Jim Corr is talking about the New World Order right now!

suspectdevice

all you scientists. i have to laugh at the way you all get caught up in the detail. its actually really entertaining to watch. but you must realise, all this is of no consequence to the series of events that directly followed the attack. fact is the towers came tumbling down. there were other buildings that came tumbling down that weren't hit by hijacked planes but that is neither here nor there.

america wanted fuel, didn't matter what it took, they allowed an attack on their own soil to make sure they had total support for their foreign policy, invade afghanistan to finish the pipeline and then iraq to get their hands on the oil contracts. why else would rumsfeld say "prepare your troops for a ground assault" on iraq within hours of the incident in new york

BaZmO*

suspectdevice wrote: »

they allowed an attack on their own soil to make sure they had total support for their foreign policy

See that's the thing, just because they were complacent about the prior warnings on possible attacks it doesn't mean that they allowed the attacks to take place. It's like saying that just because you don't have an alarm on your house it's your fault that you got burgled.

As as for America invading Iraq straight away, I think that was more opportunistic than preplanned, in much the same way that someone that has been burgled would file an insurance claim the very next day but in the 10 years leading up to the burglary couldn't be bothered to get insurance.

suspectdevice

BaZmO* wrote: »

See that's the thing, just because they were complacent about the prior warnings on possible attacks it doesn't mean that they allowed the attacks to take place. It's like saying that just because you don't have an alarm on your house it's your fault that you got burgled.

ok, i can see how you could arrive at that conclusion. its different one to mine but valid all the same.

BaZmO* wrote:

As as for America invading Iraq straight away, I think that was more opportunistic than preplanned, in much the same way that someone that has been burgled would file an insurance claim the very next day but in the 10 years leading up to the burglary couldn't be bothered to get insurance.

see, thats where it all becomes unstuck for me a little. theres a little too much opportunism about rumsfeld giving the instruction to prepare for the iraqi invasion within 4-5 hours of 911.

it says to me that they knew there was a chance of an attack. that they were going to allow it to happen. they didn't know how or where, but they were convinced they knew their enemy. this is why they ignored the warnings. i don't think they actually considered the size of the attack that happened since they were comparing it to previous attacks on the scale of the us embassy or the uss cole.

at first they probably thought this was ordinary plane hijackings, that the terrorists would land on the tarmac somewhere and try to negotiate. to have that happen on american soil was more than enough. they would then send in the troops, swat or whoever, a couple of people die in the shoot out. what do the hijackers do? they only go and fly the fu'cking planes into the biggest target in all of america. no one expected that but they were prepared enough to react by issuing war orders immediately.

and they couldn't believe that the scale was such that they could use it as justifcation to enter a sovereign state like afghanistan, plan to enter iraq, to finish the pipeline and and get the oil contracts. it must have been on their agenda to invade iraq for rumsfeld to order the preparation when everyone else was in shock. any attack of that scale of kenya or cole would be enough justification to "smoke 'em out" or "hunt 'em down", but the hijackers delivered enough of a shock that they could have blamed anyone and gone and killed them without any opposition from the citizens, and with the support of most of the western world.

Kernel

darkman2 wrote: »

lol just listened to a clip of this jim corr interview and he says 8 of the 9/11 hijackers 'turned up alive'...in some middle east country with their passports and all.


cuckoo

Dude....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

If you know its a fact, then you'll have no problems providing evidence....a picture of one of these SAM installations, with enough background to make it unquestionable as to where it is.

That's hardly fair Bonkey, I doubt if the US Dept. of Defence would publicise the location of anti-ballistic missile sites...

They do, however, have anti-ICBM sites that we know about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6720153.stm

EDIT: Good old abovetopsecret members have done some research: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread217139/pg1

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

That's hardly fair Bonkey, I doubt if the US Dept. of Defence would publicise the location of anti-ballistic missile sites...

Its very fair, Kernel. cronndiesel said that there's a ring of SAMS around major US conurbations. There's only one way to know that this is correct, and thats to have evidence. That means that either the US did publicise the location of them, or someone found them.

EDIT: Good old abovetopsecret members have done some research: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread217139/pg1

Interesting work...and not one US conurbation in sight.

Strange that. It shows they can be found...that pictures can be supplied...but not of these alleged US installations.

So to recap - you think its fair for someone to allege that these sites exist without needing to provide evidence of them, but its unfair to ask for evidence that they exist whilst providing evidence for such sites in other parts of the world.

See what I was saying before about applying differing standards?

Mahatma coat

Odd that there are US missile defence systems everywhere else except the US init.

suspectdevice

maybe its so that they couldn't defend themselves against internal attacks or in the run up to 911 the bush administration destroyed them so the attack could be successful or aliens robbed them...hmmmmm....the plop thickens

Mahatma coat

Bonkey/diogeness

explain this away

http://planetquo.net/911/Woman/Img314.jpg
(posted in BOTH Threads just in case ya mised one)

BaZmO*

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Bonkey/diogeness

explain this away

http://planetquo.net/911/Woman/Img314.jpg
(posted in BOTH Threads just in case ya mised one)

I think you need to actually say what it is first before anybody can "explain it away" if in fac it needs to explained away.

Bard

suspectdevice wrote: »

the plop thickens

Ewww...!

Mahatma coat

its one of the Basement support beams for the WTC, note how it has been cut, note the molten metal that has hardened around the base of the cut.

I want an explanation as to how that happened.

Bard

Mahatma coat wrote: »

its one of the Basement support beams for the WTC, note how it has been cut, note the molten metal that has hardened around the base of the cut.

I want an explanation as to how that happened.

Read this then.

suspectdevice

Bard wrote: »

Ewww...!

i know, i know, couldn't resist for the 15 millionth time

conspiracy wtf!

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

So to recap - you think its fair for someone to allege that these sites exist without needing to provide evidence of them, but its unfair to ask for evidence that they exist whilst providing evidence for such sites in other parts of the world.

See what I was saying before about applying differing standards?

I'm saying that the evidence you ask for to qualify the statement is a little unfair, since such sites would obviously be above top secret.

When I get time I'll research the SAM sites in the US a little more. It would seem illogical to me that the US would not have SAM sites, especially when you look at the amount of money they spend on weaponry and homeland security.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

I'm saying that the evidence you ask for to qualify the statement is a little unfair, since such sites would obviously be above top secret.

Well, you have to understand my position. This guy claims these sites exists, and hasn't offered any evidence for your existence. You're now claiming that its unfair to ask for, or to expect to get, evidence. Indeed, you're saying that he shouldn't even know of their existence...only he claims he does...so the question has to be asked. How does he know of their existence. What evidence has led him to make this claim?

If I made a claim regarding September 11, and the existence of something that just totally refuted any idea of a conspiracy....I'm fairly certain you wouldn't be appeased by me telling you that I naturally couldn't supply any evidence because any such evidence would be top secret. I'm fairly certain that in such a case, you'd be remarkably capable of understanding that claims need evidence to support them.

When I get time I'll research the SAM sites in the US a little more. It would seem illogical to me that the US would not have SAM sites, especially when you look at the amount of money they spend on weaponry and homeland security.

Why?

What are they going to shoot down?

As accepted by all and sundry, they have outward-looking systems at the borders and coast. As long as nothing gets past that, there's no need for SAM against aircraft.

As for missiles...there is no known system for shooting down incoming ballistic missiles. They just travel too damned fast. This is (partly) why the US want their system in Europe...so they can hit any notional ICBMs on the way up.

America's biggest security measures are the good relations it has with its immediate neighbours, and the dirty big oceans seperating them from anyone who's even a remote threat.

Pixel8

Bonkey, whats different about the 911 conspiracy and other conspiracies is the amount of people that dont believe the official story, there are tens of thousands of Americans alone that have voiced their opinions on the streets in the US, protesting, asking questions, , confronting officials and demanding answers but they're not getting any... why? And there are even more people outside America that believed it before most Americans did. This has got to be the biggest conspiracy ever, after maybe JFK and loadsa people now believe that to be an inside job too.

Why would so many people be convinced of this if its just a conspiracy theory?

Bonkey and JJ6000, im still waiting for a reply to my last post a few pages ago?

BaZmO*

Pixel8 wrote: »

Why would so many people be convinced of this if its just a conspiracy theory?

Because we're living in an age with unprecented media saturation, be it TV, Print or the Internet. That coupled with 911 being one of the biggest and most spectacular of terrorist attacks and you've got your answer.

Sam Vimes

Pixel8 wrote: »

Why would so many people be convinced of this if its just a conspiracy theory?

to be fair, people are idiots who believe whatever they want to believe. just look at the number of people who believe in an imaginary friend who looks after them and brings them to a paradise in the clouds when they die

and a more contemporary example, look at the number of people who believe lies about the lisbon treaty even when the evidence of the lie is laid out right in front of them. they don't want to believe it so they ignore the facts

MOH

suspectdevice wrote: »

why else would rumsfeld say "prepare your troops for a ground assault" on iraq within hours of the incident in new york

Because he'd be a pretty poor secretary of defence if he wasn't preparing retaliation scenarios after the biggest attack on the US since Pearl Harbour?
They'd be wanting options available, and since going into Iraq would probably be the most difficult option (except maybe Iran), they'd be preparing for the worst case.
In the same way I'd be surprised if Henry Stimson wasn't saying "prepare for attacking Japan" hours after Pearl Harbour.

Sam Vimes

MOH wrote: »

Because he'd be a pretty poor secretary of defence if he wasn't preparing retaliation scenarios after the biggest attack on the US since Pearl Harbour?
They'd be wanting options available, and since going into Iraq would probably be the most difficult option (except maybe Iran), they'd be preparing for the worst case.
In the same way I'd be surprised if Henry Stimson wasn't saying "prepare for attacking Japan" hours after Pearl Harbour.

tbh that's very flimsy reasoning. if he was looking for the worst case, he would have said "prepare for attacking china". that's obviously not why he said it

MOH

Pixel8 wrote: »

Bonkey, whats different about the 911 conspiracy and other conspiracies is the amount of people that dont believe the official story, there are tens of thousands of Americans alone that have voiced their opinions on the streets in the US, protesting, asking questions, , confronting officials and demanding answers but they're not getting any... why? And there are even more people outside America that believed it before most Americans did. This has got to be the biggest conspiracy ever, after maybe JFK and loadsa people now believe that to be an inside job too.

Why would so many people be convinced of this if its just a conspiracy theory?

Bonkey and JJ6000, im still waiting for a reply to my last post a few pages ago?

Because people don't want to believe that a terrorist group was able to do this.

If there was a conspiracy, if the government was involved or let it happen, that's one thing.

But if a terrorist group was able to do this once, what's to stop them doing it again? It means that everything they've believe about America's power is meaningless, if they can't even defend themselved against an organised group of individuals, let alone a country. A lot of people would rather believe the government was involved than accept this.

MOH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

tbh that's very flimsy reasoning. if he was looking for the worst case, he would have said "prepare for attacking china". that's obviously not why he said it

I meant worst case of the likely scenarios. They weren't going to invade China.

If the whole thing was orchestrated, why would he say "prepare to invade Iraq" or whatever hours after the event? Why wouldn't they already be prepating?

Where's this quote from anyway?

JJ6000

Pixel8 wrote: »

Bonkey, whats different about the 911 conspiracy and other conspiracies is the amount of people that dont believe the official story, there are tens of thousands of Americans alone that have voiced their opinions on the streets in the US, protesting, asking questions, , confronting officials and demanding answers but they're not getting any... why? And there are even more people outside America that believed it before most Americans did. This has got to be the biggest conspiracy ever, after maybe JFK and loadsa people now believe that to be an inside job too.

Why would so many people be convinced of this if its just a conspiracy theory?

Bonkey and JJ6000, im still waiting for a reply to my last post a few pages ago?

THe amount of people that believe something has absolutley no bearing on the actual truth! You would be insane to think otherwise.

BTW, the majority of Americans certainly do not believe the conspiracy theorys that you seem to be spreading. Do they have questions? Yes. THat, however, does not imply that they believe there was any kind of governmental conspiracy.
The answers are out there. It's just that the average american (or any nationality for that matter) are usually too lazy to go read the engineering reports etc to find them.

I will respond to your post. I quite literally have not had more than 10 mins free time over the past week as I am extremely busy in work and posts like this take a long time to type.

You'll have to refresh my memory though, which post are you referring to?

Sam Vimes

MOH wrote: »

I meant worst case of the likely scenarios. They weren't going to invade China.

If the whole thing was orchestrated, why would he say "prepare to invade Iraq" or whatever hours after the event? Why wouldn't they already be prepating?

Where's this quote from anyway?

i didn't say the whole thing was orchestrated. all i said was your "preparing for the worst" explanation didn't sound at all likely.

also, apparently they were planning to go back into iraq long before 9/11. it just gave them an excuse. i have absolutely no proof of that though

suspectdevice

MOH wrote: »

I meant worst case of the likely scenarios. They weren't going to invade China.

If the whole thing was orchestrated, why would he say "prepare to invade Iraq" or whatever hours after the event? Why wouldn't they already be prepating?

Where's this quote from anyway?

here - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

BaZmO* wrote:

Because we're living in an age with unprecented media saturation, be it TV, Print or the Internet. That coupled with 911 being one of the biggest and most spectacular of terrorist attacks and you've got your answer.

there was no media saturation when christianity came along and its the biggest conspiracy theory of all time.

its is not a conspiracy theory. its a hypothesis - a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

the invasions of the sovereign states of afghanistan and iraq are proven to be based on conspiracy theories.

Pixel8

The amount of people that believe something has absolutley no bearing on the actual truth! You would be insane to think otherwise.

Because we're living in an age with unprecented media saturation, be it TV, Print or the Internet.

Well things you see on the internet about the NWO, NAU, CFR, Secret Societies, International Bankers, Royal Bloodlines etc. is ONLY on the internet, have you EVER heard this stuff on the Radio, TV or in the print? Extremely rarely... Some books maybe, some radio stations maybe (Not Irish stations thats for sure, Coast2CoastAM in the States is the only one i can think of) but my point is the internet is the only place you find this info pretty much 98% of the time. And TV, Radio and print usually tries to tell you the opposite, that "You're free to do as we please!"

Not even half the people that use the internet would come across such material as conspiracy related stuff in their travels unless they find a few things that just dont make sense and decide to follow the trail... Sure is an interesting trail, whether its a true story or a fictional one.

So back to my point, with the limited amount of places that you can even access this sort of information from, being mostly from the internet, WHY is there such huge support for this over in the US and growing all over the world? Are they all copping onto something you're not?

This is not comparable to religion at all in terms of how widespread and supported religion was by everyone back then, we've all seen Root of all Evil etc. and have always thought Religion was nonsense. We've all also heard how crackpot conspiracy theories are or used to be, yet now, 7 years later after 911, we've done our homework, seen 7 years of media for both sides and now a lot of us are believing something else is not right, our governments and banks, from the same crackpots that brought us religion, yet we want to defend these people? You think 911 is the worst thing any government has done? I dont think so... It's time to start researching the International Bankers who now own most governments:

“We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
Paul Warburg (1950 - to the US senate)

If he was saying that back then, where do you reckon they are now?

America have been fighting for their Constitution and Bill Of Rights for the last 7 years now, what are Ireland and Europe now doing?

America and Socialism:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/janak/050322

I suppose at this stage some quotes are necessary coz after all, they are fact; those people really did say those things and why would THEY lie?:


"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident."
Schoepenhouer


"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."
Mikhail Gorbachev


"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States,
characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world
to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will.
If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
David Rockefeller


"With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another."
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg


In politics nothing happens by accident, if it happens you can bet it was planned that way."
Franklin D. Roosevelt


"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining
super capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do.
I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976,


"I confess I am very sceptical, about sceptics. Because most have never studied the subject,
to be sceptical means you have to know what you are sceptical about, instead,
this often means something needs explaining to you, who should actually be open minded,
as most scepticism is a mask for ignorance, or another agenda."
T. Stokes


"I'll call myself a conspiracy theorist if you call yourself a coincidence theorist....."
Michael Parenti/John Judge

More must read quotes:
http://www.northernresistance.info/quotes.html

JJ6000

Pixel8 wrote: »

Well things you see on the internet about the NWO, NAU, CFR, Secret Societies, International Bankers, Royal Bloodlines etc. is ONLY on the internet, have you EVER heard this stuff on the Radio, TV or in the print? Extremely rarely... Some books maybe, some radio stations maybe (Not Irish stations thats for sure, Coast2CoastAM in the States is the only one i can think of) but my point is the internet is the only place you find this info pretty much 98% of the time. And TV, Radio and print usually tries to tell you the opposite, that "You're free to do as we please!"

Not even half the people that use the internet would come across such material as conspiracy related stuff in their travels unless they find a few things that just dont make sense and decide to follow the trail... Sure is an interesting trail, whether its a true story or a fictional one.

So back to my point, with the limited amount of places that you can even access this sort of information from, being mostly from the internet, WHY is there such huge support for this over in the US and growing all over the world? Are they all copping onto something you're not?

This is not comparable to religion at all in terms of how widespread and supported religion was by everyone back then, we've all seen Root of all Evil etc. and have always thought Religion was nonsense. We've all also heard how crackpot conspiracy theories are or used to be, yet now, 7 years later after 911, we've done our homework, seen 7 years of media for both sides and now a lot of us are believing something else is not right, our governments and banks, from the same crackpots that brought us religion, yet we want to defend these people? You think 911 is the worst thing any government has done? I dont think so... It's time to start researching the International Bankers who now own most governments:

“We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
Paul Warburg (1950 - to the US senate)

If he was saying that back then, where do you reckon they are now?

America have been fighting for their Constitution and Bill Of Rights for the last 7 years now, what are Ireland and Europe now doing?

America and Socialism:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/janak/050322

I suppose at this stage some quotes are necessary coz after all, they are fact; those people really did say those things and why would THEY lie?:


"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident."
Schoepenhouer


"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."
Mikhail Gorbachev


"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States,
characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world
to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will.
If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
David Rockefeller


"With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another."
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg


In politics nothing happens by accident, if it happens you can bet it was planned that way."
Franklin D. Roosevelt


"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining
super capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do.
I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976,


"I confess I am very sceptical, about sceptics. Because most have never studied the subject,
to be sceptical means you have to know what you are sceptical about, instead,
this often means something needs explaining to you, who should actually be open minded,
as most scepticism is a mask for ignorance, or another agenda."
T. Stokes


"I'll call myself a conspiracy theorist if you call yourself a coincidence theorist....."
Michael Parenti/John Judge

More must read quotes:
http://www.northernresistance.info/quotes.html

You can post all the quotes you want....but what does that prove at all??

Posting these kinds of quotes adds nothing substantive to your argument and I cant really understand why several people on the thread keep doing it. They are of zero evidential value to what we are discussing. I really cant understand what you are talking about when you say "they are fact". Facts of what exactly???? Yes, it may be a fact that the people spoke those words.....but how do the things they say constitute "facts" in any way, shape or form????

ALso, true to conspiracy-theorist form, you have horrendously misinterpreted some of those quotes. Do you actually know what Mikhail Gorbachev was referring to when he talked of the "new world order"? Well, I honestly could not be bothered explaining it to you, but sufficient to say, if you actually knew any history whatsoever you would know that he was not referring to the same concept as Jim Corr was.

and by the way, what the hell does this emboldened text mean?????

now, 7 years later after 911, we've done our homework, seen 7 years of media for both sides and now a lot of us are believing something else is not right, our governments and banks, from the same crackpots that brought us religion, yet we want to defend these people?

Once again....I do not see any evidence of "huge" support for your conspiracy theories. Most people who support your theories are the ones reading the same conspiracy sites as you......or people who have access to youtube and stumbled across the loosechange (or other) conspiracy videos.....and, usually, have not bothered to look any further for the REAL explanations as to what actually happened.

The explanations ARE out there....it's just most people who surf the internet can't really be bothered to look into it any deeper than watching a couple of conspiracy videos on youtube. Case in point; the thermite theory, which is easily rebuttable by doing even a slight bit of digging (as I explained earlier). However, it's a lot easier for people to believe an hour long video which present very one sided view and limited facts, than to spend hours looking into the forensic evidence and reports to get the real scientific explanations. So, there's your answer as to why a lot of people who watch these videos end up believing them: human beings are largely too lazy too look any deeper.

As I said before, a lot of people have questions about what happened, yes. However, that DOES NOT imply that they believe there was any kind of conspiracy involved. The true conspiracy theorists, from personal experience at least, are very much in the minority. Either way, the number of people who believe either side is completely irrelevant. What matters is the evidence and that is where the conspiracy theorists arguments crash and burn.

suspectdevice

i suppose we should try and move this debate on a little. the situation presently is that there is substantial evidence to suggest that the incident at the twin towers, the two buildings hit by the hijacked planes, were certainly capable of causing their collapse. however, it does not tell us why building 7 collapsed without a plane hitting it. the building collapsed in free fall within its own footprint. wtc 7 was 610 feet tall, with a trapezoid-shaped footprint which was 330 ft long and 140 ft wide. there may have been a couple of small isolated fires but nothing that should threaten the integrity of the non tower like building.

Pixel8

Exactly suspectdevice, why isn't anyone that disputes WTC1 and WTC2 being demolished say anything about WTC7???

Also, JJ6000, have you looked into the seismic activity reports from just before the planes hit? Here's some evidence and it also shows how in 2005 NIST changed their times, i mean, havent you found official reports that came out later that contradicted the first reports? Holes everyhwere... The first reports say that the seismic activity was recorded PRIOR to the planes hitting it, explain this please.

Check this out:
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/seismic-proof-911-was-an-inside-job

There are numerous links from the above article that contradict the official reports.

The seismic activity for the planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2 was around 0.9 and 0.7 on the Richter scale but when asked to pinpoint the exact time the plane hit the Pentagon, they cant give an exact time because the signal was so weak, how could it be so weak that they cant tell? Coz it was a missile, not a plane.

Here's your evidence for there being no strong enough seismic signals coming from the Pentagon when it was hit, straight from a Government website:
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf

You see JJ6000, the buildings being demolished are just one piece of a much bigger pie, you keep concentrating on the details of one little part of this, the explosions, and this is stopping you from looking into more information about the BIGGER picture. There is a much bigger picture going on here and its called the New World Order, open your bloody eyes please. I bet you still havent checked out the CFR, NAU and PNAC yet... have you ever even researched the illuminati? ah well, stay ignorant then... or else check this out:

http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/illumin.htm