Three Judges “Astonished” At Now Seeing The Collapse of Building 7 (14 years later)
March 15, 2015 by Dalia Mae 47 Comments
In the interview above, after the court case, Harrit says,
“We got the opportunity, for once, to present a video of World Trade Centre 7 collapsing, in court, … at that time I recognised a state of astonishment among the three judges…. I understand, as usual, that none of them had heard or seen the collapse of Building 7 before.”
“I’m just an ordinary, very ordinary retired scientist from the University of Copenhagen who just can’t stand (when) the fundamental laws of Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton are not respected in the public domain.”
The former Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, was also unaware that a third building had collapsed on September 11, 2001 (when I interviewed him last year). Regardless of the outcome of this libel case, the collapse of this Building 7 has been deliberatedly “kept” from the public.
9/11 Commissioners Admit They Never Got the Full Story
The 9/11 Commissioners publicly expressed anger at cover ups and obstructions of justice by the government into a real 9/11 investigation:
- 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue
- The 9/11 Commission chair said the Commission was “set up to fail”
- The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”
- 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”
- 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
- 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”. When asked in 2009 if he thought there should be another 9/11 commission, Cleland responded: “There should be about fifteen 9/11 commissions”
A new article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies argues that the evidence supporting the official story of the destruction of the World Trade Center is so weak that the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court, if applied competently, would exclude this evidence from the courtroom. The article is entitled “The Cause of the Destruction of the World Trade Center Buildings on September 11, 2001 and the Admissibility of Expert Testimony Under the Standards Developed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc.” The author of the article is Stevan Looney, J.D. He is a trial lawyer and practices primarily in the courts of New Mexico and the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
Follow this link for the new article.
A dozen Army personnel, including many senior officers, went ahead with a routine, previously scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.m. on September 11, 2001, in an area of the Pentagon that was severely damaged when the building was attacked at 9:37 a.m., even though a hijacked plane had crashed into the World Trade Center 14 minutes earlier and this incident had been reported on television since 8:49 a.m. Strangely, the officers were unaware of the crash when they went into their meeting and no one interrupted the meeting to let them know the U.S. was under attack after a second hijacked aircraft hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m. They were consequently still continuing their meeting as if nothing was wrong, oblivious to the crisis that was taking place, when the Pentagon was hit and a huge fireball erupted into their room.
Jeremy Sagan is a computer programmer, AE911Truth supporter, and the son of the late astronomer Carl Sagan and biologist Lynn Margulis, who appears in 9/11 Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out. He and Andy Steele discuss the 9/11 controlled demolition evidence, the work of both his parents, and the state of the media and government establishments as they try to cover up the facts surrounding of the 9/11 crime in New York.
Science has been misused for political purposes many times in history. However, the most glaring example of politically motivated pseudoscience—that employed by U.S. government scientists to explain the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC)—continues to be ignored by many scientists. As we pass the 10th anniversary of the introduction of that account, it is useful to review historic examples of fake science used for political purposes and the pattern that defines that abuse.
An early example of pseudoscience used to promote a political agenda was the concerted Soviet effort to contradict evolutionary theory and Mendelian inheritance. For nearly 45 years, the Soviet government used propaganda to foster unproven theories of agriculture promoted by its minister of agriculture, Trofim Lysenko. Scientists seeking favor with the Soviet hierarchy produced fake experimental data in support of Lysenko’s false claims. Scientific evidence from the fields of biology and genetics was banned in favor of educational programs that taught only Lysenkoism and many biologists and geneticists were executed or sent to labor camps. This propaganda-fueled program of anti-science continued for over forty years, until 1964, and spread to other countries including China.
In the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway describe several other examples of the misuse of science, spanning from the 1950s to the present. They show how widely respected scientists participated in clearly non-scientific efforts to promote the agendas of big business and big government. Examples include the tobacco industry’s misuse of science to obfuscate the links between smoking and cancer, the military industrial complex’s use of scientists to support the scientifically indefensible Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and several abuses of environmental science.
. . .Be VERY afraid.
A short video I made utilising some of the same footage I used in my previous video about the Larry Silverstein "Controlled Demolition" quote (from the missing episode of History's Business). I also used some footage from AE9/11 Truth's 'Experts Speak Out' video and Massimo Mazzucco's film, 'September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor'. Just sharing it with everyone here. If you like it, please share it with others.
Fran Shure: A Spiritual Issue Not To Be Silent About 9/11
by Susan Dugan
Right after 9/11, I remember talking to my women’s group and saying I just don’t think this could have happened without someone knowing about it and allowing it to,” says Fran Shure. “It was totally intuitive, because I knew nothing. And that was received with a lot of censoring remarks. I just looked at them and said, you know, I have the right to think the unthinkable and I’m going to look into this. And lo and behold, a video came my way and then a book and I was in shock, like most people would be, reading about evidence that showed we were not told the truth about what happened on 9/11.”
FRAN SHURE WAS IMMEDIATELY SKEPTICAL THE ATTACKS OF SEPT. 11, 2001 could have taken place without some sort of advance knowledge. After studying extensive written and video evidence, she is convinced that an objective scientific investigation was never initiated.