Instead of calling evidence of the most obvious and worst case of Treason and mass murder in U.S. History a "distraction", or a "Limited Hangout", or a "Get into Saudi Arabia Free Card", IMO "9-11 activists" would be serving a better purpose by educating themselves on the subject to better understand how anyone who knows the evidence would in actuality, not be swayed by a theoretical "Get Into Saudi Arabia Free Card", because "9-11 activists", once educated on this evidence, can then share this information to a public that knows basically nothing.
I'm talking about being prepared in case the "28 pages" are ever released.
This actually would be essential for any kind of accountability.
The evidence of what Saudi Arabia, and it's agents and Government Officials were doing, was not only known about and approved by certain high level officials in the U.S., but that the actions of the Saudis were known about, approved, and they were even assisted by, specifically, the top levels of the CIA, FBI, and White House.
A 15 minute compilation of eyewitness statements about the destruction of WTC 1 & 2, including some from the FDNY oral histories released in 2005, news reports and footage from the 2010 NIST FOIA data release.
A lot of the footage will probably be familiar to you, but I used a few less well known clips here too. I made the aspect ratio of all the clips consistent, which will hopefully make them more suitable for others to download and use. Please share the video with others and I wish everyone well for 2016.
Worth the watch.
CALL TO ACTION!!
In his recent speech to the United Nations, UK Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to get powers to force ISPs to close down access to websites that, in his opinion only, may be showing dissent. (see at mark 4:45)
He labels 9/11 researchers as 'non violent activists'. And says that we are as dangerous as ISIS.
He has to be stopped!
Please send a personally written email to David Cameron challenging his recent UN speech demonizing 9/11 activists.
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.!
During a discussion about "What do conspiracy theories say about us?" (al jazeera), Lance Dehaven-Smith, Professor, Florida State University, said, that he would support a new 911-investigation. His specializations are "Public policy, political theory, philosophy of science, public opinion, and Florida politics and government." (askew). He already published in the "Journal for 911 studies" (911-blogger) about his insights.
During the programm most of the comments were suspicious about official accounts of events, proven to be lies. So it was a good success for spreading 911truth.
See the show, link to youtube
It's been a long while since I posted on 911Blogger, but I have tried to keep up with important developments on 911, courtesy of this website and others.
I recently released a new doc entitled "Counter-Intelligence" ('Shining a light on black operations'). Like my previous films it has been released online for free.
Counter-Intelligence (CI) is long. Six hours. It is divided up into five parts. Each entry can be viewed as its own entity without reference to what comes before or after. Obviously the film as a whole is best viewed in its entirety from 1-5.
The full film can be viewed here:
Due to the length I composed a trailer, which also functions as a sort of short film. It is 15 minutes long:
The January edition of Scientific American magazine includes a new column by Michael Shermer. In it he gives his theory on how conspiracy theorists delude themselves and how to effectively respond to them. It makes for interesting reading. The comments are also fun.