by being banned from Liverpool games for a year. I know you were being tongue in cheek but your tics are normally better founded 😉

    The past is a strange place in that it seems that holding a contrary opinion on religon is seen to be considered on the same basis as burning down the church. We do seem to have a bit of that with the stuff about insulting Mohomad no matter where and how you do it deserves death.

    Re the desecrated host – I think it hangs on who has the right to assign value to the thing destroyed. In that case if both parties accept the value to the victim and that value being the motivation, then that is the value the crime and punishment should be based on.

  139. I suspect that the reason certain commentators are so scornful of the opposition to Putin is because the Russian state subsidises and promotes paranoid anti-American conspiracy theories, through “Russia Today” for example.

  140. Yes

    And don’t think that they aren’t deeply influenced by the crazy US ( but RT Friendly ) ” Prison Planet ” and ” “infowars ”

    See this, which our Lads could hqve written

    Who or What is Russia’s “Pussy Riot?”

    We should just give RT or Alex Jones posting privileges here. It would be far more efficient than having their copy boys regurgitate it word for word, so faithfully

  141. And don’t think that they aren’t deeply influenced by the crazy US ( but RT Friendly ) ” Prison Planet ” and ” “infowars ”

    *facepalm*

    That’s a re-print of this piece for goodness sake. In fact you’re the only one who mention Alex Jones in here. Are you on piece rates for each mention you make of his name?

    At least Infowars readers are getting independent news. Where do you get yours: CNN? MSNBC? You think these government mouthpieces tell you the truth?

  142. One is a reprint of the other. Or each is a reprint of something else.

    Infowars is a site by and for the cliniically insane. It is just as much a commercial operation as the NYT and the others. It takes advantage of its low IQ , frightened audience by focusing on selling emergency food stashes, water filters, gold and silver.

    Infowars is friendly to RT which is controlled by Putin. Both trade in the same conspiracy nonsense and both take it easy on Putin.

    Thats independent?

  143. “Thats independent?”

    Independent of reality.

    That site bills itself as an alternative news source. It is alternative in the same way that homeopathy is alternative medicine.

    From the same guy, surprise surprise:

    The “Ground Zero Mosque:” Why you should really be angry.
    By Tony Cartalucci
    June 22, 2010

    Editing note:

    1. To be clear, 9/11 was an inside job, perpetrated by western intelligence operatives. Please see Loose Change, available for free on YouTube for exhaustive documented evidence.

    Naturally it is also anti-vaccination and AGW is also a conspiracy of course.

  144. Yes Phantom, it’s still independent, whatever “friendly to RT” is supposed to mean. Better that than being friendly with the news corporates which nothing more than mouthpieces for Washington.

    Since central banks are scooping up precious metals and your government advises Americans to carry out emergency preps (shit, have you any idea what preps the government is doing?), that’s a strange comment.

    How much time do you spend at Infowars, by the way? You seem remarkably well informed. Probably it’s in your job description.

    Naturally it is also anti-vaccination and AGW is also a conspiracy of course.

    Well he’s got a couple of things right then.

  145. Pete,

    “Well he’s got a couple of things right then.”

    So you think he’s wrong about 9/11 then?

  146. I look at Infowars an average of once a week. They say today what some here say tomorrow. Its like a clock.

    And yes media outlets have their friends and enemies. Infowars treats RT as a credible source, and quotes from them as thoughtgey are serious actors. I think that RT does the reverse, and that they have quoted the lunatic, radioactive Alex Jones as though he were a human being.

  147. The theological tragedy of the Western world was that Christianity became the State religion of the Roman Empire.
    The Church became an instrument of the State.
    The Church did not want the people to know what the Bible -0ld and New Testaments taught because the State Church would then lose power and influence.

    Indirectly/unwittingly, Henry the Eighth opened the door that led to the establishment and growth of the Non Conformists: the Christians who understood that the Kingdom of God was NOT of this world, that Christians are called to be IN the world but not OF the world, that Christ would one day return to this world and establish His kingdom and His authority.
    And note that it was through the growth of the non conformist understanding of the Gospel that many of the social reforms and improvements occurred in England, the British Isles and the Empire.
    I doubt very much that these things would have happened if the State Church had remained in control.

    Broadly speaking the State Churches are about control OVER men, whereas the Gospel is about establishing the Kingdom of God IN men.

  148. The theological tragedy of the Western world was that Christianity became the State religion of the Roman Empire.

    At least the Western Empire collapsed, leading to churches in the West being far more independent than those that descended from the Orthodox Church of the Byzantine Empire.

  149. Woss,

    “At least the Western Empire collapsed, leading to churches in the West being far more independent than those that descended from the Orthodox Church of the Byzantine Empire”

    I think it was Henry the Eighth seeking dispensation for a divorce from (another) wife who failed to provide him with a son and heir who started the fracture in the power of the Holy Roman Church..

  150. PS
    Had Henry’s first wife provided him with a healthy bouncing boy, the Holy Roman Church would have remained intact longer.. 🙂

  151. Pete,

    “Like most people who comment on 9/11, he’s probably a bit right and a bit wrong.”

    Here’s his view on 9/11 summarised pretty concisely in his own words:

    To be clear, 9/11 was an inside job, perpetrated by western intelligence operatives. Please see Loose Change, available for free on YouTube for exhaustive documented evidence.

    Which bit of that is right and which bit is wrong?

  152. Agit8ed,

    “the Christians who understood that the Kingdom of God was NOT of this world, that Christians are called to be IN the world but not OF the world, that Christ would one day return to this world and establish His kingdom and His authority.”

    Like we have any reason to believe the one ‘not of this world’ is somehow better – rather than, as Christopher Hitchens put it, “a celestial North Korea”

    (except that at least you can f*cking die and leave North Korea)

  153. Frank O’Dwyer –

    “Which bit of that is right and which bit is wrong?”

    Well you can watch Loose Change for free on youtube.

    What I mean is that 9/11 is a very broad topic which hasn’t entirely been explained. When the 9/11 Commission Report criticised government for witholding evidence, and when the two co-chairs criticise the purpose of the Commission, it’s fair to say that no-one can regard all questions about 9/11 now as off-piste.

    This Cartalucci fella might also say that 9/11 has been the Trojan Horse by which government had aggressively expanded the security/police state. If so, he’ll be correct.

  154. “no-one can regard all questions about 9/11 now as off-piste.”

    OK so why not start with my question? I didn’t ask about what the 9/11 commission said, I asked about what your guy said.

    Again, his view on 9/11 summarised pretty concisely in his own words:

    To be clear, 9/11 was an inside job, perpetrated by western intelligence operatives. Please see Loose Change, available for free on YouTube for exhaustive documented evidence.

    That is a pretty clear accusation so which bit of it is right and which bit is wrong? Surely 9/11 was either perpetrated by western intelligence operatives or it wasn’t. Loose Change either contains exhaustive documented evidence for that claim or it doesn’t.

    Why so coy about saying whether you endorse those claims or not?

  155. The always-excellent Nick Cohen nails it here:

    “In her statement to a nobbled judge hearing a trumped-up charge before a kangaroo court, Yekaterina Samutsevich explained why she had “blasphemed”. The secular forces of oppression at Putin’s disposal were not enough for him, she said with remarkable lucidity given her perilous circumstances. He wanted “transcendental guarantees of his long tenure at the pinnacle of power” too. The Orthodox church, “associated with the heyday of imperial Russia, where power came not from earthly manifestations such as democratic elections and civil society, but from God Himself”, now gave credulous believers religious reasons to support the crime gang in the Kremlin.

    Pussy Riot had staged many protests. Revealingly, the security apparatus came for Samutsevich and her sisters after a 30-second stunt in Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral. It hit a nerve by striking at Russia’s union of church and state – of patriarch and oligarch – into a common reactionary front.”

  156. There’s nothing coy about it. I simply don’t know who was behind 9/11.

    Before you tell me it was Osama bin Laden (which I will accept, with corroboration), you’d better tell the FBI. Since OBL was never indicted for 9/11, why should anyone accept the line that he was behind it?

  157. Pete,

    “There’s nothing coy about it. I simply don’t know who was behind 9/11.”

    Well your guy seems to think he does, and he says without any qualification at all that it was american intelligence operatives. Why should anyone accept that line? Why should they even accept it as ‘a bit right and a bit wrong’?

    It’s not even a bit right, is it? And the claim that ‘Loose Change’ contains ‘exhaustive documented evidence’ for it is certainly not even the smallest bit right.

  158. Phantom –

    “What would possibly have been the point of indicting OBL?”

    Erm, it’s a formal accusation, based on evidence presented. As it stands today, whatever anyone has ever said, OBL has never, lawfully and formally, been accused of being behind 9/11. It’s remembered that when the Taliban offered to hand over OBL, on presentation of evidence of his guilt, the response of the administration was to decline.

    Frank O’Dwyer –

    “My guy”?

    Troll is not around, there’s no need to discuss things like juveniles.

  159. Pete,

    “My guy”?”

    Well you’ve linked to this guy twice, presumably approvingly and to commend him to us.

    Now you don’t want to take the credit for your marvellous find, why on earth not? Something wrong with him?

  160. The ‘high school physics’ leaves out the fact that WTC7 earlier received a large dose of kinetic energy from debris from the collapse one of the other towers, as well as fires doing work on the building over a period of hours, so much so that witnesses could see that it was going to collapse long before it did.

    He also glosses over the fact that NIST says the collapse started earlier and therefore took longer than he says it did. He tries to handwave this discrepancy away with a false analogy to revving a motor car engine with the clutch off (which does no work on the car, while a building that has begun to collapse *is* having work done on it). He also lamely calls it ‘precursor movement’ (a BS term, as if the beginnings of the collapse affected some other building miles away a few months earlier, and was unrelated to what happened next).

    Last but not least the argument he makes just doesn’t follow. Freefall simply implies structural collapse from any cause, it doesn’t imply the cause was a controlled demolition at all. And even if a controlled demolition had happened, that certainly doesn’t imply it was done by a government agency as he says. In fact a controlled demolition done by anyone is by itself so inherently unlikely and contradicted by other evidence that almost anything is more plausible, and one particular thing that is much more plausible is that this guys calculation is simply wrong, for the obvious reason that he got the start time wrong.

    In short he skips so many steps and ignores so much evidence that his argument is not much better than ‘freefall collapse, therefore flying saucers’.

  161. Allan isn’t into the truth. He’s into lies, innuendo, and nonsense.

    Just asking questions….

  162. The ‘high school physics’ leaves out the fact that WTC7 earlier received a large dose of kinetic energy from debris from the collapse one of the other towers, as well as fires doing work on the building over a period of hours, so much so that witnesses could see that it was going to collapse long before it did.

    A “large dose of kinetic energy” which would have been the girders and debris blown horizontally out of the twin towers. Note that the twin towers are situated on one side of building 7 and that one side would have been damaged such that, had this ‘kinetic energy’ been the cause of the collapse, the building would have fallen to the side which sustained the damage rather than falling through itself into its own footprint. The “large does of kinetic energy” is on one side of the building yet it collapsed through itself. Surely it would have collapsed to the side which had suffered the “large dose of kinetic energy”. After all, if one of your legs is kicked away, you fall in the direction of that leg but you don’t collapse through yourself to leave a pile of bone and tissue.

    “fires doing work on the building”?? What work? (‘work’ – force x distance through which the force moves) The fires were doing no work and had indeed been extinguished by the time of collapse. In order for steel to lose strength sufficient to risk stability (note that building code factors of safety on static loading are in the order of 5), it would require temperatures above 700degC and office fires don’t get above 500degC.

    “that witnesses could see that it was going to collapse long before it did”. These ‘witnesses’ – who were they? What qualifications do they have? Where is their testimony? There are witnesses who will state that there were explosions in building 7 before its collapse and that police said the building would be brought down. Larry Silverstein, the owner and insurance beneficiary said a decision was made to “pull it” i.e. destroy the building.

    He also glosses over the fact that NIST says the collapse started earlier and therefore took longer than he says it did. He tries to handwave this discrepancy away with a false analogy to revving a motor car engine with the clutch off (which does no work on the car, while a building that has begun to collapse *is* having work done on it). He also lamely calls it ‘precursor movement’ (a BS term, as if the beginnings of the collapse affected some other building miles away a few months earlier, and was unrelated to what happened next).

    If I drive from Aberdeen to Glasgow and I average 60mph, the police will not be impressed by this fact when a camera shows that for 10 minutes, I was driving at 90mph near Perth. The freefall acceleration over 2.5 seconds shows that there was no resistance to collapse and that all structural components which would have provided some resistance were simultaneously compromised. This cannot happen by chance and certainly not be caused by extinguished fires. Only as the building was collapsing into itself was any resistance met and this is because the debris could not be removed from beneath the collapsing material.

    As I watch the video of the collapse of building 7, I see that a central penthouse moves downwards before the outer structure pinpointed by David Chandler as the datum begins its freefall acceleration. This is because it is intended to collapse the building in on itself so the internal columns are destroyed before the externals. Had it been the other way, the building would have tended to fold outwards like a banana peeling. The inner collapse is sequenced such that it will pull the outer collapse inwards like the pulp of a banana pulling the skin inwards during the global collapse of the building.

    Last but not least the argument he makes just doesn’t follow. Freefall simply implies structural collapse from any cause, it doesn’t imply the cause was a controlled demolition at all.

    Frank – the height of the tower means that the only way it could collapse INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT and with clear freefall acceleration is by controlled demolition.

  163. Mild Steel (of which most buildings are built at) begins to lose its strength at 300°C and reduces in strength at a steady rate up to 800°C when it basically has the strength of rubber. It isn’t liquid at 800°C but it isn’t structurally strong enough to hold up a skyscraper.

    Also Class A fires, which are fires including ordinary items including wood, cloth, paper, rubber and many plastics can burn as hot as 1000˚C. A widespread continued fire at those temperatures could reduce the strength of the steel to the point of collapse.

  164. Seamus – by inspection, the fires in building 7 had extinguished as you would see from the video of the collapse. Here is a real fire in a 44-storey building (building 7 had 47 storeys), yet the building didn’t collapse:

    It must be the American building codes yet, somehow, these codes have not been revised in a manner which takes account of the strange propensity of American steelframe buildings (and nobody else’s) to collapse when there’s a relatively minor fire.

  165. A relatively minor fire? Including a huge mid building fuel tank that is allowed to burn over time since the FDNY had suffered such grievous losses in the hours before….

  166. My great grandfather was shot in the head and survived. Does it mean that every other person who got shot in the head and didn’t survive was actually killed in another fashion?

    That is basically what you are saying. The Beijing hotel caught on fire and didn’t collapse thus proving that no large structure can catch fire and collapse.

    Additionally it wasn’t a relatively minor fire. It was a fire burning for multiple hours in a badly designed building with a badly designed fire prevention and suppression system.

  167. Though most studies of the building’s collapse have stated that that fuel tank didn’t explode during the collapse and didn’t actually contribute to the collapse.

  168. I didn’t know that conclusion re the fuel tank.

    Some modern buildings, even very large ones, are not as structurally sound as you’d hope for.

    A huge building in Manhattan that many of us will know was designed incorrectly and it could have collapsed from the winds of a hurricane — which is always a possibility. This was the subject of a PBS documentary.

    Unit testing and the narrowly averted Citicorp Center disaster

  169. The conclusions about the fuel tank were reached for pretty similar reasons that the explosion myths were debunked. There was no explosion. If you ignite 6,000 gallons of fuel then its going to explode outwards and there was no evidence of that in WTC7.

    Most buildings in that region would be like that. Why would a building in New York have to withstand a hurricane? There have only been 80 or so New York hurricanes in the last 400 years and the strongest of it would be comparatively weak to the hurricanes that continually hit the southern coast of the United States.

  170. The modern code says that buildings NYC must be stronger than that. Even one hurricane every 50-100 years is something to worry about and plan for.

    The Northeast withstood a very powerful hurricane in 1938 which killed 800 people. That kind of thing will happen again, and we must plan for it hitting the city, not skirting it as the 1938 one did.

  171. Yeah they should worry about it but it is also easy to understand why the take greater precautions in Miami and Los Angeles than they do in New York.

  172. A relatively minor fire?

    Yes – a relatively minor fire. Check the video at 5.28 for a real fire. Moreover, when the collapse of building 7 happened, the fires had burnt out or been extinguished. Strangely, not all American buildings collapse when there’s a fire though to have three collapse on the same day reminds me of Admiral Fisher’s quip about British battleships at Jutland. No steel-framed buildings collapse due to fire. The steel is thermally conductive and allows intense heat to dissipate whilst retaining its integrity.

    Here are major fires in high-rise buildings in the US which survived fires worse than those which affected the buildings of 9/11. It looks as though the design codes in the US are probably OK so it must have been something else about 9/11.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

    – Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things. –

    – One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. 1 2 3 It was later described by Philadelphia officials as “the most significant fire in this century”.

    The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed. –

    – The First Interstate Bank fire

    The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city’s history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. 5

    A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

    In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans. –

  173. And all three of the collapsing buildings on 9/11 had non fire related damage as well. In case you missed it the Meridian Plaza didn’t have a Jumbo Jet fly into it and the First Interstate Bank didn’t have a big skyscraper collapse on top of it.

  174. But they weren’t just on fire were they now Allan. Two of them had fuel laden airplanes hit them and the other one had tons of debris from one of the tallest buildings on the planet hit it while it collapsed. That’s not true of any of your examples, now is it Allan? Not very honest of you to pretend otherwise.

    Truthers like to gloss over these small details but I suspect they may be relevant.

    As for ‘no building ever’ did X or Y – even if that were true, what would you care? Your own theory requires controlled demolitions to be prepared (something that normally takes days) without anybody inside the building noticing. That’s certainly never happened before, but you see no problem with that. It’s not even the only wildly improbable thing your theory requires to be true.

    Yes anyone who thinks they have deduced the buildings came down in a controlled demolition may as well claim an earthquake took the buildings down without anybody noticing an earthquake.

    As for Silverstein saying that he took the decision to ‘pull it’, that clearly refers to something else because for a kickoff this is not a Bond movie where the villain explains his plan. Secondly even if he had signed a confession claiming there was a controlled demolition the conclusion STILL wouldn’t be that one had occurred. The conclusion would be that Silverstein was bananas.

  175. The FDNY had just suffered huge loss of life, and its local command structure was destroyed.

    That is why 7WTC was allowed to burn. It was the right decision under the dreadful circumstances.

  176. But they weren’t just on fire were they now Allan. Two of them had fuel laden airplanes hit them and the other one had tons of debris from one of the tallest buildings on the planet hit it while it collapsed.

    Frank – when the aircraft hit WTCs 1 and 2, did you see a huge fireball? I did, and it was the fuel in the plane exploding outside the buildings. The reason why the fires were producing black smoke is because they were starved of air and therefore not particularly hot. The steel below the fire was not hot and had full strength available to meet code design requirements.

    The tons of debris which hit building 7 – did it hit one side of the building or did it hit the building uniformly and from all directions? The answer is the former i.e. one side of the building was hit as can be seen from any video showing the destruction of WTCs 1 and 2. Given that only one side was hit and that damage was assymetric, why did the 47-storey building not fall towards the weakened side as any structure would? In reality, building 7 fell into its own footprint at freefall acceleration ready for fast-tracked disposal overseas.

    As for Silverstein saying that he took the decision to ‘pull it’, that clearly refers to something else…

    Is that so? Let’s have a look at what really happened. Btw, Lucky Larry did very well out of 9/11. He had a dental appointment when he was normally having breakfast in WTC2; his children both worked at the WTCs yet were absent on 9/11; and there’s the little matter fo the fortunate and timely double insurance claim netting him several (as much as 7?) $billion. Seriously, just how lucky can one get?

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

    – On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” comment]:

    Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. …

    In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

    Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

    As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

    There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7:

    “No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.” [Fema Report]

    “There was no firefighting in WTC 7.” [Popular Mechanics]

    “By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons.” [New York Times] –

    Oh dear – Larry was caught lying. Now let’s look again at what Frank is claiming in his defence of the indefensible Larry Silverstein. Frank says that Larry’s “pull it” meant withdrawal of firemen from WTC7, even though none were there (see above). Silverstein’s exact words as seen and heard on the 490 kB video embedded in the link are:

    “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

    So Frank – what is the “something else” that Silverstein’s “pull it” is referring to?

  177. Frank

    I don’t know any Truthers that live here, and certainly none of the many that I know with strong connections to the WTC would have any Truther tendencies ( * )

    I think that most New Yorkers tune the Truthers out. There would be little anger. They’re seen as crazy people, very sad cases.

    ( * ) And while I know many from all political strains, I don’t know of a one who displays the casual armchair lust for war that you often see here. An Unscientific observation, bur true.

Comments are closed.