Painting by Anthony Freda
Governments Admit They Carry Out False Flag Terror
Governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror:
Hazardous asbestos fibers at the WTC exposed more than 110,000 people to the dangerous material; this includes 80,000 tower workers, 30,000 area residents and nearly 4,000 first responders. Asbestos exposure is directly linked to mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related diseases.
New House Resolution Calls for Declassifying Secret Portion of 9/11 Report.
Wednesday December 4, 2013
Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced a resolution this week in the House of Representatives urging President Barack Obama to declassify 28 pages of a joint House and Senate Intelligence Committee report that includes information concerning foreign governments' involvement in terrorist attacks in the US. The George W. Bush administration redacted the pages from the December 2002 report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001.
A common theme seems to be that the people who do not support a new investigation either have never read any 9/11 building reports, have no opinion, or have no idea of what WTC 7 even is.
Here is another LEADER who has never read any of the reports but firmly believes that the reports cover information substantially.
Recently I've seen McCain plead ignorance, Chomsky plead no opinion, and now this Congressman pleas that the investigation has adequately shown the facts but admits to not have actually read any of investigations himself.
The congressman was asked a question on WTC 7 and the Congressman says that radical terrorists brought it down; not fires..... But then again he hasn't read any of the reports so he doesn't know the actual NIST story is ordinary office fires.
By Associated Press - Wednesday, December 4
NEW YORK — Negligence was not the cause of the collapse of a third World Trade Center tower several hours after the twin towers were destroyed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a federal appeals court said Wednesday, absolving a developer and others of responsibility in the destruction of the 47-story building.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said it was “simply incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that defendants were required to design and construct a building that would survive the events of September 11, 2001.”
The 2-to-1 decision upheld the rulings regarding World Trade Center 7 by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who had written that the claims by the Consolidated Edison Co. of New York and its insurance companies were “too farfetched and tenuous” to survive. Con Ed and the insurance companies had claimed that a company owned by developer Larry Silverstein and other defendants could be held liable. Hellerstein had dismissed various defendants in a series of rulings.
The building fell at 5:21 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, nearly seven hours after the other buildings collapsed. A Con Edison power station beneath Tower 7 was crushed when the building fell.
Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote in the majority decision that Con Ed’s interpretation of liability would mean that those who designed and constructed the building would presumably be liable if it “collapsed as a result of a fire triggered by a nuclear attack on lower Manhattan.”
The judge wrote that while concepts that would allow an entity to pursue a liability claim “must, by their nature, be fluid, at the end of the day they must engage with reality.”
In a dissent, Judge Richard Wesley said a trial should have been conducted to at least establish from expert testimony why Tower 7 collapsed.
Why We All Should Be Whistleblowers
A town with a mortality rate 80 times higher than elsewhere—and the willful blindness of the locals, except for one person.
The truth about whistle-blowers—and why they do what they do. Turns out they’re not crazy; the rest of us are.
A video talk on taking our freedom and doing something with it.
In response to a question at the University of Florida recently, Noam Chomsky claimed that there were only “a miniscule number of architects and engineers” who felt that the official account of WTC Building 7 should be treated with skepticism. Chomsky followed-up by saying, “a tiny number—a couple of them—are perfectly serious.”
If signing your name and credentials to a public petition on the subject means being serious, then Noam Chomsky’s tiny number begins at 2,100, not counting scientists and other professionals. Why would Chomsky make such an obvious exaggeration when he has been presented with contradictory facts many times?
I’ve personally had over thirty email exchanges with Chomsky. In those exchanges, he has agreed that it is “conceivable” that explosives might have been used at the WTC. But, he wrote, if that were the case it would have had to be Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden who had made it so.
Of course, it doesn’t matter how many professionals or intellectuals are willing to admit it. The facts remain that the U.S. government’s account for the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 is purely false. There is no science behind the government’s explanation for WTC7 or for the Twin Towers and everyone, including the government, admits that WTC Building 7 experienced free fall on 9/11. There is no explanation for that other than the use of explosives.
From the History Commons Groups blog:
A large number of new entries have been added to the Complete 9/11 Timeline at History Commons, including many that reveal details about the events of September 11, 2001, and others that describe important events from the years preceding the 9/11 attacks.
Security Chief Predicted Attacks on the WTC
Several entries relate to the actions of Rick Rescorla, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's vice president for security at the World Trade Center, and his friend and former Army colleague Dan Hill. In 1990, the two men wrote a report that predicted a terrorist attack at the WTC closely resembling the 1993 bombing, involving a truck bomb in the underground garage. In the aftermath of the 1993 WTC bombing, Hill and Rescorla conducted an analysis of security and predicted that terrorists would attack the towers again, probably by crashing a plane into them. Rescorla consulted his friend Fred McBee, who, by using a flight simulator program on his computer, concluded that such a scenario was "very viable."
In 1998, Hill came up with a plan to go to Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden. In spring 2000, he met with an FBI agent to discuss the plan and request US military assistance. But a year later, after she consulted FBI headquarters, the agent informed Hill that his request had been rejected and so he had to drop his plan.
Some entries relate to training exercises held at the World Trade Center. In one drill, conducted in 1982, the Port Authority and other agencies actually practiced for the scenario of a plane crashing into the Twin Towers. In March 1993, during public hearings that examined the security aspects of the recent WTC bombing, Guy Tozzoli, a former director of the World Trade Department, said the Port Authority should again train for the possibility of a plane hitting the WTC, but his recommendation was ignored. However, in June 1999, September 2000, and summer 2001, the Port Authority and the New York City Fire Department held realistic exercises that simulated a major fire on an upper floor of the WTC.
Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—about 9/11?
Written by Frances T. Shure
Saturday, 23 November
© by Frances T. Shure, 2013
Editor’s Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: “Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?” The resulting essay, to be presented here as a series, is comprised of a synthesis of reports on academic research as well as clinical observations.
Ms. Shure’s analysis begins with recognition of the observation made by the psychology professionals interviewed in the documentary “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who cite our human tendencies toward denial in order to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Indeed, resistance to information that substantially challenges our worldview is the rule rather than the exception, Ms. Shure explains. This is so because fear is the emotion that underlies most of the negative reactions toward 9/11 skeptics’ information. Ms. Shure addresses the many types of fear that are involved, and how they tie into the “sacred myth” of American exceptionalism.
Through the lenses of anthropology and social psychology, Ms. Shure focuses on diffusion of innovations; obeying and believing authority; doublethink; cognitive dissonance; conformity; groupthink; terror management theory; systems justification theory; signal detection theory; and prior knowledge of state crimes against democracy and deep politics. Through the lens of clinical psychology, Ms. Shure explores viewpoints described in the sections on learned helplessness; the abuse syndrome; dissociation; and excessive identification with the United States government. Two sections on brain research provide astonishing insights into our human nature.
Painting by Anthony Freda
Governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror:
Building 7: The Story the Times Missed - ReThink911
Published on Nov 23, 2013
http://ReThink911.org. Featuring Austin Farwell.
Meet Lee Harvey Oswald, Sheep-Dipped Patsy
Published on Nov 15, 2013
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=8257
In this week's special documentary episode of the podcast, we explore the life and legend of Lee Harvey Oswald. Was he a poor, disgruntled loner or an overachieving marine? A presidential assassin or a sheep-dipped patsy? Find out in this week's edition of The Corbett Report.
Transcript and Sources
Lee Harvey Oswald. The truth about what happened with JFK begins where the myth of Lee Harvey Oswald ends. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Go directly to jail…and die.
So who was Lee Harvey Oswald? Well, it depends who you want to believe. You can take him at face value or you can listen to the same people who sold you the Gulf of Tonkin, incubator babies and WMDs in Iraq, Jessica Lynch, and a million other lies.
Incendiary explosions in the lobby and in the basement levels accompanied the destruction of the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC). The evidence for these incendiary explosions is significant and includes numerous eyewitness testimonies and photographic evidence. The official, government investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did not address these phenomena in any meaningful way and offered only a weak suggestion that is demonstrably false.
NIST admitted to the presence of an incendiary explosion at the concourse level and to the deaths and injuries caused by it, stating, a “fireball killed or injured several occupants in the Concourse Level lobby (NIST NCSTAR 1-7, p 73).” However, a scientific explanation was never provided. Instead, an untested hypothesis was given as fact.
“There are numerous media reports of building occupants being burned in the ground-floor lobby of WTC 1 following the aircraft impact. Numerous eyewitness accounts describe a large flash fire on the concourse floor lobby at the time of aircraft impact, that came from one or more of the elevator shafts that ran from the concourse floor of the tower past the floors where the aircraft impact took place. This observation suggests that sufficient burning liquid aviation fuel entered at least one of these elevator shafts to continue burning, while it fell roughly 1,175 feet. Even after falling this distance, sufficient unburned fuel was available to create the overpressure that opened the elevator shaft at the concourse level and forced additional unburned fuel into the lobby area, creating the extensive flash fire observed.” NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, p 80
It would have been easy to test this “jet fuel bolus” hypothesis but, as with the other features of the official account, no testing was done. That’s probably because the scientists at NIST knew that this hypothesis was very improbable to begin with.
I am pleased to offer the following email from Public Affairs Officer Michael Newman, dated 25 OCT 2013. The inquiry actually began in March 2012 immediately following our discovery of the stiffeners on girder A2001. Despite what the answer says, I made my inquiry on 26 JUL 2013 and followed up on 24 SEP. No reply was received so I sent a final letter on 19 OCT.
Background on this inquiry can be found here:
Subject: RE: WTC7 Report Discrepancies
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:55:28 +0000
Dear Mr. Cole,
Following your e-mail of September 24 (see below), a set of responses to your questions were prepared. Unfortunately, the partial shutdown of the federal government delayed our getting these responses to you. With our apologies for tardiness, here are those responses:
A) In NCSTAR 1-9, which design drawing was used to create:
Figure 8-21?.................1091, 9114
Figure 8-23?.................1091, 3004, 9114
The 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Part One)
by Joseph A. Palermo Posted: 11/08/2013 11:26 pm
As the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy grows nearer the inability of the Establishment news media to consider fairly the facts in the case remains as pronounced as it was during previous commemorations. In trying to explain why opinion polls have shown for decades now that a majority of Americans do not accept the Warren Commission's "lone gunman" theory, historians and journalists have often fallen back on what has become a familiar (yet unconvincing) narrative about the meaning of those horrific events in Dallas in November 1963.
The dominant storyline goes something like this: The American people could never accept the notion that a high school drop-out loser like Lee Harvey Oswald could single-handedly kill such an inspiring public figure as JFK, therefore they've embraced "conspiracy theories" to give meaning to what was essentially a meaningless act.
An Introduction to Gladio B - James Corbett on Breaking The Set
Published on Nov 6, 2013
James Corbett of The Corbett Report joins Abby Martin of Breaking The Set to discuss "Gladio B," the continuation of the clandestine NATO program, Operation Gladio. We talk about the history of Gladio and the transition of the program into a campaign to fund and foment Islamic terrorism in the Central Asia/Caucasus region. For more information, please consult the "Gladio B" video series from earlier this year available from CorbettReport.com and BoilingFrogsPost.com:
The ReThink911 campaign has erected a billboard across the street from your headquarters to call your attention to the evidence, cited by over 2,000 architects and engineers, that proves World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11. We urge you to look at the evidence—starting with the video footage of the collapse—and publish an editorial stating your position on the challenges being made to the government’s explanation of Building 7’s destruction. The question of what happened to Building 7 is simply too important for the New York Times not to examine in a careful and balanced way.
To that end, we urge that your editorial include, but not be limited to, the following information and facts:
Thank you for your re-consideration of this most important issue.
The ReThink911 Campaign
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
[Also posted here: http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/911-so-what.pdf ]
The evidence that we were lied to about 9/11 is straightforward and blatant. It has been researched, verified, and laid on the table for all to see. It is really not hard to convince most honest, open minded people who are not in denial, if you focus on the evidence. But where can they go from there? They can sign a petition, sure, but that is not enough.
The other side of the coin is another big question: what do we have to do to "win" on 9/11? Is it a matter of convincing a large number of people, or certain key people, or winning court battles, or politically maneuvering to bring pressure on the government to open a new investigation? All of these are worthy goals, but how likely is it, really, that a new investigation would not be just another whitewash, or that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will ever go to prison or flee to Paraguay? The larger question is, would such a victory really bring resolution to 9/11? I don't think so.
9/11 did not just happen. 9/11 was a premeditated shock and awe event that was instrumental in a larger plan. It allowed the administration to immobilize the population through fear and manipulate their outrage displaced toward the designated enemy. 9/11 provided cover for a protracted attack on our democratic values and an orgy of outrageous national behavior that defined the entire Bush administration, much of which continues today. 9/11 brought us the fiction of "preemptive" wars as a fig leaf for naked military aggression, the fiction of "illegal enemy combatants," to pretend the Geneva Conventions did not apply, and the fiction of "enhanced interrogation" as though that were any different from torture pure and simple. It brought us routine drone assassinations, the expansion of secrecy, the unleashing of the NSA to conduct universal surveillance, the destruction of nearly every one of our civil liberties, attacks on journalism and the murder of journalists, paranoid fear of immigrants in general and Arabs in particular, and the demonization of Islam as a uniquely violent religion. This list is far from complete.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has uncovered overwhelming evidence that the destruction of the World Trade Center was a crime that required long-term inside access to the buildings, access to military-grade demolition materials, and the ability to coordinate the demolitions with the hijacker scenario, the elaborately staged fumbling of what should have been routine interceptions, and a massive cover-up that began on the day of 9/11. Uncovering the evidence for all this has been a remarkable achievement of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but to address 9/11 fully, we must look beyond the mere fact of government involvement and look at the crimes against democracy that were begun on that day.
This brings us back to the original question. Once people become conscious of the fact that 9/11 was a lie, how can they channel their response? Their essential response must be to demand our democracy back. This can take a thousand forms. We must call for an end to the war on terror, which is in reality an endless reign of terror. We must call for the end of drone assassinations. We must work to end the death-grip of the military industrial complex on our society. We must work to end the dominance of the fossil fuel industry over our government. We must work to end economic polarization of the nation and the influence of money on politics. All of these, and many more areas of potential activism, are responses to the larger crimes against democracy that were launched on 9/11. All of these can be energized by people who have become conscious of the truth of 9/11. Consciousness of the truth, is empowering. It changes who we are and how we understand and interact with the world. As we raise consciousness of the truth we incrementally change the social and political landscape. That is why we must continue to speak out.
Have you ever come across an imperialist who was keen on activists challenging the establishment?
British establishment mouthpiece BBC leads the way again. This time it is about the biggest threat to democracy today. No, it is not terrorists. No, it is not Islamism. And, no, it is not the Western-Installed Dictator Regimes around the world. No, no, no, no, no. The new enemy is the conspiracy theorists. It is those who question their governments. It is those who find facts and confront the mainstream lies and liars such as BBC. Basically, it is you … and me.
Allow me to wade through all the fillers and present you with a few telling excerpts from this BBC report:
The more information we have about what governments and corporations are up to the less we seem to trust them. Will conspiracy theories eventually destroy democracy?
Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper
Published on Oct 26, 2013
SHOW NOTES AND MP3: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=8169
Is Noam Chomsky an anarcho-syndicalist or proponent of the Federal Reserve? A fearless political crusader or defender of the Warren Commission JFK orthodoxy? A tireless campaigner for justice or someone who doesn't care who did 9/11? Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we examine some of the subjects that Chomsky would prefer you didn't think about.
Together we raised $24,000 in just three days to make our “New York Times Billboard” a reality — thank you! Stay tuned for further information about how you can get involved this November.
This 29-foot by 13-foot billboard directly across from the New York Times and Port Authority at 40th Street and 8th Avenue will be ours for the full month of November. During that time the billboard will be seen by 100,000 pedestrians each day.
Join Us on November 2
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton offered a rousing endorsement of “longtime family friend” Terry McAuliffe in his second run for Governor of Virginia. McAuliffe certainly has been a good friend to the Clintons, having once made them a $1.35 million gift which, after becoming a scandal, turned into a loan. But the most interesting parts of McAuliffe’s history often go unnoticed, including his links to the security upgrades at the World Trade Center (WTC) in the late 1990s.
One of the primary companies involved in the security upgrades for the WTC was Ensec International, founded by Charles Finkel. Ensec’s Florida subsidiary had an office on the 33rd floor of the North Tower. At the same time, Finkel was an export sales executive for a company called Engesa, a manufacturer of tanks and other military vehicles for Operation Desert Storm. Engesa was a Saudi-approved supplier.
Ensec’s responsibility at the WTC involved setting up a new system for securing the basement levels, particularly in the parking garages. It was reported that the access control system used was manufactured and installed by Ensec. The system included proprietary software, proximity card readers and vehicle identification tags for all registered vehicles. The system also included cameras, located “in critical locations within the complex, such as machine rooms, computer areas, visitor areas and other sensitive locations.”
Lockheed Martin subcontracted the PANYNJ work to Ensec in November of 1996.This was the same time that Carlyle Group employee and Iran-Contra suspect Barry McDaniel was hired to run operations for the highly suspicious WTC security contractor Stratesec. And just as Ensec obtained the contract to work alongside McDaniel and Stratesec, it added Terry McAullife as a director.
Federal legislators and pundits are asked questions about 9/11 controlled demolition evidence on C-SPAN's program "Washington Journal".
This is Part 4 in a series. To view parts 1-3 see the links below:
Earlier this month, National Security Agency (NSA) head Keith Alexander admitted that he had lied to the U.S. Congress and the American people in an attempt to justify the NSA’s growing surveillance of U.S. citizens. In June, while attempting to defend the secret NSA programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, Alexander claimed that over 50 terrorist plots had been thwarted though collection of the phone and internet records of American citizens. Alexander said that his agency had provided Congress with 54 specific cases in which the programs helped disrupt terror plots in the U.S. and around the world.
Just a few weeks before the “54 plots” claim, Alexander had testified to the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee that NSA spying on American citizens had played a critical role in thwarting “dozens” of terrorist attacks. Alexander spent the next three months declaring that the NSA’s spying on Americans was preventing terrorism and another 9/11.
None of that was true as we found out a few weeks ago. Of the 54 alleged plots, only one or two were identified as a result of bulk phone record collection, according to Alexander’s most recent comments. That number has since been whittled down to just one incident that wasn’t a terrorist plot at all but was a case of a cab driver sending cash to an alleged terrorist organization. Bottom line ― the NSA spying on Americans has not stopped any terrorist plots, let alone dozens or 54.
|Written by AE911Truth Staff|
|Thursday, 10 October 2013|
ReThink911 caused the greatest stir of its September 2013 campaign in Canada’s capital city of Ottawa, where 300 ads appeared on local buses from early September to early October asking riders, “Did you know a 3rd tower fell on 9/11?”
The controversy first erupted on the night of September 11, when coverage of the campaign appeared on the CBC and Ottawa Citizen websites. Both articles quoted Ottawa City Councilor and Transit Commission Chair Diane Deans, who called the ads “insensitive” and indicated that she would request a review of Ottawa’s advertising policy. In-depth reporting on ReThink911’s message by the Ottawa Citizen included a quote from Frank Wilson, the general manager of ad broker Pattison Outdoor, who affirmed that the ads conformed to the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. “Everyone has a right to question whatever they want to,” he said. “I don’t think you need to be embroiled in conspiracy theory to wonder why... that at the end of the day this building just suddenly came down.”
By the next morning, the airwaves were abuzz with debate about the bus ads. One radio station, 1310 News, posted a survey on its website that asked readers, “Should the ads from ‘ReThink911’ be allowed on OC Transpo buses?” More than 90% responded “yes.” By later that morning, articles on Yahoo News and Huffington Post also mentioned the ads in Toronto and Vancouver. The Huffington Post was the most senselessly derisive, cherry picking the tweets of two angry onlookers who described a country in “outrage.” Yahoo News was much more balanced in its coverage.
There's a subscription only article written by Dianne Feinstein right now on the WSJ called "The NSA's Watchfulness Protects America" with a sub headline that says, "If today's call-records program had been in place in before 9/11, the terrorist attacks likely would have been prevented." Unfortunately, I can't read it, however…
According to www.historycommons.org, in 1997 the U.S. Military and NSA asked for access to Telecom networks. In documents filed in 2006 by Joe Nacchio concerning his trial on insider trading charges, a Lieutenant General "told Mr. (Dean) Wandry (a member of Qwest) that he ran the largest telecom operation in the world, he had looked at Qwest's network, and he wanted to use it for government purposes." […] "By 1999, Qwest is working extensively with the NSA."