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.
In the last two months there has been a post here and there mentioning the structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 Report that were found in early 2012, shortly after the drawings for WTC 7 were released. Subsequent analyses show that when these features are included the collapse initiation hypothesis of the Report becomes impossible.
A letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General, concerning the structural feature omissions and asking that he investigate and have the NIST correct the Report, was sent by a well known attorney, Dr. William Pepper, on behalf of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, on December 12, 2013. The letter was sent via courier, so there is no doubt it was received on December 12, 2013 by the Inspector General's office at the U.S. Commerce Department. There has been no response as of yet, and it is important that the public at large be made aware of this issue without further delay.
I would urge anyone and everyone to disseminate this information as far and wide as possible, as it shows there was a certain level of impropriety involved in writing the WTC 7 Report, and that the demand for a new WTC 7 investigation by those skeptical of the Report's conclusions was in order all along.
The below link to the letter can be used by anyone and everyone
Last June, Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian revealed that Edward Snowden was the NSA insider behind “one of the most significant leaks in US political history.” Snowden explained his motivations through Greenwald by saying, “There are more important things than money…. harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.” Such altruistic motivations were welcome news at the time but have come into question recently given that only a tiny fraction of the documents have been released nearly a year after Snowden started working with Greenwald. Perhaps more importantly, billionaire Pierre Omidyar is funding Greenwald’s slow release of those documents and Omidyar’s Paypal colleagues have highly suspicious links to NSA spying and other dangers to civil rights.
It was originally reported that the number of documents Snowden had stolen was in the thousands. Today, however, that number is said to be nearly two million. This calls into question Snowden’s early statement, as reported by Greenwald, that he “carefully evaluated every single document to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest.” The huge, new number also reveals that less than one tenth of one percent of the documents (only about 900) have actually been released to the public.
How could Snowden have “carefully evaluated every single” one of what is now being said to be nearly two million documents? He only worked for Booz Allen Hamilton for a few months. According to NSA Director Keith Alexander, Snowden also worked directly for NSA for twelve months prior to that, which is interesting. But still, that would require carefully evaluating thousands of documents a day during that entire time. Didn’t he have a job apart from that?
Want to take a peak at what is in those 28 pages that were blacked out of the Joint Inquiry?
A meeting between Prince Bandar, the brother in law of the head of Saudi Intelligence, and Governor George Bush, CIA headquarters is named after his father.
"My dad told me before I make up my mind, go and talk to Bandar. One, he's our friend. Our means America, not just the Bush family. Number two, he knows everyone around the world who counts. And number three, he will give you his view on what he sees happening in the world."
"There are people who are your enemies in this country," Bush said, "who also think my dad is your friend."
"So?" asked Bandar, not asking who, though the reference was obviously to supporters of Israel, among others.
Bush said in so many words that the people who didn't want his dad to win in 1992 would also be against him if he ran. They were the same people who didn't like Bandar.
"Can I give you one advice?" Bandar asked.
The evidence for the presence of thermite at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 is extensive and compelling. This evidence has accumulated to the point at which we can say that WTC thermite is no longer a hypothesis, it is a tested and proven theory. Therefore it is not easy to debunk it. But the way to do so is very straightforward and is in no way mysterious.
To debunk the thermite theory, one must first understand the evidence for it and then show how all of that evidence is either mistaken or explained by other phenomena. Here are the top ten categories of evidence for thermite at the WTC.
There is also a great deal of indirect evidence for the thermite theory. This includes the attempts by NIST to downplay the evidence for thermite. It also includes things like a weak effort by Rupert Murdoch’s National Geographic Channel to discredit the ability of thermite to cut structural steel, which was itself roundly discredited by one independent investigator. It is now unquestionable that thermite can cut structural steel as needed for a demolition.
Therefore, debunking the WTC thermite theory is not easy but is very straightforward. Doing so simply requires addressing the evidence listed above point by point, and showing in each case how an alternative hypothesis can explain that evidence better. Given the scientific grounding of the thermite theory, use of the scientific method, including experiments and peer-reviewed publications, would be essential to any such debunking effort.
The text below was contained in an email action alert received this evening (Dec 23rd) from http://www.ae911truth.org :
Tell the NY TImes:
The Evidence Isn't Hard to Find...If You Just Look
Yesterday New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent David Sanger was the guest on CSPAN’s Washington Journal, where he had this to say about Building 7’s collapse:
“We have not found any evidence so far – that doesn’t mean there’s none there – but we’ve not found any evidence so far to suggest that the building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes that flew into them.”
Sanger was responding to a question from a caller who wanted to know why, despite the massive billboard standing right outside the New York Times Building, the paper of record had failed to “fairly and objectively cover this crucial issue.”
Now with a senior representative of the New York Times on the record saying, “We’ve not found any evidence so far,” it is time to let Sanger and the editors know that the evidence is there. All they need to do is look and they’ll easily find it. Contact the NY Times Today!
Last week over 1,000 people contacted the BBC in response to our action alert regarding the BBC’s one-sided article on the ReThink911 campaign. Let’s surpass that level of support today. Please take 2 minutes right now to contact David Sanger and the NY Times editors. Just copy-paste the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.
Dear Mr. Sanger and Editors of the New York Times,
On Sunday, December 23, 2013, you, Mr. Sanger, told a caller on CSPAN’s Washington Journal that the New York Times had not found any evidence so far to suggest that the collapse of WTC Building 7 was caused by anything other than an indirect result of the airplanes flying into the Twin Towers. I am writing to tell you that the evidence is indeed there, and I urge you to look into it. 2,100 architects and engineers have signed a petition at AE911Truth.org calling for a new investigation based on this evidence. The following points are just a few from among the growing body of evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Building 7 came down by controlled demolition.
Building 7 accelerated downward at absolute free-fall for the first few seconds of its 7-second symmetrical collapse.
However, a building cannot undergo free-fall if it is meeting any resistance from any of the columns below it, as any resistance would slow the building’s descent.
Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been “crushed” by the upper freely falling section.
The destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building had to have been accomplished by other means, i.e. explosives or incendiaries, to allow the upper section of the building to fall through it in free-fall. Learn more about the free-fall of Building 7.
As you well understand, the implications of the controlled demolition of Building 7 are extraordinary, since it is integral to the 9/11 events, and therefore the question of what happened to Building 7 is of the greatest importance. I thank you in advance for taking the time to seriously examine this crucial issue.
Thank you as always for your tremendous support.!
9/11 Families 'Ecstatic' They Can Finally Sue Saudi Arabia
ABC NewsBy AARON KATERSKY and RUSSELL GOLDMAN | ABC News
9/11 Families 'Ecstatic' They Can Finally Sue Saudi Arabia (ABC News)
ABC News - 9/11 Families 'Ecstatic' They Can Finally Sue Saudi Arabia (ABC News)
Families of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks today celebrated a federal court's ruling that allows relatives of people who died in the 9/11 terror attacks to sue Saudi Arabia.
Most of the hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001 were from Saudi Arabia, and the complaint states that much of the funding for the al-Qaeda terrorists came from Saudi Arabia.
An attempt to Saudi Arabia in 2002 was blocked by a federal court ruling that said the kingdom had sovereign immunity. That ruling was reversed Thursday by a three-judge federal panel.
Take Action: Urge Ottawa MP Paul Dewar to Submit the 9/11 Justice Canada Petition to Parliament
During the December Ottawa ad campaign, ReThink911 together with 9/11 Justice Canada is encouraging all Canadians to contact Ottawa MP Paul Dewar (Official Opposition Critic for Foreign Affairs) and urge him to deliver the 9/11 Justice Canada petition to the Canadian Parliament.
It only takes 2 minutes!
Simply copy and paste the text below and make sure to add your signature to the email.
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Dear Mr. Dewar
I urge you to submit to Parliament petition #5248502, signed by over 1,400 Canadians, requesting a parliamentary review of the omissions and inconsistencies in the 9/11 Commission Report. Delivering a petition to Parliament does not imply that an MP endorses it. Here are three reasons to submit this petition:
(1) 26 Canadians were killed in the 9/11 attacks.
(2) Canada has been a major ally in the War on Terrorism, yet no proof has ever been delivered to the Canadian government that the 9/11 attacks were carried out as alleged by the U.S. government.
(3) A recent poll commissioned by the ReThink911 campaign found that a plurality of Canadians are in favor of Canada opening its own investigation into the 9/11 attacks. As the NDP Foreign Affairs Critic, it is incumbent upon you to submit this petition.
Please fulfill your duty to the Canadian people.
Thanks to all our supporters for making this ReThink911 Campaign in Canada a real success.
December 17, 2013 — Yesterday the BBC published an article about the ongoing ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa. Featured on the BBC’s News homepage, the article was seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.
This piece marks the fifth mainstream news article about ReThink911’s Ottawa campaign since the announcement of the campaign on November 20. But unlike its Canadian counterparts, the BBC has a tendency for falseness and one-sidedness rivaled only by the likes of Fox News.
Read the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25370076
Tell the BBC Editor Their Reporting Is a Journalistic Disgrace
Please take 2 minutes right now to let the Editor of the BBC’s North America edition know how you feel about their reporting. Just copy-paste the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.
Link to this item at ReThink911.org with sample letter and email addresses: http://rethink911.org/news/bbc-article-rethink911-keeps-building-7-in-the-headlines/
This weekend I ran across a random copy of The Wall Street Journal and decided to see what passes for mainstream news these days. Reading it reminded me of the striking amount of terrorism propaganda being foisted upon the U.S. public. The numerous terrorism-related stories in that weekend edition of The Journal painted a confused and contradictory picture that reflects a difficulty in keeping the American public focused on terrorist threats and increasingly suspicious of their fellow citizens.
The weekend edition included five major stories about terrorism, including a shooting at a Colorado high school, the release of video from a hospital massacre in Yemen, and a review of how the Sandy Hook victims’ families are coping. In the most prominent spot, at the top left of the front page, readers found an alert for a major expose covering the Boston bombers. The fifth story was about the arrest of a Wichita man for plotting to blow up aircraft with a homemade bomb at the airport.
The new, Wichita story provides a good example of the challenges facing the FBI and corporate media in ongoing efforts to stoke the public fear. The suspect, like others in the last few years, had no previous history of terrorist activity and the FBI did everything for him.
Terry Lee Loewen was an avionics specialist at a private company working at the Mid-Continent Airport in Wichita. Allegedly, he tried to drive his car, loaded with explosives that the FBI had helped him make, onto the tarmac to cause “maximum carnage and death.” This man, whom neighbors called quiet and “normal” was supposedly working for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
As 9/11 Continues to Justify State Crimes, New Book Reveals Suspects
Posted on June 14, 2013 by Kevin Ryan
The U.S. government has turned to 9/11 again in order to justify its program of spying on all Americans and to support a new, expanded war in Syria. Yet as Americans are distracted by these ongoing crimes, the deception behind the origin of the War on Terror is being more fully revealed.
Were the crimes of September 11, 2001 solely the work of Osama bin Laden and nineteen troubled young Arabs, or were more powerful people involved? After a decade of investigation Kevin Ryan, the co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, offers an evidence-based analysis of nineteen other suspects.
December 15, 2013 - http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
By Paul Sperry
After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.
But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.
It was kept secret and remains so today.
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.
Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”
Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.
Federal legislators and pundits are asked questions about the 9/11 controlled demolition evidence on C-SPAN's program "Washington Journal".
This is Part 5 in a series.
*Positive responses from Reps. Diana Degette and Charles Dent.
*Rep. Cuellar is called out for eluding a Building 7 question during a previous appearance on the show. Cuellar then denies he did it.
*Caller stands up for Building 7 callers and criticizes the corporate media during an open lines segment.
*Duncan Hunter confidently stands by all the government 9/11 investigation reports and believes they're adequate even though he's never read them.
*Caller told that he's being disrespectful to the CIA.
*Maj. General McConville asked why soldiers should obey orders from the government in a war based on avenging 9/11 when they haven't been given the full story.
The NSA’s main justification for Constitution-shredding mass surveillance on all Americans is 9/11.
But we want to focus on another angle: the unspoken assumption by the NSA that we need mass surveillance because “lone wolf” terrorists don’t leave as many red flags as governments, so the NSA has to spy on everyone to find the needle in the haystack.
But this is nonsense. The 9/11 hijackers were not lone wolves.
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.