Let the lies stand next to the truth and the truth will out. Freedom of speech and all that stuff. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Guy Smith on Alex Jones right now with Avery.

Alex Jones had Guy Smith, the BBC producer of the Conspiracy Files documentary on the 9/11 attack, on his radio show today, along with Dylan Avery and one of the Watson brothers.

I was disappointed in the performance of Jones, Avery and Watson on that show, even though they did call call Guy Smith out on a number of good points which he had no reasonable answers for.

To begin with, there is an absolutely critical piece of evidence that they failed to mention when Guy Smith was asking for definitive proof that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition, and that's the video of yellow to white-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower.

Folks, that piece of evidence isn't merely a smoking gun: it's a smoking nuclear cannon. That video, alone and by itself, is irrefragable *proof* that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like ("like" in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what that video records.

One could ignore all the other massive amounts of hardcore evidence that the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks from beginning to end (i.e., the veritible bottomless sea of smoking guns that we're drowning in), and this video *by itself* would be far more than enough to incontrovertibly *prove* that the South Tower had incendiary demolition charges set within it that were going off.

Below are videos which contain some of this footage:

http://www.supportthetruth.com/vids/thermite.wmv

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten%20Metal%20from%20WTC.mpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

Second--and this is a problem many people here have, including the people who post the main articles to this blog--is that they let Guy Smith get away with the "conspiracy theory [or theorist]" ad hominem attack without adequately rebutting him.

Alex Jones tried to rebutt Guy Smith on this point by saying that the U.S. government's offical story (which, by the way, has changed quite a number of times) regarding the 9/11 attack is a conspiracy theory due to its numerous absurdities. While although said offical story truly is absurd and totally disprovable, that's not how to properly answer this point.

A conspiracy is simply when two or more people take part in a plan which involves doing something unrightful or untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component for actions to be a conspiracy).

Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then *by definition* it is a conspiracy, even if one completely accepts the U.S. government's lying, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks. Hence, *by definition* the U.S. government's offical fairy tale is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.

That is the way to properly anwser the "conspiracy theorist" charge, as it's being used as a hypocritical ad hominem attack, since that charge *by definition* applies just as much to the U.S. government's disingenuous offical theory, as it is a theory involving conspiracy.

Never let the hypocritical "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" charge pass over without pointing out that the person making the charge is by definition also a conspiracy theorist. Too often I see people here just let that charge pass by without answering it; or sometimes people here in the 9/11 Truth movement will actually apply that term to our position (I suppose from hearing it repeated by the mainstream major media so often). But this charge is being made as an ad hominem attack--a hypocritical and self-contradicting ad hominem attack, at that.

Third, Guy Smith asked why haven't people come forward admitting to taking part in staging the 9/11 attacks on behalf of the U.S. government. To begin with, anyone who would admit to such a thing would be admitting to committing mass-murder, and would thereby qualify for the death penalty. They would also be made to look like kooks by the U.S. government and would likely be brought up on trumped-up charges possibly unrelated to the 9/11 attack in order further damage their credibility. While in jail they could quite possibly look forward to getting raped and having the daylights tortured out of them, and then dying from a "suicide" or chemically-induced "heart attack."

As well, the U.S. government would have chosen people for such a task who are either thoroughly sociopathic or so indoctrinated with fallacious religious conditioning that they would either take pleasure in the acts or think that they are involved in a wonderful, Godly thing. Concerning the latter, I can well believe that the dancing Israelis could have quite possibly been the ones the U.S. government had planting the themite-like indeniaries in the towers, since they obviously knew the attacks were coming (going by their own words on that matter, as well as their actions) and were not at all surprised and indeed were overjoyed when the attacks did take place. Many in Israel have been so conditioned with an "us against the rest of the world" thought-process that they are totally convinced that pretty much the entire gentile world is out to completely exterminate all the Jews. Further, many of these very types have been conditioned into a Messianic End-Times position that views Israel is the center of the world, along with the absolute necessity to promote Israel's interests at all costs in order to fulfill Old Testament End-Times prophecy. So such thoroughly-conditioned Israelis would quite literally believe that they were on a mission from God.

Nor am I implying via the above that the Israeli government was the main culprit in staging the attacks, as Israel can't make the FAA and NORAD stand down, neither can Israel plant thermate-like incendiaries in the towers without the U.S. government's help and consent. The U.S. government was the party utlimately responsible for intentionally staging the attacks, with Israeli agents possibly being used by the U.S. government in order to put some distance between itself ("plausible deniability" they call it). At the very least, we do know for an absolute fact that Israeli agents were being used to track the Arab U.S. government military agents (as there is tons of proof demonstrating that these Arabs were trained on U.S. military bases in the U.S.) who are popularly termed the "9/11 hijackers."

Additionally, governments throughout history are often known to eliminate their agents once they have performed their task. People die and go missing all the time without it becoming a major news item. So it could be that a number of the people who actually planted the thermite-like incendiaries in the towers (or who were involved in other tasks in knowingly staging the 9/11 attacks) are already dead.

Regarding the yellow to white-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, from its color it had to be at least over 1000 °C, yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do any office, building, or plane materials burn anywhere near that hot (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn't molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government's account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there's nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added) was used to bring down the WTC towers (see "C Limited Metallurgical Examination," FEMA 403--World Trade Center Building Performance Study http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf ):

""
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. ... No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.
""

Below is Dr. Jones's relevant paper:

"Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?," Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006):

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Why%20Indeed%20Did%20the%20W...

"Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

____________
"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006 http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

someone is working really hard to have stories from 911blogger buried on digg.com, both BBC posts have been buried, one with over 175 diggs.

this last weekend was a multi media info attack against 911truth------

part of it ---was the planted idea that "digg:" was a good thing

they let a couple of stories be at the front a couple days ago

and then sunday they do the bbc bullcrap0-----and then they nail all the cyber activists at digg

planned bullshit
------------------------------
all the ufo conspiracy shows on the history channel these last few days----were metaphors about it being "good for the govt to keep secrets" etc...

and they didnt re run the alex jones /guy smith interview tonite on infowars

stupid ass revolution bullshit

Dear Ms. Boaden:

I've been reading about the BBC's recent program about 9/11, and I was sorry to hear that it fell to the level of a "hit piece." It sounds as if you picked the weakest straws in the "inside job" argument and ignored the so numerous reasons why the "official version" could not possibly be true. Why didn't you have Drs. Griffin or Jones on the program? I happen to think that Dylan Avery and Alex Jones are credible and honest, while certainly the same cannot be said about Bush, Cheney, or Blair, but I have to admit their enthusiasm and unpolished manners might not make the best impression on an unfamiliar audience. It sounds as if you used that unpolished quality to prejudice viewers against the facts. Apparently, you also used the weakest rather than the strongest arguments in many cases, used anecdotal hearsay when you could have concentrated on agreed upon facts, and so forth.

Bush said: "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" about 9/11. As Griffin points out, when one looks at the evidence dispassionately, the "outrageous" conspiracy theory, the one that goes against physics and probability, is the one that says that poorly trained Arab pilots hijacked four planes, flew them through highly guarded airspace, crashed into buildings, one of them the most highly guarded in the world, even after having had plenty of time to prepare for its arrival, caused three buildings to collapse because of fire, an unprecedented occurrence, and into their footprints in a manner seen only in circumstances of controlled demolition.

The only reasons for believing the "official" conspiracy theory would seem to be an incorrect use of Occam's Razor, that the "official" version is somehow "simpler" or more "straightforward" ("the planes hit the buildings, then we watched them fall down"), and that the American government would never commit such a callous crime, despite so many examples in recent and past history that governments, especially American governments, have difficulty resisting committing atrocities, given the chance.

I'm not so much trying to convince you that my way of looking at the events of 9/11 is correct, as to tell you that I am disappointed that the BBC, for which I have always had a certain respect, would use the power of its prestige to provide an unbalanced view of such an important issue. I think a correct understanding of 9/11 is crucial for having a proper perspective of so much that has happened in the last five years. If the "war on terrorism" is largely a phony war, as I believe, then the whole aggressive foreign policy of the US and Great Britain, not only the invasion of Iraq, is going in the wrong direction. I believe you committed a great disservice.

Sincerely,

Fred W