Why is Amanda allowed to stay?

And one that deserves an answer.

Contrary to dis-info you might have heard at the JREF, 911Blogger does not remove accounts SOLEY because the person gets excessive negative points.

In case that was the reason you were wondering.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

It goes without saying that the BBC is on the hit list, and with a little effort maybe Keith Olberman can be inspired to dig in.
Here's a letter I just got back form the BBC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

info@bbc.co.uk wrote: Thank you for your e-mail regarding 9/11: The Conspiracy Files broadcast on 18 February.

Since other people have also contacted us about this and raised further points as well, it has been passed to this department for reply.

We are sorry that you felt that the programme did not answer your particular concerns about 9/11. Mike Rudin, Series Producer, The Conspiracy Files has written a blog which we hope will outline the difficulties in producing a programme on such a controversial topic. It is located here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/conspiracy_on_conspiracy.h...

We would like to make it clear that we must ensure that our replies to everyone explain the BBC's position accurately and consistently, and therefore if different people contact us with identical or very similar points the BBC's response will naturally be the same in each case.

Nevertheless, thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC with the strength of your views which have been registered and made available to the programme makers.

Regards

BBC Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and my reply;
------------------------
Thank you for your form reply, however you have COMPLETELY ignored my reference material so I send it again. The page I cite contains over 750 links by story title dissolving your ignorant claims that there is no evidence.

How conveniently you obviate the PNAC with your blanket statement "if we had found convincing evidence of a conspiracy before 9/11", and besides the brazen fact that there was NO proper investigation convicting Bin Laden, and a deliberate confiscation and destruction of evidence it's patently absurd for you to claim that
" we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version "
Since you claim to not have found any evidence supporting a conspiracy; HERE, I HAVE IT ALL COMPILED FOR YOU, THERE ARE NO EXCUSES NOW, LET'S SEE THE REAL STORY ABOUT THIS !!
With your recent production regarding 9/11 I must say that you have
only
scratched the surface of reality and need to do lots more research to
give a thorough coverage; it's the only responsible thing to do.
To that end I have a page built especially for gentlemen such as
yourself and your research.
It's comprised of over 740 links by story title, including linked
photographs.
This is a valuable resource and I urge you strongly to just look this
page over, perhaps just scan the titles and find an area that you need
to be enlightened on; any story will do; you are completely unaware of
just HOW MUCH information you've missed or got wrong.

With all due Respects,
Reverend MV Goldsun
http://erroneousbusczh.homestead.com/9-11Plot.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's not let go of this one fellas, we've got them by the short and curlies and they have the audacity to lie and worm their way out of it.

Can't hurt to send him a line; after all he IS the MOST outspoken member of the media to date !!

KOlbermann@msnbc.com

Good call Rev. I sent him a request. Not that hard when the link is right there. We'll see. Anyway. Thanks for the link. The movement grows slowly but surely.

I just went through their archive and they've got quite a few 9/11 truth articles. A reasonably positive review of TNPH, "False Prophets of the New Left - the Case of Monbiot", "Flight 77 and Judicial Watch as a Disinformation Trap", etc., etc.

Somebody has even put subtitles on Press for Truth and got it show in a small cinema in Prague.

I am pretty surprised.

Hi Kevin,
I'm amazed there are more Czech enabled posters overhere are you in the CEE region now, interested to establish "truther" contact ?

You are not alone here :)

Is it just me, or did that second apologia have a rather shrill and desperate quality to it..?

I knew this was how they'd try to spin it, as this represents the ONLY POSSIBLE way to spin it.

Still, the probability that a mere five minutes after Jane's feed was interrupted, the very thing they were reporting, which had not happened yet, occuring in reality is rather astonomical, one would think...?

After all, who can predict when a 47 story steel skyscraper is going to completely and uniformly free fall to the ground as a result of some fire? Heck even FEMA indicated in their report that such a causation only had a "very low probability of occurance"..!

It's one HECK of a coincidence, if they are to be believed, that amid all the confusion of the day, that they randomly made a mistake which turned into a prophecy and an actuality just five minutes later...?!!! Amazing!

And the FEMA report was co-sponsored by the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). Word has it that even NIST, who STILL have not published their final report on the destruction of WTC7 are forced to consider the demolition hypothesis.

IMO, the biggest smoking gun of all, is the perfect uniformity and the free fall nature of the "collapse" at 6.5 seconds, where absolute free fall in a complete VACUUM from that height is 6 seconds..!

And their reporting on it was DEFINITIVE, and nothing like these other reports. They said that it had indeed collapsED.

Sorry Mr. Porter. Your explanation does not pass muster.

Oh and care to explain why Google Video and Youtube were persistently pulling the videos earlier this week when the video in question is public domain..?

http://911revisited.com/video.html

at 5 min 12 sec you'll see the guy telling ABC News 7 about the explosion that blew him and "Mr. Hess from the corporation council back into the 8th floor." What isn't commonly known is that it was the 8th floor of building 7.

The guys' names are know but I don't have that handy. They both claim that emotional trauma prevents them from remembering what happened.

Anyway, here's a good thing to review as we prepare to refute the new report...

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

____

♠

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Anyway, here's a good thing to review as we prepare to refute the new report...

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

------------------------------------------

Good post.

I think they're going to have one HECK of a time attempting to explain both the uniformity of collapse and the speed of collapse, particularly given the way the building was constructed.

It's my understanding that there is also official public record documentation of *unexplained evaporation of steel* which is something that could only be produced by high temperature demolition explosives.

so far not published, as I see...

The main point is that WTC7 was a perfect controlled demolition.

See Danny Jowenko, the leading durch demolition expert commenting:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6400

There is no doubt about it:
First the Eastern Penthouse fell 2 seconds before the rest. Then explosion lightnings traveled the building up- the middle cracks downwards, and then it collapsed in 6.6 seconds, absolute symmetrically on its own footprint. And the dust! To archieve such a beautiful demolition you have to blow up the inner core columns first.

There is just no way that this building fell due to fire or the damage from the WTC1,2 debris. No 6.6 seconds, not symmetrically, not in its own footprints (more likely toppling-over if ever)

"There are bombs in the building-start clearing out."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4574366633014832928

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_blow_up.wmv

And then the molten metal in the basement, see Fema Appendix C
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
, the high temperature sulfidation-oxydation, that no one had an easy explanation for, the NYT Glanz called it the "deepest mistery", and most likely the result of the use of Thermate, a highly incendiary explosive.

And then your foreknowledge, like Giuliani and the OEM before the Twin Towers fell.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html

And the media oblivion regarding WTC7. Heck, I have friend who denied a third building collapsed that day, they never heard of it.

No mention in the 911 Commission Report.

No result by NIST till today.

Don't we have every reason to be suspicious?