9/11 blog posts on Wordpress

A real threat to the Anglo-American banking empire, the Tea Party’s tax revolt message could destabilize the financial engine that empowers the imperialist war machine and the socioeconomic totalitarianism that accompanies it.

Unfortunately, while Neocons are moving to co-opt and sabotage the Tea Party from within, the establishment statist Left are engaging in a frontal assault.  Both of these lackeys of the elite are desperate to defuse the populist challenge to the present paradigm.  Virtually working in a coordinated effort, Neocons are injecting militarist jingoism into the movement comprised of fed up and frustrated everyday Americans happily unschooled in political correctness giving the  disingenuous Left fertile ground to attack the Tea Party as racist and fascist.[1]

If your only source of information is mainstream corporate news, the ideological roots of the Tea Party are completely obscured.  We passively watch TV and infer throngs of conservative white folks primarily complaining about “that Black guy in the White house”.  Started during the Bush years by Ron Paul pro-Constitution activists the original attempt to recapture the ideals of the founders of our republic is long lost from the picture.[2]

Helping to perpetuate the charade professional Republicrat henchmen, serving the banker-military complex, will do their best to cloak this timely populism and ideological mass appeal.  They will continue to depend on their respective Democrat and Republican congregations to swallow the lie that there is a substantial difference between each party.  Faithfully, they will plant campaign yard signs for Henchman A or Henchman B on their front lawns.  Tea Partiers, themselves, will allow neocon and status quo media celebrities, such as Palin and Beck, to speak for them.[3] 

Author, David Icke, succinctly warns, ”anyone who seeks to prevent the free expression of thought by anyone else is an agent of control and they should know that before their self-delusion leads to the very fascist Orwellian state they claim to oppose.”[4]  Pseudo revolutionaries, on the left, will continue to harangue “tea baggers” in condescending and meaningless tirades.  Robot radicals will be willing stooges in parroting misrepresented views of any alternative outside of the corporatist mandated Left/Right paradigm. They will enthusiastically work for their own eventual destruction. 

Leftwing Racism

African-American Tea Partiers will continue to befuddle leftist ideologues. Anomalous to the standard Left/Right paradigm are Black conservatives.  The Leninist concept of Black Nationalism, as a tool to topple the white racist ruling class, is blunted upon the rock of individualism.   Freedom and the spirit of enterprise are attractions that cut across racial lines.

Nevertheless, Marxists will exhort the oppressed Blacks.  A current socialist propagandist writes, “.., the national liberation struggle of Black people in the U.S. must include the heightening of national consciousness, identity and self-respect. But these are not the same as nationalism, an ideology a world outlook, promoted by the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie that advocates the primacy; exclusiveness and privilege of “their” nation.”.[5]

Prominent Tea Party figure, Rev. C.L. Bryant, a former president of NAACP’s Garland, Texas chapter, is one who doesn’t fall prey to the separatist hype.  He says the idea that the Tea Party is racist or is trying to instigate a racist climate is “simply a lie.” Bryant claims the NAACP wants to “create a climate where they can say that those on the right are in fact racist and those on the left are their saviors”…[6]

What is the Tea Party?

One activist writer accurately captures its populist nature and potential:  “Do any of us even know how to define a Liberal or a Conservative these days? After all, in 8 years of a “Conservative” president we saw preemptive interventionist wars and nation building on the backs of the taxpayer, runaway borrowing and spending, and massive growth in government.  Meanwhile, the “Liberal” savior Obama continues to expand the wars, torture captives without trials or evidence, and target all forms of free speech.  Where it matters most, both political parties cater to Wall Street over Main Street, while working to restrict our Constitutional rights.  Fierce populist revolutions have been fought over far less oppression than we see today (see 1776), and yet the generally angry public can’t seem to focus long enough to form a strong common consensus…  Indeed, the Ron Paul crowd and the Liberal crowd have much in common when it comes to very important issues such as Peace, Auditing the Fed, Individual Liberty, Economic Freedom and Justice, and the Human Rights defined in the U.S. Constitution.” .[7]

Pollster, Scott Rasmussen, describes the mindset:  “Americans don’t want to be governed from the left or the right,” Scott Rasmussen tells the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conference of 1,500 conservative and moderate legislators. “They want, like the Founding Fathers, to largely govern themselves with Washington in a supporting — but not dominant — role. The tea party movement is today’s updated expression of that sentiment… The major division in this country is no longer between parties but between political elites and the people,” Mr. Rasmussen says.”[8]

Rasmussen also observed that, although the GOP stands to benefit in the 2010 elections, 75 percent of Republicans believe that the party leadership is out of touch with them.

War, what is it good for?

Researcher-author, William Bramley conducted a seven year investigation into the causes of war.  He fully expected to find profit as the primary motivation, however, he concluded that war can also be used to encourage populations to think in ways they would not otherwise do, and to accept the formation of institutions they would normally reject.  The longer a nation involves itself in wars, he noted, the more entrenched those institutions and ways of thinking will become.[9]

The Tea Party, regardless of its current problems, conceptually embodies something new and revolutionary beyond entrenched ways of thinking.  It is anomalous to generations of accumulated unquestioning reverence for, and dependence on, an all powerful centralized federal government.  As its name implies, it hearkens back to an era and mental outlook unfettered by ‘endless war’, states of emergency, and presidential directives.

Riding the Tea Party wave and pandering to the rhetoric of “limited government”, the establishment GOP will, no doubt, recoup some electoral losses incurred in 2008.  No fundamental change will occur.  Only a people’s movement able to connect the dots between the financial elite’s wars of occupation abroad and the loss of freedom at home will be able to make revolutionary change.  

Only a people’s movement, ready to fully embrace the spirit of 1776, will be able to restore our republic.  A priority for peace and freedom advocates is to expose the false dichotomy offered by the Republicrat duopoly dictatorship and its singular agenda of serving the transnational financial elite.  Concurrently, the masses must be reminded of their inherent capacity for local self-reliance and self-determination.

[1] Protofascism Comes to America: The Rise of the Tea Party, By Ted Rall, July 22, 2010 “Information Clearing House”: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25994.htm 
[2] Yahoo News Rewrites History of Tea Party: http://www.infowars.com/yahoo-news-rewrites-history-of-tea-party/  
[3] We Need a Revolution, Not a Movement: http://www.infowars.com/we-need-a-revolution-not-a-movement/
[4]  Tales from the Time Loop, David Icke, Page 448.
[5] Nationalism, Self-Determination and Socialist Revolution, By Amiri Baraka:     http://www.leftspot.com/blog/?q=node/343
[6] Uncommon Sense: America, Racism, & Hypocrisy: http://davegj13.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/america-racism-hypocrisy/
[7] Celente Says Populists Will Break the False Left-Right Political Paradigm: http://www.activistpost.com/2010/07/can-populists-break-false-left-right.html
[8] Rasmussen: Tea Party Sweeping US, Anger at GOP: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Scott-Rasmussen-pollster-wall-street-journal-john-fund/2010/08/22/id/368091
[9] Alien Agenda, Jim Marrs, p. 529.

0.000000 0.000000

By Craig McKee

Fires weren't enough to collapse Building 7

Shortly before 5 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, BBC World reporter Jane Standley told a TV audience that World Trade Center Building 7 had just collapsed, the third WTC building to fall that day as the result of supposed terrorist attacks.

The problem was that the 47-storey office tower was still clearly visible over her left shoulder during the entire live report. Roughly 23 minutes after this “mistake” the building actually did fall. How did the BBC know this would happen? Where did the premature report of the destruction of the building come from?

While the BBC has claimed that it was simply an error, they have made no effort to provide the public with the source of their information (Standley says she doesn’t remember what she said on camera). It is also interesting that Standley’s video feed broke up at around 5:14 p.m., sparing us the site of the building actually coming down while she talked live about it as having already happened. The BBC now claims that it has lost all original tapes of its 9/11 coverage…

Incredibly, this isn’t the only example of a broadcaster reporting a collapse when it hadn’t yet happened. A female reporter on Britain’s ITN states that the second tower is “crumbling” and “near collapse” when it is clearly still standing. Then a male colleague says there are “collapses” on the second tower when there were none. Yet.

Fox news also reported several minutes before the collapse that:

“…we are getting word from New York that another building has collapsed and we understand this is a 47-storey building … is that smoke coming from this third collapse? Take a look at that right hand of the screen. It’s going down right now.”

If you listen to the eyewitness accounts of many who were on the scene, you’ll find that British journalists were not the only ones who seemed to know about the collapse in advance. News footage shows a New York City policeman moving people away from the building, telling them: “Watch that building; it’s coming down soon.” Former Air Force medic Kevin McPadden reported that he heard the last three seconds of a countdown from a radio held by a Red Cross worker, which ended with the collapse of the building. This has not been confirmed by any other source.

Even more bizarre was the statement made by Larry Silverstein who had acquired the lease for the World Trade Center, including Building 7, a couple of months before. Silverstein made billions of dollars profit once the insurance claims for the destruction of the WTC were settled.

Silverstein, in a TV interview with PBS, said:

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

It seemed clear that Silverstein was saying that a decision had been made to bring the building down in a controlled demolition. But how could this fit with the terrorist attack scenario? It would certainly take weeks to set up the explosive charges to bring the building down. It’s not something you could do in a day.

And if explosives were placed in advance of the attacks in Building 7, then couldn’t they have been placed in the twin towers also?

Silverstein later backtracked, saying that he meant that he recommended that they “pull” the contingent of firefighters out of the building. Nice try. All firefighters had been ordered out of the building several hours before. The fire department commander would not have told Silverstein otherwise. And having demolished a number of buildings before, Silverstein was well aware what “pull it” means in industry jargon.

Why did this angle get almost no attention from the media? For that matter, why did we hear almost nothing about Building 7 after Sept. 11?

Consider also a statement made by Fox News reporter Jeff Scott Shapiro (who operates a web site that praises George W. Bush). He tries to say there was no government conspiracy but ends up only adding fuel to fire, so to speak. Here’s what he said:

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall. A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.”

Shapiro says he heard no sounds of explosions right before the building fell, seeming to argue against the demolition theory. But what he heard from the police suggests the building was brought down intentionally. He doesn’t seem to see the contradiction. And he doesn’t seem to realize that you can’t just demolish a building on a few hours notice.

If you have problems believing that the twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, start by looking at Building 7. Look at all the improbable aspects of the destruction of this steel-framed building. If what happened to it can’t be explained, then the whole 9/11 official story is in doubt.

Of all the World Trade Center buildings, number 7 received the least damage – fires on a few floors and some structural damage to its south face from falling debris. But there was nothing that would have caused a collapse at near free fall speed. Even the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), which supports the official story down the line, admits that falling debris played no role in the collapse of Building 7.

By the way, the first part of the building to start falling was the penthouse on the roof. It starts the collapse even though it hadn’t been damaged by debris and it wasn’t on fire.

By the way, fire – even if it comes from exploding jet fuel – doesn’t burn nearly hot enough to melt steel. Other steel buildings have sustained great fire damage over many hours and many floors without collapsing. In fact, only three steel-framed buildings have ever collapsed because of fire – all on Sept. 11, 2001.

This isn’t the whole story of the Building 7 collapse, not by a long shot. In my next post, you’ll hear more about the physical evidence, including molten metal in the rubble and the powerful explosions reported by a city employee hours before the building collapsed.

Oh, and one more thing: the destruction of Building 7 was not even mentioned in the main body of the 9/11 Commission Report…

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

~ George Washington

 Farewell Address to the Free People of the United States

 

In my first entry, I discussed who stood to benefit from the 9/11 attacks and how it came to be that the United States was led to war in Afghanistan. I’m not even going to get into the fact that the official story we were fed about that day was an utter and total lie. A lie of such magnitude that it can only be classified under the category of mass mind control.  If you are here, I will assume that you already know this or suspect it. For those who are so inclined, any of the posts here can be confirmed with further research, using your own deductive reasoning, and drawing your own conclusions.

Following up on my previous contention that foreign powers have a motivation in manipulating America to go war – war that is for their benefit, not ours – I’m going share with you an amazing speech from 1941. When I came across this I was struck by how the same actors have been at it for so long. Worse yet is the fact that we, Americans, have been brainwashed into believing that these actors are our “allies”. I’m speaking, specifically, of Great Britain. When exactly was it that Americans forgot who their forefathers fought a revolution against? My knowledge of history is both pretty good and much too superficial, so maybe you can enlighten me.

I suspect that our original enemy has always been so. From the American revolution to the present, I am of the opinion that Great Britain has never ceased  in its efforts to undermine, infiltrate, and use the United States. In my first entry, I presented why I thought they were central to the 9/11 attacks and their motive. Now, I would like to travel back in time to further establish their malevolent influence and interference in American politics and foreign policy.

The following was spoken by a true American patriot – a man who was maligned, lied about, called a traitor and a  Nazi sympathizer – all because he dared to say that Britain’s interests were not ours. He correctly argued that America would lose its independence and sovereignty if allowed to become a tool of the very same power our founders fought to free us from. Notice that the culprits he identified as working to drag us into their war, are the same ones the evidence points to being behind 9/11. And, notice the date of his speech!  That man was Charles Lindbergh.

Des Moines Speech: Delivered in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941

It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an over-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.

That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.

At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?

Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.

Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.

If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.

We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.

What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?

The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.

When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn’t we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

Let us consider these groups, one at a time.

First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany.

Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by the use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that the Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers. But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost.

As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so.

England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know that she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use.

We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war.

The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.

I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third presidential term for the first time in American history. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to a debt which was already the highest we have ever known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of the president and his appointees.

The power of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the maintenance of a wartime emergency. The prestige of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the success of Great Britain to whom the president attached his political future at a time when most people thought that England and France would easily win the war. The danger of the Roosevelt administration lies in its subterfuge. While its members have promised us peace, they have led us to war heedless of the platform upon which they were elected.

In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups–the British, the Jewish, or the administration–stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement.

I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance.

When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one.

They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.

Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms “fifth columnist,” “traitor,” “Nazi,” “anti-Semitic” were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.

Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing.

There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step.

To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5,000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters–less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month.

Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America.

Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase “steps short of war.”

England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then [illegible] began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months–”the best way to defend America and keep out of war.” we were told, was “by aiding the Allies.”

First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war.

The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way.

We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient “incidents” yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan [ill.]– a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval.

Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.

We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory–a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.

We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.

The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard.

Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our house of representatives and our senate.

There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war.

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, September 2, 2010

After filing a lawsuit that prompted NIST to release more than 3 terabytes of photographs and videos from their investigation into the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 on 9/11, the International Center for 9/11 Studies has obtained evidence that suggests NIST edited several videos of the collapse of Building 7 in order to hide evidence of a controlled implosion.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking production of “all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses.” Following several unsuccessful attempts to get NIST to even acknowledge receipt of the Request, the Center was forced to file a lawsuit on May 28, 2009. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Request was assigned a reference number, and NIST began periodically releasing batches of responsive records.

The Center has now begun posting some of those images and videos online, the first batch of which is from an external hard disk drive “NIST WTC Investigation Cumulus Video Clips.”

In one of the clips, the video of which has been in the public domain for years, a loud, low-frequency boom can be heard just before the east penthouse of WTC 7 falls. Once the support columns that held up the penthouse are taken out, the rest of the building falls almost within its own footprint.

However, in subsequent clips released by NIST, where the camera is located nearer to the building, the collapse of the penthouse is clearly edited out of the footage.

“Several clips from the Cumulus database show signs of editing. In the two video clips below, the collapse of the penthouse of World Trade Center 7 is cut out of the video. These videos happen to have been filmed from close to WTC 7, and have a high quality soundtrack that would have picked up explosion sounds from the charges that severed the columns supporting the penthouse, especially the explosion heard in the last video clip presented,” comments the International Center for 9/11 Studies.

In another clip, the entire collapse of the building is edited out, the audio is removed and only restored after the building has fully collapsed.

As we documented for several years, the collapse of WTC 7 is the smoking gun confirming that the official story behind 9/11 is bogus. The collapse of Building 7 was reported before it happened by several news stations, including BBC and CNN.

The International Center for 9/11 Studies is now in the process of reviewing over 300 DVDs along with several external hard disk drives that contain a plethora of unseen photographs and video footage from ground zero. Judging by the small amount of damning footage already released, it’s highly probable that this data will provide a myriad of new contradictions both to the official 9/11 story as well as NIST’s own investigation into the collapse of the three buildings.

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also an fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Why did the United States attack Iraq? First, let’s

I remember 9/11. I was making breakfast when I saw footage of the first tower collapsing. Of course, we didn’t know “who did it” at the moment. What I remember thinking was that looks a lot like a demolition. When the NIST reports came back and saying that a jet fuel fire started the cascading events that lead to the WTC buildings’ collapse. I remembered thinking the fire’s smoke was black, not white. My high school physics teacher told us that a hot, healthy fire burns with white smoke. How could it be out enough to burn it down?

I thought I was a lone in these questions. But, later, thankfully, I found out that I wasn’t. Many people question the government’s explanation for 9/11. And we should. This event got us into 2 wars that our continuing to drain our economy (amongst other things like a corrupt banking system).

In honor of those whose lives have been lost for September 11, and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, I’m going to dedicate the month of September to exploring the inconsistencies in the government’s explanation of 9/11. Some of you may not agree with me. But, don’t we, as well as those who have died, deserve a complete explanation.

2010-08-27 12:46 PM
Sydney’s Sept 11 Protest Calls for End of Afghan War! August 24, 2010 By John Bursill John Bursill’s Blog at visibility911.com/ So why should we believe that “9/11 Truth” can stop the war in Afghanistan and bring the “War on Terrorism” to an end? I will lay out below the non-conspiratorial reasons why it is vitally important that we continue to demand accountability from our governments, on why it is they went to war on our behalf in 2001. I will also argue why I am correct to strongly assert that the pursuit of 9/11 truth and a criminal investigation of those events is the only practical path to peace today. Details of an upcoming Sydney “9/11 Truth for Peace” Protest on September 11th, 2010 are at the bottom of this article. On the 11th of September 2001 the world entered a very dark chapter of its history! We were promised a 100 years of war in this “New American Century” fighting “the terrorists” wherever the American Empire deemed they were, and at the time of their choosing. We were told that this “New Pear Harbor” event carried out on 9/11 by the CIA born Al-Qaeda was a fair and reasonable reason to carry out a preemptive strike against their supporters the Taliban, by the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The vast majority of the world?s population and its governments rallied behind the US determined to fight Islamic terrorism together world wide. Although some more skeptical commentators and governments were cautious with their support for this so called “War on Terrorism”, they found themselves intimidated into silence. For the Bush/Cheney Administration and its powerful media supporters made it abundantly clear “that you are with us or you are with the terrorists” GWB.

2010-08-27 1:28 PM
This year’s 9/11 Film Festival will be held in three venues over four days and will have a total of five different programs. The film festival runs from September 9th through September 12th and is being held in theaters in Oakland San Francisco and San Leandro, CA. The 2010 9/11 Film Festival opens Thursday, September 9th at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland with a nine hour program. It then moves over to San Francisco’s intimate VIZ Cinema in Japantown for a Friday night double feature and filmmaker Q&A. On Saturday, September 11th the film festival continues with two all day programs, one at the VIZ Cinema and the other at The Historic Bal Theatre in San Leandro. The festival closes with an afternoon program at the VIZ Cinema on Sunday. Highlights of this year’s festival include the world premiere of the film Hypothesis, the North American premiere of the film War Promises and presentations by Prof. Peter Phillips and Prof. Mickey Huff of Project Censored, physics professor David Chandler, and author and filmmaker Servando Gonzalez. The film festival also features the San Francisco premiere of several international films, including Zero: An Investigation into 9/11, 9/11 False Flag and War Promises.

Dokumenttin 2008-versio on mahdollista katsoa nettiversiotasoisena ja ilman suomenkielistä tekstitystä kokonaisuudessaan täältä. Dokumentin takana olevan ryhmän informatiiviset sivut taas löytyvät täältä. Ryhmän parhaillaan olevan kampanjan sivut taas löytyvät täältä.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,  for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments.  He appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

~ Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator

 

In 11 days will be the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Some random facts to consider…

With the Balfour Declaration Britain gave a chunk of Palestine to Rothschild as a gift.

The “City of London” is sovereign Rothschild territory within London.

The British have been invading and causing mayhem in the middle east and Asia for centuries.

Israel is an Anglo-Zionist outpost/foothold/gateway to a region that has been subject to British aggression and control for a long time.

America’s first attack on Muslim lands was on behalf of the British and British Petroleum (Anglo-Iranian Oil). Persian president Mosaddegh was ousted in a coup, by the CIA, at the request of MI6 and replaced with the Anglo friendly Shah of Iran.

On September 12, 2001, when no planes were allowed into US airspace, British officials flew into Washington, DC, to encourage an invasion of Afghanistan.

For the British, this is the FOURTH Anglo war to gain control of that region.

First Anglo-Afghan War 1839-1842

Second Anglo-Afghan War 1878-1880

Third Anglo-Afghan War 1919

October 7, 2001

For the British, another attempt to take Afghanistan would be an impossibility without American blood and money.

On September 11, 2001, the BBC did a live report saying that the Salomon Building (WTC 7) had collapsed, a full half hour BEFORE it did. Unfortunately for the clueless BBC reporter, WTC 7 was standing behind her in the live shot (no doubt she didn’t know one Manhattan skyscraper from another). When BBC London realized the “error”, her feed was cut. CNN did the same.

Sounds like somebody jumped ahead in the SCRIPT.

Britain and Israel are joined at the hip, along with treasonous Anglo-Zionist loyalists in the US government.

It was said after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq that Tony Blair was Bush’s poodle. I contend the relationship is quite the opposite and that America is the pit bull of the Zionist criminal establishment. Furthermore, were I a detective, I would be taking a very close look at this British-Israeli-US (treasonous) relationship that put US forces right where the British requested they be and how it is that the BBC and CNN knew that WTC 7 would collapse.

Oh, and an aside…

NYC Mayor and Anglophile Michael Bloomberg, has said he wants NYC to be more like London.

Imagine that.

All great truths begin as blasphemies.  ~George Bernard Shaw, Annajanska, 1919

It’s an oft-repeated statement by politicians, military leaders, and commentators that the disaster of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001 changed the world forever. I believe this is true, but not for the reasons the U.S. government would have us believe.

The official story of September 11, as told by the Bush administration and the major media, made it clear that America was now under siege from an increasingly bold and frightening enemy. A major attack had taken place on U.S. soil for the first time since the bombing of Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, and Americans were in shock.

They now had to come to terms with a world in which terror and death were no longer things you watched on TV. Now you could see them first hand, right in the heart of their largest and most iconic city. For the first time they could imagine a catastrophic and senseless act of violence happening to THEM.

And certainly the disaster crystallized in the public consciousness the idea that Islamic extremists were the new evil. Yes, this wasn’t a new idea, but these attacks raised the stakes considerably. And with this new horrifying threat making the future a frightening prospect, Americans seemed willing to agree to almost anything in the name of security.

Some were suspicious of the official story of 9/11 and raised questions but initially they were a very small minority. Any answers they were given only added to the confusion, and to the suspicion. It seemed that the more we learned, the more the official version of what happened made no sense.

It would be one thing if there were just a few troubling questions about how the attacks unfolded. But there are dozens, if not hundreds, of seriously alarming contradictions and discrepancies. If there are logical and reasonable answers for all of these, then why don’t we get them? If everything is just as the 9/11 Commission Report suggests, then the government must be getting some very bad public relations advice.

Sometimes the answers given are bizarre, while some critical questions raised by doubters are completely ignored. And a good part of the physical evidence that might have answered some of the contentious questions was destroyed before it could be analysed.

So we’re left with huge questions about the official version of events that I plan to address through this blog in the weeks to come. Here are some of the major ones:

• Why were none of the four hijacked planes not intercepted? How could it be that military exercises were taking place on Sept. 11 that diverted fighter planes hundreds of miles away from New York and Washington and caused potential confusion about whether the real hijackings were part of the exercise or not?
• Why did the towers fall at almost freefall speed when they were designed to withstand the impact of several airliners? Why did WTC building 7 collapse in the same way, even though it was not hit by an airplane? And how did television journalists from the BBC report that building 7 had collapsed 45 minutes BEFORE it did (there is actual footage of the reporter relaying this “fact” with Building 7 still standing in the background!)?
• Why did many witnesses report hearing explosions in the lower levels of the towers – some before the planes hit? Why did video show white smoke coming from the BOTTOM of the towers before the collapse?
• Why were there tons of molten metal under the rubble of both towers and WTC building 7 that was hundreds of degrees hotter than the temperature of burning jet fuel (these fires were not put out until mid-December)?
• How could an inexperienced pilot have executed an almost impossible manoeuvre and flown Flight 77 into a newly reinforced and renovated section of the Pentagon leaving a hole less than 20 feet in diameter? And why was there so little of the plane left? What happened to the wings, and why didn’t they hit the building? Why was the section above the hole intact (until it collapsed 20 minutes after impact) when it should have been hit by the tail section?
• And how could United Flight 93 crash into a Pennsylvania field and leave virtually no wreckage and no bodies? Why did tests of the ground water not show the presence of jet fuel? And how could there be a second debris field six miles away?

I remember driving to work on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. I was working for a weekly newspaper in Montreal, and because it was deadline day, the attacks would require us to remake the news section.

My first thought when I heard the initial radio report was that a small private plane had inadvertently hit one of the twin towers of the World Trade Center. That impression didn’t last long.

Initially, I was just as willing as anyone to believe that terrorists had pulled off the attacks.  Anything else would be unthinkable. And the government seemed to have it pinned on Osama bin Laden from the beginning. Just like they had the Kennedy assassination pinned on Lee Harvey Oswald from the beginning.

When I heard the story as it was reported that day, one thought struck me more than any other – how could these four planes have done what they did without being stopped? How could America’s defences be so lax?

It seemed highly suspicious, but I didn’t know what it meant. It didn’t occur to me at the time that so much of the evidence to support the official story would be so far-fetched.

The 9/11 attacks paved the way for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they made it possible for the government to ramp up surveillance of private citizens and remove individual liberties at an alarming rate. They further demonized Muslims and created a new personification of evil: Osama bin Laden. And they made a lot of people very rich.

Yes, 9/11 changed everything. That was the idea.

Please let me know what you think. How do you feel about the official story? What, if any, are your doubts?  Click on “comments” at the end of this post and let me know your opinion. There will be many more posts on this subject in the weeks to come. I’ll get more into the details of questions touched on above. I believe it’s essential that we never stop asking these questions – at least not until the truth comes out.

There are rumors around that some wealthy individuals, including, an NFL player, are planning on purchasing advertisement in major cities across the country, running productions concerning the truth about 911, with emphasis on building number 7. THESE ADS ARE TO RUN THIS WEEKEND, ACCORDING TO SOURCES (AUGUST 28 AND 29) There has been informed analysis by professionals from different fields of studies, including engineers, physicists, pilots, and others, who have raised legitimate questions about the events of that day. Questions, that Corporate controlled media outlets fail to address. EYEONCITRUS will keep you informed if this does happen because in all probability, this will not gain National coverage and most certainly not, local. An informed public becomes a knowledgeable citizenry and the cup of knowledge can never be filled. 

I agree. No room for intolerance where we’re going.  And given that readers of Matthew and SaLuSa and members of the 9/11 Truth Movement know that Islamophobia is a false-flag issue, it makes the responsibility that much greater.

Near Ground Zero, a Shameful Intolerance

by: Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co. 26 August 2010 http://www.truth-out.org/near-ground-zero-a-shameful-intolerance62699

A man protests the building of an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan. (Photo: David Shankbone)

The biggest problem dogging American politics and media isn’t a deficiency of expertise or a lack of good intentions. It’s a lack of courage. But there is courage out there — and it should be honored.

Kudos should go to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, who amid fierce criticism publicly defended Muslims who were looking to build a community center in lower Manhattan.

Also to Fareed Zakaria, the Newsweek columnist and CNN host, for making a case for tolerance by returning an award given to him five years ago by the Anti-Defamation League. He did so after the Jewish organization released a statement on July 30 maintaining that the planned Islamic center, which includes a mosque, should be relocated because it is too close to the site of the World Trade Center.

The Anti-Defamation League’s reasoning for its stance was truly shocking. The organization argued, “Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain — unnecessarily — and that is not right.”

Translation: Some people will feel bad if this center is built, and we need to take these feelings into account, even though Muslims have every right to build there.

“Your own statements subsequently, asserting that we must honor the feelings of victims even if irrational or bigoted, made matters worse,” Mr. Zakaria said in a letter addressed to Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League.

Their awful decision to call for banning the Islamic center was shameful. Let’s look at some comparable cases using the Anti-Defamation League’s logic: It causes some people pain to see Jews operating small businesses in non-Jewish neighborhoods; it causes some people pain to see Jews writing for national publications (I frequently receive letters to this effect); it causes some people pain to see Jews on the Supreme Court.

So would the organization agree that we should ban Jews from these activities, so as to spare other people pain? No? What’s the difference?

Backstory: Politics and Religion Collide

A national debate about the meaning of religious freedom and cultural sensitivity has been raging in the United States ever since sponsors Daisy Kahn and her husband Feisal Abdel Rauf, along with real estate developer Sharif El-Gamal, announced plans for the construction of an Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan in May.

Part of a complex called Park51, the Islamic center includes plans for a mosque. Concerned about heightened tensions, government leaders are stepping into the fray.

Michael R. Bloomberg, mayor of New York, defended the project in a speech earlier this month, invoking the Muslim sponsors’ legal right to build the facility two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center. “To cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists — and we should not stand for that,” he said.

President Barack Obama adopted a similar tack: At a dinner celebrating the first day of Ramadan on Aug. 13, he stressed the importance of equal treatment regardless of race and religion. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable,” Mr. Obama said.

In responses disturbing to some members of the Republican Party, House minority leader John Boehner said he found Mr. Obama’s words “deeply troubling”; former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has also called for the plans to be scrapped; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the proposed center was a “political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.”

Mr. El-Gamal told ABC News the group still has to raise about $100 million for the center. After New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission cleared the way for construction of Park51 on Aug. 3, he said the planned center represented “an American dream which so many others share.”

“We are Americans — Muslim Americans,” he said.

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed page and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2008.

Mr Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes, including “The Return of Depression Economics” (2008) and “The Conscience of a Liberal” (2007).

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company.

The lying mainstream media is now telling us that the Iraq war is over. The same media who lied about WMDs, ties to Al Qaeda, and 9/11. We have to remember, the war was based on lies. The Bush administration with help from the 24/7 propaganda shows on Fox, MSNBC, CNN and others, lied to the American people and the world about fake WMDs and Saddam Hussein having ties to Al CIAda. Iraq had no connection to 9/11 whatsoever and no weapons of mass destruction. So millions of people were killed because of a lie. Bush and Cheney should be in prison.

In 2008, Vincent Bugliosi, who is best known for prosecuting Charles Manson, wrote a book entitled “The Prosecution Of George W. Bush for Murder”. The book argues that George W. Bush took the United States into the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses and should be tried for murder for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, as well as more than 100,000 Iraqis who have died in Iraq since the American-led invasion of that country. Bugliosi testified at a House Judiciary Committee meeting on July 25 2008, at which he urged impeachment proceedings for Bush.

Bugliosi testifying before the House Judiciary Committee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7abu9a0xtNI&feature=search)

Even Bush himself admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. During a Presidential news conference, he was asked about Iraq’s involvement with the attack on the World Trade Center. Watch the video.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM&feature=search)

President Obama has announced that all combat operations in Iraq are now over. Wait a minute, didnt President Bush say that in 2003?

Supporters of President Obama will think he ended the war, but he will keep troops there permanently, this is what he said before becoming President…(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nJ78MVquFE&feature=search)

The fact is, we invaded Iraq for no good reason. The Bush regime lied about everything, and got away with it. The plan was to stay there forever. We have permanent military bases there, so we aint going anywhere. President Obama can lie and say he ended the war, but he didn’t. He’s leaving 50,000 troops there to occupy the country, and sending more private contractors there to reek havoc. Even if he brought ALL the troops home, he still sent more troops to Afghanistan and is bombing Pakistan with predator drones. The war crimes continue