Showing posts with label 911. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 911. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Astrophysicist Vs The Government

Chemical Traces of High Explosives in WTC Debris

Josh Mitteldorf / OpEd News | August 5, 2008

The standard way to demolish a steel-framed building is to apply cutter charges to the supporting beams. The cutter charges consist of finely-powdered aluminum mixed with iron oxide, with added sulfur. This mixture contains both fuel and oxidant – it needs no air – and it burns hot enough to melt steel. The trade name for this product is “Thermate.”

There is a science to placing the charges in such a way that the building falls inward. It requires a great deal of expertise to keep a tall building from toppling over sideways.

Many scientists and engineers have looked at the way the WTC towers fell and remarked that it had the appearance of controlled demolition. The buildings collapsed symmetrically, and fell straight down. The speed of the fall indicated that the buildings were collapsing unimpeded. They must have had the “legs” simultaneously pulled out from under them, because a layered collapse from the top down would have taken several minutes, whereas the observed collapse took place in less than 20 seconds.

Another anomaly in the WTC collapse was the violent explosions. Firemen reported earthshaking blasts from the basement before collapse, and the impact areas in the upper floorss of the buildings exploded just at the onset of collapse. Jet fuel burns but cannot explode.

In an article published this week in the journal Environmentalist, chemical engineer Kevin Ryan collects evidence from EPA documents that suggest there was both Thermate and high-explosives in the debris from the WTC collapse. Ryan was formerly employed by Environmental Health Labs, a division of Underwriters Labs, before he was fired for raising these and other questions.

Fires at the WTC site persisted for weeks after 9/11, despite firefighters’ use of water and chemical extinguishers to smother the flames. This suggests that it was a fuel-oxidant mixture that was burning. Pools of red-hot molten iron could not have been caused by burning jet fuel or building materials, because these burn at a much lower temperature than steel melts.

Ryan’s evidence consists in traces of 1,3-diphenylpropane as well as sulfur and particulate matter, reported by the EPA to have appeared in spikes continuing as late as March, 2002. Ryan believes that these came from brief, intense fires ignited by the molten steel when it came in contact with yet-unburned plastic building materials during the clean-up process.

Link to Journal article full text

http://mathforum.org/~josh

Josh Mitteldorf was educated to be an astrophysicist, and has branched out from there to mathematical modeling in a variety of areas. He has taught mathematics, statistics, and physics at several universities. He is an avid amateur pianist, and father of two adopted Chinese girls. This year, his affiliation is with the University of Arizona, where he studies the evolution of aging.

Monday, July 28, 2008

The BBC and 9/11 - Image review

The BBC has produced various slanderous ' hit ' pieces against the 9/11 truth movement.

We have watched as the BBC announced that building 7 had collapsed BEFORE it actually did.

But the last hit piece titled " 9/11 third tower mystery 'solved' " just revealed much more about the TRUE nature of the event. What Im interested in is the picture they used for the article, here it is below:


Light reflection from falling debris right? Notice the verticle pattern on the face of white squibs, that is consistent with demolition charges, and on the far right bottom we see thermite burning. I really love these images because on the building(the shorter one) in front center of the image, we see windows for comparison, which means an expansive opening in the building structure. Explosives would also create an opening in the building, and that is just what we see at the marked positions.

Below will be more images of the BBC image, that will have filters applied to them.





These same features can be seen all over the buildings, at various periods of time. Below are images taken directly from the Naudet brothers video sequences of the first plane hitting. Notice the bulge emanating many floors above the impact zone. The video below also shows frame by frame this sequence.



The video below is the " Freeman Perspective" interview of Paul Laffoley, as describes the connections between the Bin Laden building company and 9/11.



So as we can see, there is more to meet the eyes than we think, and the subject is far from over, in fact it is just beginning to gear up!!!


Sunday, July 27, 2008

Neo Conned by Rick Williams

A nice little bit of psy from our ole friends at the supposed breaking of the matrix. I really dont think most of the people there even really know what the true matrix is.



"A couple of weeks ago, I posted a column titled "Are Jewish People Welcome Here?" My answer-- yes they are. Not all Zionists are neocons; and not all neocons are Zionists. I argued in the earlier column that our freedom movement has many Jewish friends and supporters, and it is both inaccurate and bad strategy for freedom lovers to blame a small minority of the American people for the many problems that exist at home and abroad. Indeed, what kind of people are we to think that a tiny handful of AIPAC types could possibly control a great nation like ours for long? As "V" said in the movie classic V For Vendetta (see my "Jew Bashing" column): if we want to learn what's wrong in this country, we need only look in the mirror. Once the American people elect to throw off these dark people in Washington DC and Wall Street who've plundered and bankrupted our nation, the process will be as simple as making the decision to do so and acting on that decision. Our adversaries have no mystical powers; and their corrupt system is collapsing in front of our eyes even as I write these words. Our adversaries are weak, ladies and gentlemen, and they have nothing to offer but decline, and failure, and bankruptcy and debt. The strength of our ideas can easily overcome such things.

But how? Where can the truth be found and spoken in a matrix of lies? How do we break up this close knit alliance of banksters, war profiteers, media lapdogs and corrupt politicians that seek to control the world we live in? How do we build the political power that will be needed to defeat these people in a nonviolent way? The answer, I suggest, is simple and straightforward-- COMMUNITY! Political power IS community. Isolated individuals and small groups can be easily marginalized and pushed into the irrelevant fringe. We've all seen the effect of isolation-- and we know to a certainty that isolation is a strategy eternally doomed to failure. Our leaders are not fools, and they actively seek to keep us separated and apart-- for very good reason. They know, as we do, that a vibrant community of freedom lovers can quickly displace the charlatans who presently control our money and our country. And they know, as we do, that once we succeed in building community, their failed leadership will be only for the moment.

Which brings me to 9-11 truthers and the point of this column. Are 9-11 truthers welcome here? Our answer-- of course they are! Freedom people who question the 9-11 Commission Report are among the strongest voices out there. We need their passion; their energy; their commitment to truth. Very simply, (and imho), we all should recognize that 9-11 truthers are an important part of the freedom community.

This is not to say that any of us need to accept their proffered evidence at face value. 9-11 truthers make interesting and intriguing arguments about deficiencies in the official report, but I think it's fair to say that an impartial observer will quickly point to gaping holes and shortcomings in truther positions as well. At this point, (again, imho), the best that can be said is that the 9-11 story has yet to be written in full. To the extent that 9-11 truthers are asking questions; gathering evidence; asserting plausible arguments-- where can there be a legitimate objection to this sort of truth seeking activity? The call for fresh and unbiased investigation has been supported by Ron Paul among many others, and we at BreakTheMatrix think Dr. Paul's position on further study is right on the mark.

The deeper questions, however, are those of priority and strategy. The search for 9-11 truth, by definition, is an effort that looks backward in time, while we at BreakTheMatrix think our movement should be forward looking. The 9-11 truth effort is to assign accountability (blame?) for events that occurred years ago, while we at BreakTheMatrix perceive that it is much more important to create a vision for the better America of the future. 9-11 truth is a strategy for solving old mysteries, but we at BreakTheMatrix think the sounder approach is to focus on creating a stronger and more prosperous America now, and for our children. Very simply, we at BreakTheMatrix have a fundamentally different strategy for success than is found in the 9-11 movement, and to that extent, we think their movement is not on target.

Finally, there's the issue of tone. Would any of us suggest that the American people will respond favorably to a negative message? Optimism; hope; peace; prosperity-- these are the things that we at BreakTheMatrix believe should be presented as "truth;" and all of these things become possible once the plunderers are swept away. A positive tone is what's needed, and that's where we perceive our focus should be. So join us, 9-11 truthers-- on the bright side. -

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Confirmed: ISI General Ahmed Met With JCS, Neocons Before 9/11

Confirmed: ISI General Ahmed Met With JCS, Neocons Before 9/11

George Washington’s Blog
July 15, 2008

In response to a Freedom of Information Act Request submitted by Kevin Ryan, Mick Harrison and Paul Smith, the government has disclosed documents confirming that Pakistani ISI General Ahmed - the guy who wired $100,000 to lead hijacker Atta — met with a "Senior Representative from the Joint Chiefs of Staff", Centcom Commander General Tommy Franks, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Wolfowitz, Feith, other PNAC members, and probably Intelligence Committee members Graham and Goss, and others in the week before 9/11.

All credit goes to Kevin, Mick and Paul. I’m just reporting on their efforts.

Friday, July 11, 2008

WTC 7 Emergency Head Was Building Collapse Specialist

WTC 7 Emergency Head Was Building Collapse Specialist

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, July 10, 2008

The former New York City chief emergency manager Jerome Hauer, whose office was on the 23d floor of WTC 7, was also a building collapse specialist, according to a recently uncovered New York Times article. Hauer has attracted suspicion from the 9/11 truth movement because of his zeal to push the official story in the hours after the attack when details were still sketchy.



Jerome M. Hauer



Jerome Hauer: Pictured in 1996 with Rudy Giuliani.


Hauer was also Managing Director of Kroll Associates - the company that provided security for the WTC complex on 9/11 - and he also betrayed advance knowledge of the anthrax attacks a week before they happened.

In a July 27 1999 NY Times article unearthed by 9/11 Blogger entitled What Could Go Wrong? It’s His Job to Know, Hauer is given a glowing write-up by journalist Randy Kennedy.

“There is one story he tells in which this fascination is quite literal….But another illustration, a bit more metaphorical, is hard to miss when you walk into his office on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center, otherwise known as ”the bunker,” the $13 million bulletproof, hurricane-proof, blackout-proof emergency crisis center opened by the city last month.”

The article describes Building 7 for what it was, a structurally reinforced immovable object built for the express purpose of standing strong in a crisis situation, not the weakling tinderbox that allegedly became the first steel building in history to collapse from fire damage alone, according to debunkers like the BBC, the History Channel, Popular Mechanics and others.

Indeed, as the NY Times quotes Larry Silverstein as stating in 1989, WTC 7 designers “Built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity,” a solid structure that was again improved upon that year with “More than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding.”

The article describes Hauer’s role, “As the city’s chief emergency manager, Mr. Hauer oversees the response to building collapses, of which there have been no shortage over the last three years.”

“For much of his professional life, it has been the task of Jerome M. Hauer, 47, to know a lot about how things work so that when they stop working — when they fall down, when they get blown down or blown up, when they freeze or burst or burn out — he knows what to do. Like all self-described emergency junkies, he sits around all day thinking up horrifying ways for things to be destroyed and people to die and then hoping that all his plans stay on the shelf.

Interesting therefore that Hauer would have his office in the middle of a 47-storey building that collapsed into its own footprint within 7 seconds in the late afternoon of 9/11 having been hit by minimal debris and suffering limited fire damage.

The article emphasizes the emergencies Hauer would list in his resume that he was an expert on, “Helicopter crash, subway fire, water main break, ice storm, heat wave, blackout, building collapse, building collapse, building collapse.”







In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, Hauer appeared on CBS News with Dan Rather and immediately set about crafting a surprisingly affirmative explanation for the events and spun a yarn that soon became the official story.

Hauer was suspiciously keen to stress that the buildings were not demolished by explosives but by the planes that hit them, despite this being a complete reversal of what chief WTC architects and designers had concluded during studies about the impact of planes into the twin towers beforehand.

Hauer also pointed the finger directly at Bin Laden as the script began to unfold.

“[M]y sense is that just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building that burned, that the velocity of the plane certainly had an impact on the structure itself. And then the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat probably weakened the structure as well. And I think it was simply the planes hitting the buildings and causing the collapse,” Hauer told Rather.

Rather also asks Hauer if the attacks could have been carried out without state sponsorship. Hauer replies: “I’m not sure I agree that this is necessarily state-sponsored. It… certainly has the fingerprints of somebody like bin Laden.”

Hauer was surprisingly “accurate” with his foreknowledge of how the official story would later appear to confirm all of his initial presumptions despite the chaos surrounding the attacks in the hours after they took place.

On 9/11, Hauer was Managing Director of Kroll Associates, a security firm intertwined with the military-industrial complex that was also coincidentally in charge of security for the entire World Trade Center complex on that fateful day.

Furthermore, it was Hauer that reportedly advised the White House to begin taking Cipro, an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax, on the very day of 9/11 and one week before the first anthrax letter was received.

Two months after 9/11, Hauer was part of a Council on Foreign Relations panel that released a document entitled Independent Task Force on America’s Response to Terrorism, which in part called for alternative explanations behind 9/11 to be countered.

Hauer’s almost instant and precise summation of the cause of building collapses that were completely unprecedented in history, along with his “expertise” in the characteristics of controlled demolition, in addition to his foreknowledge of the anthrax attacks and his position with Kroll Associates, justifiably continue to attract interest amongst researchers in the 9/11 truth movement.

RELATED: Meet Jerome Hauer, 9/11 Suspect Awaiting Indictment

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Comedian Who Questioned “Received Reality” Of 9/11 Dies

Comedian Who Questioned “Received Reality” Of 9/11 Dies

Counterculture great George Carlin passes away

Steve Watson /
Infowars.net | June 23, 2008

Grammy-winning American stand-up comedian, actor, author and anti-establishment icon George Carlin has passed away in LA aged 71.

Carlin died of heart failure after being admitted to St. John’s Health Center in Santa Monica on Sunday afternoon. The Comedian had a long history of heart trouble. His last performance was last weekend at the Orleans Casino and Hotel in Las Vegas.

Always outspoken and never a man to hide his opinions, Carlin most recently hit the headlines after speaking of his doubts about the official 9/11 story during an appearance at Borders bookstore in New York City last October, just a few blocks away from ground zero.

Asked what he thought of the 9/11 truth movement and how Bill Maher’s show was interrupted by truthers at the time, Carlin responded, "I always question the received reality."

"The consensus reality is often intentionally misleading," he added.

Asked if he would support a new investigation into 9/11, Carlin was skeptical, stating, "They don’t investigate themselves in this country - it would be a whitewash, it would be like the Kennedy thing, it would be like everything."

"The people who are in charge do what they want and they will always do what they want, power does what it wants to and I wouldn’t trust an investigation," Carlin concluded.

Watch the video.

Carlin created a storm in the seventies when his routine "Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television" initiated a regulatory battle which eventually went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

After Carlin said all seven words at a show in Milwaukee in 1972, he was arrested on charges of disturbing the peace, freed on $150 bail and exonerated when a Wisconsin judge dismissed the case, saying it was indecent but citing free speech and the lack of any disturbance.

Carlin was described by Comedy Central as the second greatest stand-up comedian of all time behind Richard Prior and is famous for his scathing black humor directed at American culture and the political climate.

During a recent appearance on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show, Carlin said that America was "finished" because "no one questions things anymore" and that the population had been bought off by distractions, toys and gizmos.

Carlin will be sorely missed purely because he was one of a very rare breed, an entertainer who spoke a truth uninhibited by any desire for success, fame or need of corporate backing.

Watch a stand-up routine where Carlin slams the education system and talks about the true power system that controls America.

WARNING: PROFANITY.

In Their Own Words: Admissions from the people who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report that it was compromised

In Their Own Words: Admissions from the people who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report that it was compromised

9/11 Blogger | June 23, 2008

Quotations from Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 911 Commission, by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton

"We were set up to fail" (14).

"The chief obstacle was the White House, which argued that the congressional inquiry was continuing, and that an independent investigation would distract the government from waging the ongoing war on terrorism" (17).

"The two sides decided to split the difference, allowing eighteen months for the inquiry—a period of time that proved insufficient" (20).

"The White House also suggested some candidates for executive director for our staff. The importance of this position cannot be overstated" (22).

"…we seriously only considered one candidate: Philip Zelikow…. Zelikow was a controversial choice. In the 1990s, as an academic, he had co-authored, with Condoleezza Rice, a book about German unification, and he later assisted Stephen Hadley in running the National Security Council transition for the incoming Bush administration in 2000-2001" (28).

…our office space and employees had to be cleared by the FBI and CIA to handle top-secret information…" (34)

"After Philip Zelikow came on board as executive director, he began recruiting and interviewing candidates…. Zelikow was selected with little consultation with the rest of the committee, but several commissioners had concerns about the kind of inquiry he would lead" (35)

"…Zelikow drove and organized the staff’s work…" (38)

"The House Republican caucus and Speaker Dennis Hastert’s office remained the most difficult obstacles. Throughout the life of the commission, and indeed through the passage of intelligence reform legislation based upon our recommendations, the strongest congressional wariness came from House Republicans" (45)

"We had to decide: How deep and how far do the roots of 9/11 run? That is a difficult question to answer…. In a way, we would define what information was relevant to 9/11 by asking for it" (58)

"We soon encountered problems, both in obtaining information and with the laborious conditions placed on our access to some information" (63)

"We decided against an aggressive use of subpoenas for several reasons…. Furthermore, we knew that many of the most important documents we sought were potentially the subject of an executive privilege claim—meaning that the president might not be legally compelled to share that material with another branch of government, even with a subpoena" (64)

"We were supposed to be independent, not necessarily confrontational. We were investigating a national catastrophe, not a White House transgression; this was 9/11, not Watergate" (65)

"When the Joint Inquiry report was released, there were twenty-eight blank pages where information had been ‘redacted’ from public view…. By being secretive, the government opened the door to cynicism and conspiracy theories…. The core of the problem is the fact that people in government can get in trouble for revealing something that is secret, but they cannot get in trouble for stamping SECRET on a document. Thus the default rule becomes: when in doubt, classify. Particularly in our early days, the 9/11 Commission faced this problem" (69)

"The White House wanted strict limitations on both of these fronts—limiting staff with access to White House documents to just two or three people, limiting the commissioners with access to certain materials to just the chair and vice-chair, and restricting the amount of notes the staff could bring back to the 9/11 Commission’s office" (72)

"…the FAA had turned over to us the distilled product of their own internal investigation into 9/11, but had failed to turn over the extensive raw materials that had gone into that investigation, even though that is precisely what our staff had asked for" (83)

"There were also discrepancies between things NORAD was telling us about their performance on the morning of September 11—things that the agency had stated publicly after 9/11—and the story told by the limited tapes and documents the commission had received…. These were puzzling and disturbing developments, and they account in part for some of the more bizarre and inaccurate conspiracy theories about 9/11."
"Farmer believed that NORAD was delivering incomplete records with the knowledge that the commission had a fixed end date that could be waited out" (86)

"Many interviews were recorded, though we were not permitted to record those conducted with current officials from the Executive Office of the President" (98)

"The FBI and CIA were fairly responsive; the Department of Defense was less so. But it was clear that the government’s interrogators were not asking the detainees the kinds of questions we wanted answered…. We also had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information…. In some cases, we could corroborate the truthfulness of what a detainee was reported to have said by comparing that information with other evidence. But in some cases we couldn’t; and in others, detainees offered contradicting accounts" (119)

"Where we could corroborate these detainee reports from other witnesses or evidence, we did. Where we could not, it was left to the reader to consider the credibility of the source—we had no opportunity to do so" (124)

"Senior officials from the FAA and NORAD—Jane Garvey and Craig McKinley—made statements about the timeline of 9/11 that were later proven to be inaccurate" (127)

"Staff statements also gave us a chance to work out a process for clearing material for publication by the White House. We were determined to avoid the fate of the Joint Inquiry and its redacted pages" (134)

"The evidence showed that some of the hijackers had been here unlawfully, and had not obeyed immigration laws in the United States. Two of the surviving passports had been doctored, and the other two had what our staff referred to as ’suspicious indicators.’ Three hijackers had made false statements on visa applications that could have been detected—for instance, saying they had not previously applied for a U.S. visa when they had. Five hijackers had entered the United States more than once, and three of those five had violated immigration laws that could have led to their being barred from reentry, for instance, by entering the United States on a tourist visa and then enrolling in a flight school…. In total, at least six of the nineteen hijackers had violated immigration laws while in the United States" (136)

"The hijackers were nineteen for twenty in getting into the country; they were nineteen for nineteen in getting onto the four flights with lethal knives, box cutters, and—in some cases—probably Mace or pepper spray (which were banned items)" (138)

"Speaker Dennis Hastert continued his staunch opposition to any extension for the commission" (148)

"Then, on March 30, the White House surprised us by offering to have both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney meet with the full commission…. Another condition was that there could not be a recording or transcript of the meeting…. We were permitted one staff member—Philip Zelikow, our staff director—to attend as a note taker, and commissioners also took notes" (206-207)

"The point is terrorists exist in a shadowy world; contacts are made under ambiguous circumstances, for ambiguous reasons" (250)

"Throughout the course of our inquiry, the topic that invited the most skepticism—and thus the most conspiracy theorizing—was the performance of the FAA and NORAD on the day of September 11, 2001" (256)

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue" (261)

"General Myers asserted that the chain of command was in place, though there were gaps when Secretary Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon’s parking lot, and since the president was sometimes out of reach" (265)

"At the outset of our work, Philip Zelikow and Ernest May prepared an outline along these lines, and they presented it to the two of us in July 2003…. [May] and Zelikow had collaborated on books in the past and had a strong mutual regard…. His primary role was advising Zelikow and occasionally weighing in on debates within the staff" (270)

"…Zelikow had an overarching vision for how the report should flow…. Ultimately, the responsibility for final staff edits of the respective chapters was divided up among Zelikow, Kojm, and Marcus" (273)

The following quotations are from Ernest R. May, "When government writes history," The New Republic, May 16, 2005. www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050523&s=may052305

"To some extent, the concept of the report as a narrative history influenced the recruitment of staff. Here were many other constraints. The urgent reporting deadline made it advantageous if a potential member of the staff already had high-level security clearances. (Zelikow had them as a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. I had them as a member of the Intelligence Science Board.) That meant preference for people who could be detailed from national security agencies or who had been on the staff of one of the congressional intelligence oversight committees. Of the fifty-odd men and women who counted as professional rather than administrative staff, at least half had such backgrounds."

"And no language appeared anywhere in the final text unless Zelikow or I or both of us—and all the commissioners—had accepted it."

"A reader of the commission report should bear in mind that its documentary base was extraordinarily deep but also extraordinarily narrow"

"We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources…. I think the commission could have successfully challenged the CIA on both access to detainees and release of names, but it chose not to fight these battles."

"Third, and most troubling to me, the report is probably too balanced. Its harshest criticism is directed at institutions and procedures, particularly the CIA, the FBI, and communications links within the counterterrorist community. But many of the staff had worked in these or other national security agencies. They felt loyal to them and some of them expected to return to work there. Collective drafting led to the introduction of passages that offset criticism of an agency with words of praise. Not all these words were deserved."

9/11 and Ron Paul - Still supporting a new investigation

I love how they use the logic that it tarnishes Ron Paul's image by attaching 9/11 to him, when in fact he does not approve of the formal investigation, and wants a new one to find out what happened, and to hold them accountable. And that is all that was ever said about 9/11 and Ron Paul here.

This was a few days ago. The suppression of this information; as well as other information, will continue from the people, as the laws against Net Neutrality mount, the cloudy minded will continue to fall into the logic of the oppressors. Thought crimes is the objective of the Elite, for then the citizens can enforce the laws by narcing out anyone who thinks what is not allowed to be thought.

Think about it. If we are not allowed to speak the things in which we think, what will eventually become of the things we think?

They will become fewer and fewer until there is no reason at all for any mental exercise is required of us.

They are now making their move on the internet, and it looks like many sheep are going to support these new censorship laws, as is indicated here in the so called 'freedom' movement as well.

These indications have been coming in for some time, the acclimatizing of the people slowly over time, attaching good principles to dark secret plans.

Friday, June 20, 2008

BBC Set To Launch New Smear Attack On 9/11 Truth

BBC Set To Launch New Smear Attack On 9/11 Truth

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 20, 2008

The BBC is set to launch another savage smear attack on the 9/11 truth movement with two documentaries about the September 11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings that attempt to debunk evidence of government complicity and smear doubters of the official story as holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, and crop circle fanatics.



7/7


The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of "conspiracy theories" surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks.


Having taken its rightful place alongside Popular Mechanics and The History Channel as one of the 21st century’s most plentiful peddlers of yellow journalism with their first 9/11 hit piece last year, "Auntie Beeb" is set to have another crack at the whip on July 6th when it airs a documentary about the collapse of WTC Building 7, the 47-storey skyscraper that imploded into its own footprint on 9/11 without being hit by a plane, called The Third Tower.

The preview clip for the show claims that the program will offer the solution to the "final mystery of 9/11," presumably self-satisfied that the BBC’s previous woeful effort to debunk 9/11 truth dismissed the mountains of other contradictions and outright falsehoods of the official story.

Judging from the end of the clip, it seems as if the BBC is ready to violate the fundamental laws of physics and proclaim that fire caused the steel-framed building to collapse, an unprecedented event in history.

The making of the show was undoubtedly motivated by the BBC themselves having been shamed last year by footage that emerged of them reporting the collapse of Building 7 before it had happened, a revelation that prompted a series of blundering PR gaffes on behalf of the corporation and seemingly a vendetta against 9/11 truthers who bombarded the company with bad publicity at the time.

The BBC’s flustered attempts to adopt damage control over questions about why their correspondent reported the collapse of Building 7 before it happened only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and exalted questions surrounding WTC 7 to the point where it is now the Achilles’ heel of the official conspiracy theory.

The new hit piece features an interview with 9/11 shill extraordinaire and former chief counter-terrorism adviser to the White House Richard Clarke, who denies a controlled demolition took down Building 7.

The BBC’s first stab at debunking the 9/11 truth movement was a jaw-dropping exercise in journalistic prostitution more befitting of state-controlled TV stations in Communist China or Zimbabwe.

The show was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end, structured around fallacy, lying by omission and an overwhelming dearth of impartiality.

During a follow-up radio debate, producer Guy Smith had no answers for the plethora of inaccuracies that littered the program.

The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of "conspiracy theories" surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks.

Despite the fact that we were at the forefront of 7/7 coverage immediately after it happened and have produced scores of articles on the subject that received millions of readers, the BBC did not choose to speak to us and instead interviewed a radical astrologist who also dabbles in crop circles, holocaust denial and making apologies for Hitler.

Kollerstrom is just about the wackiest person the BBC could have picked to represent alternative explanations behind 7/7. The idea behind it is simple - pick a nutcase closet Neo-Nazi to talk about 7/7 thus sending a very clear message to the viewer - anyone who questions the official government story behind 7/7 is a holocaust denier, a lunatic, and potentially dangerous.

In pursuing such dirty smear tactics once again, the BBC has proven itself to be not only biased and agenda-driven, but the producers of the show have displayed their complete ineptness in judging who to interview for the documentary.

"The stakes are high because conspiracy theories are spreading suspicion about the official account of what happened, ultimately questioning whether the authorities can be trusted," writes producer Mike Rudin. "Establishing whether what is argued is true or false, and scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves, is clearly in the public interest and is a serious and legitimate task for the BBC."

Oh diddums, now we wouldn’t want to question whether the authorities should be trusted now would we Mike? Because we know governments never lie, have never engaged in any conspiracies and always have the interests of the people at heart.

The BBC thinks it is in the "public interest" and a "legitimate task" to run defense for this criminal Blair-Brown government that has already aided in the slaughter of over 600,000 innocent people in Iraq based on their own conspiracy theories about weapons of mass destruction, by smearing anyone that questions the official story behind 7/7.

This is a damning indictment of how the BBC views itself and corporate media today as a whole - not as an independent media outlet tasked with putting politicians’ feet to the fire, muckraking, and asking hard questions - but acting as a Ministry of Truth to put a lid on the shocking facts behind 7/7 and backing up a Labour government that has refused all along to allow a proper investigation into the bombings come hell or high water.

"Scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves," as Rudin calls it is merely newspeak for "taking the piss out of mentally unstable Neo-Nazis and then claiming they represent conspiracy theorists."

The BBC masquerades as some kind of credible arbiter of "case closed" truth, yet the corporation is almost universally loathed in the United Kingdom because Britons are forced to fund its existence through a TV license tax and in return the BBC provides them with utter garbage on a regular basis.

The BBC’s latest serving of yellow journalism is likely to be little improvement.

We invite readers to leave a comment on producer Mike Rudin’s blog so as to give him the opportunity to write a new blog expressing his phony outrage to hostile put-downs of his career in yellow journalism.

Its a hoax, this WAR ON TERROR

FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”

In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.

[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm, [Accessed May 31, 2006]

[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b12132001_bt630-01.html, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December 14, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

Read »

Bin Laden is not even listed by FBI in connection with 9/11

Picture


The Twin Towers

The Twin Towers
Gallery of Evidence wtcconstruction.jpg

Click to view construction photos of the World Trade Center.

case4EDcardfrontsm.jpg

AE911Truth.org info card front:
The Case for Explosive Demolition of the WTC Towers


AE911Truth.org info card back:
The Case for Explosive Demolition of the WTC Towers


Fire has never done this to steel. But a thermite incendiary cutter charge does. The byproduct of thermite is molten iron. The byproduct of thousands of thermite cutter charges is tons of molten iron — as witnessed by numerous NYFD personnel and the WTC Structural Engineer, Leslie Robertson.

--> "Many fireman know there were bombs in the building but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact."

Paul Isaac, FDNY

-->

No steel framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - due to the high temperatures that would be required to weaken structural steel past it's critical safety margin - even though very large, very hot, and very long-lasting fires have ravaged many steel-structure high-rise buildings. These buildings are all in use today:

• Caracas, Venezuela, Oct, 2004, 56 story building,
burned for 17 hours over 26 floors
• Los Angeles, May 1988, 1st Interstate Bank, 62 stories,
burned for 3.5 hours over 5 floors
• Philadelphia, Feb, 1991, Meridian Plaza, 38 stories,
burned for 18 hours over 8 floors
• New York, Aug, 1970, New York Plaza, 50 stories,
burned for six hours


Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. Where did the molten metal come from? Why do FEMA and NIST deny its existence?


The 4- to 20-ton steel columns & beams were broken apart at bolted and welded connections and ejected laterally up to 500 feet.


The architectural drawings of the WTC North Tower have been leaked from an individual associated with the Silverstein-Weidlinger Report. They reveal that the large box columns of the core maintain their 30"x16" and 52"x22" dimensions at least up through the 66th floor. They also indicate that most of the core columns would be easily accessed from the elevator shafts in order to plant explosives. We know that the elevators were being modernized by Ace Elevator during the 9 months prior to 9/11.


This is the World Trade Center exploding.


This is an acknowledged explosion.
Can you tell the difference?


Which 20 story building will fall to the ground first? Until 9/11/01 most physicists would have agreed that the one that didn't have to crush though 100,000 tons of steel would fall first — at free-fall speed. On 9/11, the example on the left "collapsed" at virtually free-fall speed! But this could only have been accomplished by removing the columns ahead of the fall — with explosives.


Numerous Squibs (mis-timed explosions) can be seen seen 20 to 40 floors ahead of the advancing "collapse". NIST claims that they are "puffs of air" created from the pancaking floors above. But there are no pancaking floors above, they are not air but pulverized building materials, they occur precisely at the center of the building in an "open office plan", and finally, the 160 to 200 feet per second speed of this debris suggests they could only have been propelled by explosives.


The debris was equally distributed across a 1,400 ft. diameter. There are no "pancakes" stacked up at the bottom of either tower!


The FEMA report notes:
"The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.... Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation." NIST dropped this like a hot potato. These are all tell tell signs of the use of thermate (sulphur + thermite) incendiary cutter charges."


It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this without buckling. Thermate cutter charges create over 4,500°F. Fires — even with jet fuel — create only 1,700°F maximum.


Physics professor Steven Jones finds, in this previously molten sample from the WTC, the chemical traces of Thermate — including Fluorine, Manganese, Sulphur, Potassium, etc.


Steven Jones, PhD physicist discovers previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust which blanketed lower Manhattan. Sizes are up to 1/16" diameter. The findings are corroborated by EPA but not explained. Molten iron is the byproduct of Thermite. It contains the chemical signature of thermate.

tsgmicrothermatesm.jpg

The Smoking Gun: Microspheres carry signature of Thermate!


The concrete and other building contents were pulverized to a thick ground hugging pyroclastic dust — much of which was <100>


This is all that is left of the concrete floors, gypsum wall board, steel decking, office furniture, office machinery, filing cabinets. The toxic dust averages 4" deep — throughout lower Manhattan.


Controlled demolitions can be performed in a variety of ways.
Above are two examples of top-down controlled demolition.


Why didn't we see the truth about about 9/11 before?
Did the 9/11 Commission keep the true cause of the "collapses" under wraps?
Did FEMA and NIST lie in their reports?
Is the mainstream media controlled enough to manipulate this story from the very beginning?
WE WILL ONLY KNOW IF WE GET A NEW TRULY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION!

Videos  Molten Metal Flows at Ground Zero

In addition to the FDNY witnessing the molten metal, Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer of the WTC noted: "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running," at the National Conference of Structural Engineers on October 5, 2001.

Read »