Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Scared Rabbit

I share his fears and can empathize with his holiday experience.

"For the first time I'm scared. I mean really scared. For the first time in my lifetime it looks like America may actually be coming to an end.

As I traveled over the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays I payed special attention to the public. At gas stations and shopping centers - I took the time to observe. We are doomed. These people have nothing, know nothing, and are not interested. Talk about rabble.

As I spoke to members of my family at holiday celebrations - about topics foreign to me - like what's going on with their favorite TV show... my heart sank. No hope.

As I browsed the web to see the most recent joke of a terrorist attack - just enough not to cause property damage but just enough to scare the cringing American soccer-moms - I just stared. The conversation in the background continued - I didn't participate.

America is presently doomed. I've not even had the energy to do much blogging - since the words seem to fall on a mass of sheep intent on filling their stomachs. These are not citizens - they are consumers - oblivious to the death and destruction spread in their names.

The American citizen has become a penniless tool of credit card companies - unable to perform their duty as citizen since they cannot collect enough brain energy to grasp the mind-fuck under which they live. They live for a few moments between jobs - or rides to their children's activities, while monsters blow their still-uncollected tax money on expensive robot-drones used to kill "terrorists" - whatever they are. Ask an American what a terrorist is - you might as well ask a cinderblock.

We need a plan, leadership, and decisive action to save America. Our leaders have failed us. Many are being blackmailed. Unless those of us with the answers are taken seriously in public and supported this country is gone.

But maybe I'm wrong - that there really are Americans out there. That there are people who understand that anyone pretending that they have the power to take away their rights is a traitor and an enemy.

In the coming year it will be of the utmost importance to educate, invigorate and galvanize all. The American public is up against an organized force of thieves, liars and power-hungry oligarchs with the means, motive and opportunity to take everything. But what does it matter?

Our Bill of Rights is the only thing we have right now. There is absolutely no respect given to the Constitution of the United States - Why? Why when we have a so-called constitutional scholar in the White House? Perhaps the best way to undermine the Constitution is with someone who understands it best. And I've concluded from my holiday observations that no one is looking out for the American citizen regarding the Constitution of the United States. Especially not the American citizen. No - they cling to their belief that "somebody cares" - or maybe they are so ignorant of the theft of the only thing they have that matters - unique in time - and unique in world history - their Bill of Rights and Constitution - ...

I am concerned that the media is useless providing zero feedback to the population so elections can work. I am concerned that our elections are stolen - by companies who can give a paper receipt for a bank transaction at an ATM but not at the election booth. I am concerned that we have mercenary armies raping and pillaging half the planet with our money but not representing our ideals. I am concerned that our elected representatives, blackmailed, are using mercenaries to continue wars that have no support here in the United States. I am concerned that false-flag operations are constantly used, with the support of a phony news media - to stampede the American public into actions contrary to their freedoms. That's treason by the way.

For the first time in my life I've heard stable even-tempered adults discussing violent revolution. How crazy is that? Is that what it is going to take?

Where is the FBI on 911 Truth? AWOL. Our insane alphabet-soup agencies, CIA, NSA and the rest of them are simply a bunch of robotic brainwashed idiots - running around the world sticking their noses in everyone else's business - then when their nation-building antics backfire - we, the American public, are supposed to sit here and accept the police state required to maintain this madness. How about no?

How about no more prisons? How about no more cops running around with automatic rifles in this "land of the free and home of the brave?" How about some real change we can believe in?

Obama is a fraud, a liar, and as far as I am concerned a traitor. He is a one-world government con-artist with no respect for what America really stands for. He is a front-man for a group of con-artists - troops to Yemen, Columbia, Pakistan - continue the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, saber-rattling toward Iran. Is this clown for real? Why doesn't he declare war on the North Pole? Or is that a coming attraction?

Here in Charlottesville, Virginia we've recently been buried under a blanket of snow too high to drive through with most Jeeps. The entire town crippled - couldn't plow our own roads. What if Al Quaida attacked then? People were stuck in their cars overnight - no emergency crews could reach them. Yeah - we are really a superpower. Meanwhile our military is deployed the world over to save everything.

2010 must be the year of the plan. We need leadership, ideas and action. We need to shit-can our members of the House of Representatives - the first place to look - who don't know what a Bill of Rights is. We need to kick out anybody trampling on that Bill of Rights. Then we need to start working out from there.

Our dysfunctional House of Representatives is the starting line - the first place to focus all actions. And we need them to tackle the big issues - like 911 Truth and these phony wars. Anybody using the term "War on Terror" needs to be fired - period.

I guess I've ranted enough - I just hope some of this sank in. We are in big, big trouble here in America - and if we don't get organized and unite as Americans - we'll be saluting a new flag very very soon.

--MORE--"

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Reflecting on the Next Terror Attack

".... Gordon Brown and Dragul Netanyahoo are talking about the next big terror thing. They have to be don’t they? They’re involved in setting it up. Obama (rhymes with Osama) would be talking about it with them but Obama isn’t really involved in the planning because he’s lucky if he can tie his shoes. No… Obama’s people do his talking for him, which means that either Rahm (definitely not Emmanuel) or Hilarious Clinton are probably in the room with Dragul and Gordon....

Yes… the early stages of the next big terror event are in progress. It’s been awhile. Some of us thought (me included) that it would happen earlier but obviously 2010 has all the necessary elements; economic freefall, annoying Goldstone Reports, Israeli organ theft from all over, including adopted Romanian children… it’s kind of a real life slasher film isn’t it? The setting is a slumber party at an orphanage. Ehud Barak comes in wearing a hockey mask and goes about his business never saying a word. Do you know why Jason and Michael Myers never speak? You can’t reason with someone who doesn’t talk to you. The killer takes on the persona of an automaton. At least Obama (rhymes with Osama) won’t need his teleprompter because he’s probably wearing a bag over his head....

**************************

I just want to point something out here and it needs to be said; this new non-terror event and the genocide in Gaza, the organ harvesting, the looting and stealing by alligator pigs in suits, this business about doing God’s work at Goldman Sachs and all the lies and evil deeds that keep getting exposed and then passed over, by the whores who write the news copy, is living proof that it’s all a setup to show the world just what kind of people have shoehorned themselves into the power suites....

The more I see of what’s happening these days, the more I am dead certain that these candidates for The Roach Motel are being led down the garden path to their ruin. It’s so glaring and obvious. Can’t you see it? Every time they outdo themselves and you think, “Now they’ll cut back and behave themselves’, they take it one step further. They’re driving around with “No Fear” bumper stickers and they’ve never been on a surfboard in their life. I do believe that they can’t believe they keep getting away with it and it compels them to push the envelope just one step further.

Meanwhile the public sits in their shrinking living room. Movers are removing the furniture; everything but the TV. Their kids are on the TV in that new reality show for pre-teens called, “Sexting you Up.”

Read the rest HERE

Maybe I shouldn't have posted it, but....

".....

Should a person who sees this taking place speak out against it? What if no one did?

It is okay to kill unarmed citizens in a war but it is usually not okay to kill any kind of citizens if you are not in a military engagement or a theater of war. Wars, for the most part are caused by banks and corporations for the purpose of profit.....

Corporations can routinely get away with things that a citizen cannot. Banks can engage in self-serving practices that would cause an individual to be sent to jail. Rich men can do things that poor men cannot and when they are occasionally caught out at their criminal enterprises they can hire legal representation that poor men cannot afford. When they are sent to jail, they are sent to special jails where poor men are not sent. Nations can get away with things that would land a citizen on death row and nations can do things to their citizens that would land a citizen in jail or on death row. Should I avoid saying something about this in order to avoid the attention of powerful entities or to avoid the censure of my readers and anyone who might object to my doing it? What if no one said anything about any of these things?

Powerful banking and corporate interests have compromised the leaders of many of the major nations in this world. They tell them what to do. They have conspired to destroy the economy of the nations in order to exert a greater control over the citizens. They did this during the Great Depression as well and it was also a real help in bringing about a world war from which these banks and corporations profited. It was true then and it is true now. Should I not say anything about this? What if no one was saying anything about this?

People are paid a lot of money to report the news in print and electronic media. They report the news according to what the heads of the corporations tell them to report. They are given the tone and the shape of the information and they are told not to deviate from it. They receive a fine lifestyle and a public profile, which they can translate into all kinds of profit for themselves simply by being an obliging liar. Along the way they are somehow able to convince themselves that they are telling the truth… even when the facts directly in front of them contradict all of what they are saying. Am I not supposed to call attention to this? What if no one dissented from the pro forma lies that have brought us to this pass?

Should we all just color in between the lines of the approved coloring book and follow all the rules even though our leaders and the rest of the people at the top of the heap do no such thing? Because a criminal, organized crime enterprise, has gotten themselves a country in order to do awful things at home and around the world, should I just accept this? When that country is based on observable lies and absurd claims that somehow became gospel in the face of all evidence to the contrary, should I just accept it and deny what my eyes and ears and heart and mind tell me? Severe laws have been passed to silence all criticism of this country and its agents. Should I submit?

****************************

There is no personal gain for me in speaking out; quite the contrary. Why would I or any of the few of the rest of us who do, do so? There must be a reason and I can only think that it is associated with conscience and as reaction against unnecessary injustices perpetrated upon our fellows. Just because it isn’t happening to me does not mean I should ignore it.

To find some answers go HERE

Friday, December 25, 2009

Thursday, December 24, 2009

The 100th Monkey

"The 100th Monkey

Once dismissed as a wild conspiracy theory, the truth about 9/11 has continued to spread far and wide. Soon we will reach a tipping point as illustrated by the phenomenon of the 100th Monkey, and bring the real mass-murderers to justice.




World for 9/11 Truth

--more--"

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Hell-Bent AmeriKans

"Americans Are Hell-Bent on Tyranny

by Paul Craig Roberts

Obama’s dwindling band of true believers has taken heart that their man has finally delivered on one of his many promises—the closing of the Guantanamo prison. But the prison is not being closed. It is being moved to Illinois, if the Republicans permit.

In truth, Obama has handed his supporters another defeat. Closing Guantanamo meant ceasing to hold people in violation of our legal principles of habeas corpus and due process and ceasing to torture them in violation of US and international laws.

All Obama would be doing would be moving 100 people, against whom the US government is unable to bring a case, from the prison in Guantanamo to a prison in Thomson, Illinois.

Are the residents of Thomson despondent that the US government has chosen their town as the site on which to continue its blatant violation of US legal principles? No, the residents are happy. It means jobs.

The hapless prisoners had a better chance of obtaining release from Guantanamo. Now the prisoners are up against two US senators, a US representative, a mayor, and a state governor who have a vested interest in the prisoners’ permanent detention in order to protect the new prison jobs in the hamlet devastated by unemployment.

Neither the public nor the media have ever shown any interest in how the detainees came to be incarcerated. Most of the detainees were unprotected people who were captured by Afghan war lords and sold to the Americans as “terrorists” in order to collect a proffered bounty. It was enough for the public and the media that the Defense Secretary at the time, Donald Rumsfeld, declared the Guantanamo detainees to be the “780 most dangerous people on earth.”

The vast majority have been released after years of abuse. The 100 who are slated to be removed to Illinois have apparently been so badly abused that the US government is afraid to release them because of the testimony the prisoners could give to human rights organizations and foreign media about their mistreatment.

Our British allies are showing more moral conscience than Americans are able to muster. Former PM Tony Blair, who provided cover for President Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq, is being damned for his crimes by UK officialdom testifying before the Chilcot Inquiry.

The London Times on December 14 summed up the case against Blair in a headline: “Intoxicated by Power, Blair Tricked Us Into War.” Two days later the British First Post declared: “War Crime Case Against Tony Blair Now Rock-solid.” In an unguarded moment Blair let it slip that he favored a conspiracy for war regardless of the validity of the excuse [weapons of mass destruction] used to justify the invasion.

The movement to bring Blair to trial as a war criminal is gathering steam. Writing in the First Post Neil Clark reported: “There is widespread contempt for a man [Blair] who has made millions [his reward from the Bush regime] while Iraqis die in their hundreds of thousands due to the havoc unleashed by the illegal invasion, and who, with breathtaking arrogance, seems to regard himself as above the rules of international law.” Clark notes that the West’s practice of shipping Serbian and African leaders off to the War Crimes Tribunal, while exempting itself, is wearing thin.

In the US, of course, there is no such attempt to hold to account Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the large number of war criminals that comprised the Bush Regime. Indeed, Obama, whom Republicans love to hate, has gone out of his way to protect the Bush cohort from being held accountable.

Here in Great Moral America we only hold accountable celebrities and politicians for their sexual indiscretions. Tiger Woods is paying a bigger price for his girlfriends than Bush or Cheney will ever pay for the deaths and ruined lives of millions of people. The consulting company, Accenture Plc, which based its marketing program on Tiger Woods, has removed Woods from its Web site. Gillette announced that the company is dropping Woods from its print and broadcast ads. AT&T says it is re-evaluating the company’s relationship with Woods.

Apparently, Americans regard sexual infidelity as far more serious than invading countries on the basis of false charges and deception, invasions that have caused the deaths and displacement of millions of innocent people. Remember, the House impeached President Clinton not for his war crimes in Serbia, but for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Americans are more upset by Tiger Woods’ sexual affairs than they are by the Bush and Obama administrations’ destruction of US civil liberty. Americans don’t seem to mind that “their” government for the last 8 years has resorted to the detention practices of 1,000 years ago—simply grab a person and throw him into a dungeon forever without bringing charges and obtaining a conviction.

According to polls, Americans support torture, a violation of both US and international law, and Americans don’t mind that their government violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spies on them without obtaining warrants from a court. Apparently, the brave citizens of the “sole remaining superpower” are so afraid of terrorists that they are content to give up liberty for safety, an impossible feat.

With stunning insouciance, Americans have given up the rule of law that protected their liberty. The silence of law schools and bar associations indicates that the age of liberty has passed. In short, the American people support tyranny. And that’s where they are headed.

--MORE--"

Friday, December 18, 2009

Anger Not Enough

"ANGER WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOT ENOUGH

By Chuck Baldwin
December 18, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

....

That Americans are angry with the federal government is nothing new. As a general rule, Americans STAY angry with the federal government. So what? Nothing changes, anger and discontentment notwithstanding.

Oh! Occasionally, grassroots effort can be mustered in sufficient quantity to stop whatever happens to be the latest effort by the miscreants in Washington, D.C., that tramples our freedoms. But only occasionally. The only recent triumph I can think of was when G.W. Bush, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain tried to ram an amnesty bill for illegal aliens through Congress. But never fear, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will pick up that particular baton soon enough.

I'm old enough to remember when giving the Panama Canal away was opposed by virtually everyone outside the Beltway. It changed nothing. Jimmy Carter and Congress gave it away, anyway. Most people oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So what? Our troops are not only still there, but more are on the way. Most people believe children should be allowed to pray and read the Bible in school. So what? They still are forbidden from doing so. Most people believed former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had the right to post the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. So what? He was forced to take them down, anyway (and removed from office in the process). I could go on, but you get the point.

Anger and opposition to Washington's policies and edicts--no matter now egregious--hardly ever translate into anything beyond words of frustration. And Washington politicians don't pay much attention to rhetoric--not even their own.

You see, the wizards in Washington and on Wall Street have us figured out. Along with their compatriots in the propaganda press corps, they know that no matter how loudly we scream, how much we protest, or how angry we become, the system is rigged to protect them. The best we the people can seem to come up with is "throwing the bums out" every two or four years. BUT NOTHING CHANGES--at least, not in terms of restoring the fundamental principles of freedom and constitutional government.

Throw out George H.W. Bush in 1992, and nothing changes. Throw the Democrats out of Congress in 1994, and nothing changes. Throw Bill Clinton's party out of the White House in 2000, and nothing changes. Throw out G.W. Bush's Republicans in 2008, and nothing changes. The only thing that happens with a changing of the guard is an escalation in the pace of whatever version of socialism--or Big Government program--is currently in vogue. With Bush it meant expanding the Warfare State. With Obama it means expanding the Welfare State. But both do everything they can to expand Big Government.

When will we awaken to the reality that Washington, D.C., has had the American people chasing their tails for decades? People, wake up! As long as we continue to focus our attention and energy on Washington, D.C., we will only continue to supply more rope to those who wish to hang us.

Washington, D.C., is too far gone to salvage. Admit it! Washington is a cesspool, a landfill, and a putrid pond of corruption and duplicity. Neither the Republican nor Democratic Party will ever allow a principled constitutionalist to become its Presidential nominee. No matter whom we elect as President, the beat toward Big-Government socialism and one-world internationalism will go on without interruption. Big Government scalawags own the entire federal system, including Big Media, Big Business, Big Labor, Big Religion, and Big Special Interest Groups. They are all feeding at the government teat....

******************************

Folks, let's get down to where the rubber meets the road: the reason we are in the miserable mess we are in is because the states have--either wittingly or unwittingly--ceded their authority and independence to Washington, D.C. Therefore, it is now critical that states reclaim their authority--authority that is duly granted them under the US Constitution....

The truth is, for all intents and purposes, we could turn off television completely and be in no worse shape. And newspapers are no better. The vast majority of them blatantly support and promote Big Government. As Mark Twain said, "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."

With Big Media, it's all about Washington politics. Period. For the most part, the conservative-liberal/Republican-Democrat paradigm is nothing but a distraction at best, and a scam at worst, to keep all of us safely on the federal reservation, where we are without hope or recourse to actually change anything.

Ladies and Gentlemen, freedom in America has only one hope: the resurrection of State independence and sovereignty....

Read the rest
HERE

Monday, December 14, 2009

The Problems of AmeriKa

"To Know the End from the Beginning

.... They have continued to steal when they already had more than they could ever need or ever spend. They made public displays of their wealth, while showing a calloused indifference to the plight of the people they stole their money from. They have awakened a beast in the hearts of the populace. This beast has its own intelligence outside of the minds of those in which it has been kindled. They are only the means. The beast is the awareness that drives the means to the end. This is how unruly mobs suddenly coalesce as if they were possessed of intelligent purpose. All of a sudden they have leaders and a structure. It seems to come out of nowhere but it does not. It is the natural response to conditions set into being by people who should have known better and did not.

When you set about repressing people’s freedom of speech and movement, you have created a problem. When you make their jobs and their savings disappear you have created another problem. When you send men and women to fight wars for profit or to serve the interest of a foreign nation that sees them as less than human, you have created another problem. When you fail to see to the aftercare of these soldiers you have created yet another problem. These are only a few of the problems....

Read the rest
HERE

Friday, December 11, 2009

Breaking News: Obama Knows Osama is Dead

Also see: Where's Osama?

"BIN LADEN NEVER MENTIONED IN McCHRYSTAL REPORT OR OBAMA SPEECH

"HUNT FOR BIN LADEN" A NATIONAL SHAME


By Gordon Duff/STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Conservative commentator, former Marine Colonel Bob Pappas has been saying for years that bin Laden died at Tora Bora and that Senator Kerry's claim that bin Laden escaped with Bush help was a lie. Now we know that Pappas was correct. The embarassment of having Secretary of State Clinton talk about bin Laden in Pakistan was horrific. He has been dead since December 13, 2001 and now, finally, everyone, Obama, McChrystal, Cheney, everyone who isn't nuts is finally saying what they have known for years.

However, since we lost a couple of hundred of our top special operations forces hunting for bin Laden after we knew he was dead, is someone going to answer for this with some jail time? Since we spent 200 million dollars on "special ops" looking for someone we knew was dead, who is going to jail for that? Since Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney continually talked about a man they knew was dead, now known to be for reasons of POLITICAL nature, who is going to jail for that? Why were tapes brought out, now known to be forged, as legitimate intelligence to sway the disputed 2004 election in the US? This is a criminal act if there ever was one....

America knew Osama bin Laden died December 13, 2001....

*************************


The bin Laden scam is one of the most shameful acts ever perpetrated against the American people....

We know this: Bin Laden always denied any ties to 9/11 and, in fact, has never been charged in relation to 9/11. He not only denied involvement, but had done so, while alive, 4 times and had vigorously condemned those who were involved in the attack.

This is on the public record, public in every free country except ours. We, instead, showed films made by paid actors, made up to look somewhat similar to bin Laden, actors who contradicted bin Ladens very public statements, actors pretending to be bin Laden long after bin Laden's death.

These were done to help justify spending, repressive laws, torture and simple thievery.

For years, we attacked the government of Pakistan for not hunting down someone everyone knew was dead. Bin Laden's death hit the newspapers in Pakistan on December 15, 2001. How do you think our ally felt when they were continually berated for failing to hunt down and turn over someone who didn't exist?

What do you think this did for American credibility in Pakistan and thru the Islamic world? Were we seen as criminals, liars or simply fools? Which one is best?

This is also treason....

We spent 8 years chasing a dead man, spending billions, sending FBI agents, the CIA, Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, Special Forces, many to their deaths, as part of a political campaign to justify running American into debt, enriching a pack of political cronies and war profiteers and to puff up a pack of Pentagon peacocks and their Whitehouse draft dodging bosses.

How many laws were pushed thru because of a dead man?

How many hundreds were tortured to find a dead man?

How many hundreds died looking for a dead man?

How many billions were spent looking for a dead man?

--MORE--"

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Now I Know My A-B-C's

"A Skeptic's Guide to Copenhagen

by Tunku Varadarajan

As the global summit on climate change gets under way in Copenhagen, Tunku Varadarajan offers an eyebrow-raising A-Z guide to the proceedings.

Very nearly a hundred years ago, Ambrose Bierce compiled A Devil's Dictionary, in which he sought to puncture the cultural cant of his time. Here is an attempt—at much shorter length—to prick a very contemporary kind of cant, that which has swollen the debate on climate change to ungovernable proportions.

A is for anthropogenic: (as in anthropogenic global warming, or “AGW”), a $10 word for "man-made" which global-warmists wield as proof of expertise—no one more so than Al Gore, who, after having invented the Internet, turned his prodigious mind to the conundrum of AGW.

B is for Bj√∂rn Lomborg, the Danish professor whose book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, should have put Al Gore out of business forever; for the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) that aren’t ready to abandon the good, carbon-burning life just yet; and for boondoggle (see "ethanol," infra).

C is for the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, the now-discredited source of much of the data used to fuel climate hysteria. In November, in an episode that was oh-so-predictably dubbed Climategate, a cache of leaked emails showed that researchers systematically hid or manipulated data that was inconsistent with the accepted narrative of man-made climate change. (Read John Tierney's clear-headed critique here.) Don't forget carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless gas once considered essential to life on earth, not to mention bubbles in Champagne. (Although it's now regarded as a poisonous pollutant, you can, however, trade it.) Think also of consensus—the idea that science is settled by an asserted poll of experts after all objections from dissenting scientists have been suppressed.

D is for deniers. A mere notch above Holocaust deniers, these are the people who refuse to accept that climate change is largely man-induced. Heretics, they'd be burned at the stake if that were not such a bad thing for the ozone layer.

E is for environmentalism, which the philosopher Harvey Mansfield has defined as “school prayer for liberals,” ecoterrorists (who believe that all life, except yours, is sacred, and who tend to have names like "Swampy"), and ethanol (see "boondoggle," supra).

F is for fossil fuels, the consumption of which, over the last century, has powered prosperity and growth the world over, and for dear old Freeman Dyson, a distinguished scientist who copped some fearful flak for dissenting from the warmist consensus. ("I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated.")

G is for green, a mantra, a shibboleth, a way of life; the Guardian (house journal of the global-warming platoons); and Gwyneth Paltrow, who has said that she can "just feel" it getting globally warmer in her bones…Maybe her husband's band, Coldplay, should be re-named. Foreplay?

H is "hide the decline", (referring to a temperature graph that appeared on the cover of a 1999 report from the World Meteorological Organization). The phrase has been embraced by deniers as proof that the warmists are charlatans, as, previously, was the "hockey stick"—a graph that shows warming in the Northern Hemisphere, and which was featured in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report. Since its publication, the scientific methodology used to create it has been a source of intense dispute.

I is for internal combustion and the body that has demonized it—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a subsidiary of the U.N. which, with Al Gore, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. The letter is also for incandescent light bulbs, the cheery glow we’ll have to learn to live without; the Inuit, who have 27 words for snow but only one for ozone; indulgences, the medieval scam run by the Catholic Church that Carbon Offsets closely resemble; and for inconvenient truth, such as the data buried at the CRU at East Anglia.

J is for Phil Jones, Cassandra in chief of global warming at East Anglia, long a foreteller of imminent catastrophe (superstorms, famines, polar bear extinction). Jones was little-known in America, where NASA's James Hansen is the Gandalf of the Hobbits marching to defeat the Greenhouse Mordor and return the Middle-earth to trembling Springtime. (Hansen, it should be noted, has compared coal trains to death-camp trains.)

K is for Kyoto, a Japanese city where the only thing of significance to have happened in the last 50 years was a 1997 Protocol which proposed mandatory emission reductions for developed countries. Those who pillory George W. Bush for not submitting the treaty to the Senate for ratification forget that Clinton administration didn't do so either. (Quiz: Who was Clinton's vice president?). Keep an eye, too, on Khosla Ventures (see "money," below).

L is for Nigel Lawson (father of the very warming Nigella), whose book—"An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming"—is a beacon of clarity in a sea of murk.

M is for Man, who, to quote Ambrose Bierce, is "an animal so lost in rapturous contemplation of what he thinks he is as to overlook what he indubitably ought to be. His chief occupation is extermination of other animals and his own species, which, however, multiplies with such insistent rapidity as to infest the whole habitable earth and Canada." And then there's methane, a greenhouse gas parped into the air 24/7 by bovine polluters across the globe; the Medieval Climate Optimum, a warm period from about the 10th to the 14th century which warmists (i) ignore and/or (iii) cannot explain; ManBearPig, South Park's derisive nickname for global warming; and money (as in "Follow the…"; see Khosla Ventures, above).

N is for Noah, the Bible's original climate-change fanatic; nuclear energy, the cleanest solution to our "carbon" worries in the eyes of everyone but the warmists; and the Northwest Passage. Some scientists say that as more Arctic ice melts as a result of warming, the passage will open, conveniently, to ships.

O is for Obama, the man who may just end the Industrial Revolution; and ozone, the g-spot of the climate debate.

P is for peer-review, a scholarly process in which research that supports established IPCC conclusions is approved for publication, while contrary opinions are shredded; polar bears, the ursine mascots of the global-warming team—they're cute, cuddly (on film) and adrift on melted icebergs; and cap-and-trade permits, which give Congress hundreds of billions of dollars in new subsidies to distribute without putting the money on the federal balance sheet.

Q is for quixotic, a vivid feature of the drive for emissions reduction.

R is respiration, the process by which you, dear reader, commit global warming; and for Jairam Ramesh, the feisty, bouffant-haired Indian minister for the environment who has thumbed his elegant nose repeatedly at American demands that India slash its carbon emissions

S is for the sun, the likeliest global-warming culprit; and for Stern (Todd or Nicholas, take your pick). The former is the Obama administration's climate-change czar, who, it is rumored, could commit the U.S. to a nationwide emissions-reduction program at Copenhagen. The latter—Baron Stern of Brentford—is the author of a controversial British government report on climate change. He is not known to enjoy the company of those who disagree with him on the subject.

T is for "Mike's nature trick," a new method of manipulating data to support that idea that human beings are causing global warming. Phil Jones (see J, above) wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Add to all this those lovely, bucolic "tree rings," whose changing sizes are regarded as proof of global warming in past centuries, even if recent fluctuations don't seem to match world temperature changes at all.

U is for under-arm spray. Go sweaty. Stink a little and save the environment.

W is for Martin Weitzman, the liberal Harvard economist who is honest enough to admit that there's no genuine economic case for cap and trade except by rigging the discount rate; and for Woods: no, not the forests, but the golfer. His is the only story that has a chance this week of knocking climate change off what are still, quaintly, called the front pages.

X is for XOM, or ExxonMobil, the greatest environmental villain known to man (and polar bears).

Y is for our young, now hardwired to be eco-fanatics, for better or worse, and for Yvo de Boer. Never heard of him? He's the U.N.'s UNFCCC man who's been arranging conferences, with their megacarbon footprints, in places such as Rio, Bali, Trinidad, and now Copenhagen. You never voted for him, but he's hoping to control how much you fly, drive, heat your home, and exhale.

Z is for zeitgeist, without which the entire controversy over man-made climate change would never had achieved traction in public debate; for Zanzibar, Zimbabwe, and Zambia (we’re doing it all for them, right?); zero population growth, which is the true aim of global warmism; and that great big, stomping, bellowing climate-change zoo, coming to a Danish capital near you.

--MORE--"

Listen to Cynthia McKinney

Go HERE to listen to the fantastic interview.

More:


"A Curious Case of Cynthia McKinney

According to whoever is giving you the information, Cynthia McKinney assaulted a Capitol Police officer at Congress one day… she didn’t have her I.D. It depends on who you talk to. I’ve had my moments with District law enforcement and there’s no telling who you are going to run into, especially in these sensitive times with all those terrorists nudge… nudge… wink… wink… running around. Let’s not get into the sort of self-importance one find in the burgeoning areas of thug industry seen in airports and anywhere people go to travel and move about freely or anywhere people go.

Because of this, Cynthia is considered a wack job by the people who operate and profit from the situations that Cynthia found herself in (and maybe you do to) because these are the same people who shade your news and talk out of your radio while you’re driving wherever you’re driving. She also said that 9/11 was an Inside Job. This was before she had her altercation.

Now Cynthia gets on the boat “Dignity” with some other people to sail some medical supplies into Gaza which is being terrorized by some hi-tech military strikes that were necessary because some people in Gaza didn’t like the way they were being treated and weren’t cooperating with their own extinction. These people in Gaza had been forced into razor wire, checkpoint, strip-search encircling areas of recently bulldozed orchards, homes and farms and were being offered at the ‘one time only’, ‘low, low price’ of free for the abuse of settlers who were bused into areas they used to live in but which are now right next door to where they are now, for the moment. It seems that some of these Palestinians objected to this au natural treatment and launched a few bottle rockets over the wire and walls and what have you into the lands that had once been their own but are not anymore. These are stressful times. I guess people are touchy.

There had been this cease fire between the Palestinians and the occupiers but then the occupiers broke that cease fire and, of course, that made it the Palestinians fault. Well of course it was their fault because they don’t have televisions stations and newspapers to say otherwise and they don’t have money or even food now so… who the fuck are they?

So… anyway Cynthia McKinney, this brash ‘black’ ‘woman’ who likes to assault police officers and make wild-eyed accusations about 9/11 decided that she might want to help the people in Gaza and put a public face on the thing. Why? I don’t know why. According to the people who give you your news it’s a publicity stunt. Those news people, they do a bang up job. Look at the hit they put on the guy that got hit in Gaza just a little while ago. You’ve heard the phrase, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”? Well here’s a derivative on that theme… keep the press in your crotch so you don’t have to scratch it yourself and keep the people who pay them in your ass cause it’s warmer there and it’s more like what and where they are used to.

So… the Israelis come out into international waters and scatter the waves with machine gun fire and then ram this boat, “Dignity” and some people are asking if it even happened or happened anywhere near the way they said it happened because Cynthia, you know, she likes to push policemen around and she’s got that 9/11 virus. Official sources say that this boat, which isn’t built for the job, took evasive action and that’s why it happened when …the boats that are designed for this sort of thing hit her. Later it was just called an accident that happened three times. The cool thing about dealing with reality instead of fiction is that you don’t have to stretch the truth cause the truth will just stretch itself to contain whatever's needed to prove once again that truth is stranger than fiction depending on your version of the truth.

I don’t know Cynthia McKinney. I do know that 9/11 was an Inside Job pulled off in a joint operation between Mossad and the CIA along with British intelligence and a few others. I do know that Israel is in the wrong for reasons so clear that if you can’t see them you don’t want to and so I shouldn’t have to lay it all out for you to ignore again.

Since I know who the ‘other guys’ are I’m going to have to take Cynthia at her word because compared to them she’s Mother Mary. I don’t know what she’s like in person, whether I could relate to her but I have seen her conviction when she speaks and she’s got a degree of certitude and what looks an awful lot like integrity as well. Integrity is one of those things you have to look at more than once because you don’t see it very often and sometimes when you come back later to look at it, it isn’t there anymore anyway.

I’ve only got a rough idea about what Cynthia McKinney is like but she ‘seems’ like a kind of Cassandra with ‘tude. She looks like one of those people that bought into all that stuff Martin Luther King used to talk about and she thinks it’s real AND applies across the board…. Meaning wherever people are oppressed, that’s me yesterday and maybe you tomorrow.

People used to ask me how come I liked Pete Rose so much because he did this and he said that. I told them that I don’t have to have dinner with the guy; I just like how he plays baseball. I was a baseball player myself and I understand that Charlie Hustle dynamic. So I don’t have to have dinner with Cynthia McKinney to admire her style. I like her better than any of the other bought off and paid for whores in congress with a couple, possible exceptions. Cynthia may have been one of the only members in congress who didn’t take her marching orders from Israel which may also be why she got muscled out of the club.

You can see where the world is at when someone tries to do a good thing and gets harassed and slandered because she wasn’t out shopping for shoes with Condolezza Rice. It’s okay to do good but… within the parameters of good defined by those who follow that aspect of the Golden Rule which states that those who have the gold make the rules.

I have watched this lady from afar for awhile. When I saw her do the emperor has no clothes thing with 9/11 I thought, “How did they let her in there?” When I heard about the thing with the troglodyte with the badge, I figured they were laying for her. If they can’t catch you in a honey trap then they’ll try to get you to step on the glue board.

I realize that boat thing is symbolic as much as anything. Reason I know that is that I would have been on board myself but I got no profile. However, when you set out to bait the hyena in his den in order to help the plight of a people that no one else seems to give a shit about I have to applaud you for your courage.

Cynthia McKinney is a class act. She puts her life where her mouth is. She doesn’t have to do this and I don’t see how it helps her to get elected again in Georgia.

I just hope that the Israeli’s on the boat that rammed her didn’t have to get counseling afterwards. It ‘s got to be really tough to be an eight hundred pound gorilla in a cage match with a canary ….and to get the people to sympathize with you. I don’t know, somehow they get it done. It’s like some 6’6” serial rapist claiming that the 80 pound 13 year old girl he was doing made him do it AND you believed him. Most of you still do.

Every Day



--MORE--"

That last analogy is really vivid and brilliantly captures the essence of the situation.


And why not let St. Cynthia tell you her experience in her own words?


"Cynthia McKinney: We Lived to Tell the Story - Lebanon Rescued Us (Revised)

January 1, 2009 - We Lived to Tell the Story: Lebanon Rescued Us


Yesterday, we met with the President of Lebanon, the Chief of the Military, and the Interior Minister who all thanked us for responding and risking our lives on a mission of mercy; we profusely thanked them for rescuing us.

What would we have done, stranded out at sea, prohibited from reaching our destination, low on fuel, with a badly damaged boat if Lebanon had not accepted us? Lebanon sent their ships to find us. Lebanon rescued us. Lebanon welcomed us. And we are truly thankful.

It's official now. We've been told that the sturdy, wood construction of our boat, Dignity, is the reason we are still alive. Fiberglass would probably not have withstood the impact of the Israeli attack and under different circumstances, we might not be here to tell the story. Even at that, the report that came to us yesterday after the Captain and First Mate went back to Sour (Tyre) to inspect the boat was that it was sinking, the damage is extensive, and the boat will take, in their estimation, at least one month to repair. Tomorrow, we will bring the Dignity from Sour to Beirut. And now, we must decide what to do and from where we will do it and how we are to get back to wherever that might be.

My personal, and I know the group's, thanks must go to Al Jazeera, that allowed three of their reporters to be onboard with us on our voyage. As a result, Al Jazeera carried the story of the Dignity live, from castoff in Cyprus when our spirits were high, right up through the manacing maneuvers of the huge, super fast Israeli ships before they rammed us, the Israeli calls on the ship phone after the ramming calling us terrorists and subversives and telling us to return to Cyprus (even though the Israelis later claimed that they didn't know who we were, they knew enough about us to tell us where we had come from), and the fact that we didn't have enough fuel to follow their instructions, right up to their threat to fire at us if we didn't turn around, ending with our beaten-up boat limping into Sour harbor in Lebanon. Al Jazeera carried our story as "breaking news" and performed a real service to its audience and to us. Al Jazeera called the Israelis to inquire about the incident right as it was happening and I am sure the Israelis were prepared to leave none to tell the story. Al Jazeera told the story and documented it as it was happening.

One of those Al Jazeera reporters with us was Sami El-Haj, who was detained in Guantanamo by the United States for six incredibly long years. What an honor to even exchange glances with such a humble man who had endured so much pain at the hands of the U.S. government. I apologized to him that my tax dollars were being used in such a despicable way. And Sami's crime according to the U.S.? Born in Sudan, and reporting for Al Jazeera in Afghanistan, Sami was the wrong color, the wrong nationality, the wrong religion, reporting for the wrong news outfit, telling us the truth about a wrong war. And for that he survived incarceration for six long years. Sami El-Haj, Guantanamo prisoner number 345.

Another incredibly committed journalist who was with us was CNN's Karl Penhaul. Karl reported the truth even when his own station was repeating Israeli disinformation. The fact that we were traveling with these alert journalists added to the flat-footedness and obvious crudeness of the Israeli response. Sadly, Israel has changed its story too many times to count, and that's because they are not telling the truth.

We lived to tell the story. Karl's incredible reporting, just a portion of our story, can be seen on CNN at:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/index.html

where there's also video and a photo of our damaged boat. A little more of the story and film of the extensive damage can be seen at:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

This video and the photos of Karl's report is particularly interesting given that Israel claims that our boat was only scratched and that, in actuality, our captain, while trying to outmaneuver them, damaged their warship.

I'm told that CNN only played my full statement once--and that's the time that it aired live. Of course, they cut the reference to the U.S.S. Liberty. What are they afraid of?

Last night I was on PressTV.com, along with others who were on the Dignity, and we debated a representative from WINEP, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I reminded the audience that the Palestinians don't have nuclear weapons, depleted uranium munitions, white phosphorous, or F-16s, but the Israelis do. The facts, however, tend to get garbled after being processed by the "Grand Wurlitzer" organ of state-sponsored disinformation utilizing the world's press.

With the truth clearly on our side, Israel has been reduced to releasing the ridiculous bombast below, given to me by a reporter who came to our hotel in Beirut for a visit. With their multiple, conflicting stories, it is clear that the Israelis did not expect us to live to tell the truth.

On the drive from Sour through Saida to Beirut, we were welcomed like heroes because our ordeal had been seen by everyone on Al Jazeera. The mayor of Sour came to welcome us. The mayor of Saida insisted that we stop there, on our way to Beirut, for a special ceremony. But there was something else that was visible along our drive, and that is the devastation that Lebanon, itself, has received as a result of the Israeli war machine. The scars of the war are still evident everywhere. I will write more on that tomorrow.

And one final note, President-elect Obama roared like a mighty lion onto the political scene, but now he is as silent as a lamb in the face of the death and destruction that is happening in Gaza. As we approach the birthday celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. let us remember what Dr. King said:

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

And after five days of aerial bombardment by Israel, the carnage in Gaza continues.

Here is the palaver that the Israelis put out for public consumption. It is pitiful that a powerful and mighty country like Israel would be reduced to publishing something so petty and weak as the following press release dated December 30, 2008:


--MORE w/tipocap--"

Also see:
Thank You From Cynthia McKinney

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Where to Start on 9/11

"9/11 – Has America Been Told The Truth?

By Richard de Zoysa

September 11th, a day that will always be remembered for the way two monumental Manhattan buildings collapsed in the most inconceivable manner imaginable. Undoubtedly, that carnage will occupy an indelible leaf in the history of the world, leaving an omnipresent emotional scar on the thousands of families that lost a loved one on that day.

Long before the dust settled after this catastrophe, Americans were questioning the very unprofessional and indifferent manner in which the investigation into this alleged terror attack had been directed and conducted. The clock is ticking perpetually, and yet there has not been any top level government appointed committee to study and go into the startling alternate possibilities of how that fateful day may have evolved.

What half the world or more does not know, and those who did know paid little or no attention to is what can be described only as the bizarre destruction of an ancillary tower of the World Trade Centre, referred to as WTC 7. The available evidence that dawns on crucial facts that this building which was 47 stories high was brought down by a fire can without question be disputed. It was the manner in which the authorities reported the destruction of this skyscraper that led to an in-depth study, especially by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which gave birth to the theory that this may not have been brought about by fire as reported, but by wilful detonation - giving clear indication that a hidden hand planned the attack.

With overwhelming evidence that clearly points a finger at the Bush administration of having carried out a farce of an investigation, it is a puzzle to comprehend that the citizens of the United States of America who pride themselves in pursuing the truth, have not been successful to date in obtaining an executive direction ordering a thorough probe of the 9/11 debacle.

When the results of the last US Presidential election were announced, the whole world paused momentarily, full of hope that Barack Obama, the first African-American President to be elected to lead the free world, would bring to us all justice, fairplay and prosperity.

The whole of America and the rest of us are watching , most of whom are trusting Obama to right the wrongs. A great nation that hurdled to a new frontier by electing the man rather than the race he belongs to, expects nothing other than exceptional governance during his administration.

SEPTEMBER 11TH 2001 – WAS AMERICA UNDER ATTACK OR WAS THE WORLD BEING HOODWINKED?

By Johnny Christy
Date: 11/09/2001
Time: 8.46 AM

Manhattan was flooded by a wave of panic as people watched an airplane crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre. It looked like something had gone terribly wrong with a normal, everyday airline flight, and by some great chance an airplane had managed to hit one of the World Trade Centre’s Towers. Then as people looked on dumbfounded, another airplane crashed into the South Tower at 9.03 AM.

What was going on? America was under siege. Rumours and accounts of the attacks were spreading like wildfire. Phone lines were blocked, the media was speculating. People were too shocked to even believe what they were seeing, much less digest the information and think rationally.

What Really Happened

(The story that the world was told)

On the morning of September 11th 2001, hijackers took control of four commercial airliners over the skies of the United States. The aircraft were American Airlines Flight 11 (Boston to Los Angeles), United Airlines Flight 175 (Boston to Los Angeles), American Airlines Flight 77 (Washington to Los Angeles) and United Airlines Flight 93 (Newark to San Francisco).

19 hijackers in all launched a well planned and premeditated attack targeting the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and supposedly the Capitol Building or the White House.

The hijackers reportedly used tear gas and mace in the process of the hijacking as well as knives to stab the crew and passengers while taking over command of the airplane.

Of the four airplanes hijacked on that day only one, United Airlines Flight 93 failed to reach it’s intended target destination, and this is attributed to the valour of the passengers on board who overpowered the hijackers to regain control of the airplane. Reports say that a hijacker ordered the plane to be rolled when he realised that they were losing control of the aircraft. Flight 93 crashed in Stony Creek Township in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

Both the North and South Towers of the World Trade Centre collapsed within two hours of the attack, damaging and destroying nearby buildings. The third aircraft, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the western side of the Pentagon. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed and fire fighters spent days trying to bring the blaze under control.

The attacks were responsible for the deaths of 2,976 innocent civilians. At least 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers, landing on the street and rooftops of nearby buildings. A total of 411 rescue workers died while trying to rescue civilians and put out the fires.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS STORY?

1. What took the Air Force and other authorities so long to figure out that something was radically wrong with the aircraft that had suddenly stopped communicating with ATC and were veering drastically off course?

2. How did WTC 7 collapse when it wasn’t even hit by an airplane? Apparently it collapsed due to fires but is that cause justifiable? (See following article)

3. Why was there molten metal (metal needs temperatures greater than 3000 degrees Fahrenheit to melt) at the site of the wreckage, when jet fuel cannot reach temperatures that high?

4. How would amateur pilots know how to fly a sophisticated jet aircraft and use the navigation systems?

5. How were cell phone calls made from airplanes that were flying at over 15,000 feet?

6. Why did the US Government, even after being warned of an attack, not prepare countermeasures or react in a timely manner?

7. And most importantly, why have all these queries, backed by reason, not been acknowledged by the US Government but merely called ‘conspiracy theories’ and ignored?

Several theories have arisen concerning the unanswered questions that enshroud this attack. Some of them are based on solid factual evidence that is undisputable while certain others are unfounded to a certain degree. However the fact remains that these theories have not been formally acknowledged and proven wrong by the US Government.

In this issue, Asia Digest has featured the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and included an investigation led by a team of professionals from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. These individuals have examined the evidence that was found at the scene of destruction and at length gone to prove how certain elements of the whole story do not add up – particularly the collapse of a building known as WTC 7.

Expressing My Conviction

Interviewed by Johnny Christy

Richard Gage is the founder of an organisation called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, stemming from the 9/11 Truth Movement. He is an authoritative figure on the subject of conspiracy behind the September 2001 terror attacks on America and agreed to grant Asia Digest a personal interview.

What was your first reaction when you heard about the attacks?

Like most other Americans, I was in a state of shock as these multiple attacks were repeated again and again on TV that day. We’ve never seen a progressive collapse in a steel frame building before so we didn’t know how to evaluate what we were seeing in the destruction of the twin towers. This combination of circumstances led me to agree with the spoon-fed official response from experts that it was a gravitational collapse due to jet plane impacts and fires, even though it exhibited all the characteristics of a very explosive destruction. I didn’t know what to think. We found out that there had been a terror attack, we saw a plane flying into the World Trade Centre. I really didn’t know what to think.

How did you come to the conclusion that something was amiss beneath the surface of the information that the mainstream media released to the world?


The information provided by David Ray Griffin on the radio in March of 2006 led me to an objective evaluation of the evidence not seen in the mainstream media or the official reports of the destruction of these three buildings. All of this evidence conclusively added up to support the hypothesis of controlled demolition, as documented on the website AE911Truth.org

What do you think really happened behind the scenes of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre?

As an architect, representing over 900 architects and engineers, I focus on the science based forensic evidence found in the behaviour of the buildings, the aftermath and eyewitness testimony. A real investigation with subpoena power and testimony under oath, which we are demanding, will yield the truth about who may have been responsible, why they did this, and how exactly it was done. We implore every Asia Digest reader to support us in this historic effort.

Have you ever approached the government with your claims and how have they responded?

A letter was sent to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), and we received a letter saying that the analysis of the nano thermite was inconclusive. There was steel in the building and there was aluminium in the building, but it is very clear that steel and aluminium cannot form themselves into nano thermite in a perfect ratio as found in the remains of the buildings.

In addition we have written to the President of the American Institute of Architects highlighting all this evidence and there has been no response from him. NIST has responded to the claims in general however, but it was the same response as before.

Have you ever been threatened or intimidated by any person or organisation to stop publicising your theory?

No, I have not.

How did AE for 9/11 Truth originate?

We started three and half years ago when I heard the radio interview with David Ray Griffin. I did some research, I looked around and I said to myself where are the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? After all we have Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. So I started a petition based on Scholars for 9/11 Truth and gave a presentation to 15 architects who I worked with, who were quite doubtful about the story that I was telling them. At the conclusion of the lunchtime presentation, their jaws had dropped and fourteen of them signed up. I proceeded to show other architecture firms, including the one that I ended up working for a year later. Thirty eight of them signed up. A quarter of the architects came after signing the petition and half of them came due to presentations. We now have over 900 architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth demanding a real investigation into 9/11.

How have your demands for a proper investigation progressed? Have you been promised anything in the near future?

No we haven’t been promised a new investigation by any members of Congress.

Have you ever decided to go against the government in a court of law?

There are several lawsuits regarding this in the United States at the time but we haven’t got a lawsuit going of our own. We have however submitted a petition for correction which is the official term regarding a critical comment in the NIST report.

What do you have to say about other conspiracy theories – remotely controlled aircraft, terrorists were agents of the government etc?


It’s very clear that the airplanes hit the twin towers but no airplane hit the third skyscraper that collapsed that day, which was building 7. That was a classic example of a controlled explosion, the building having fallen at free-fall acceleration in six and a half seconds into it’s own footprint without regard to the 40,000 tons of structural steel which was there to resist any such collapse. The building supposedly fell by fire.

But more specifically to what you asked me, I’m not an expert on the remote controlled aircraft. The Pilots for 9/11 Truth will be able to give you a better outlook regarding how those planes might have been controlled. David Ray Griffin’s extensive research also casts a shadow of doubt on the history of the hijackers.

The planes certainly hit the buildings. I’ve spoken personally to people throughout the country during my travels who saw the planes hitting the towers with their own eyes.

Do you think the world will ever know the truth behind 9/11?

Yes. Absolutely! The world will know the truth about 9/11. It has taken a long time, but we are reaching critical mass and the story is being forced and the media is having to respond to it, such as Asia Digest and many publications in the United States, several of which have had to respond with front page articles on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Because we have assembled the necessary body of building professionals, we have the credibility to reach the unbelieving minds of millions of Americans. So it is happening, and we are breaking through into the mainstream as we speak. Within a year or two you will see examples of many major mainstream articles being forced to acknowledge that the 9/11 Truth Movement is being joined by millions every year. Government officials are also forced to acknowledge and deal with and criticise the growing 9/11 Truth Movement whereas before they could simply ignore it. When they criticise it, they do not criticise the solid body of evidence that we print, they simply call us names like conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers etc. It’s not a critical examination of the overwhelming body of evidence that all three World Trade Centre Towers were demolished by controlled explosions.

Demolition and Deception The Destruction of WTC 7 on 9/11

by Nivec Nhajal

When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been murderers and tyrants, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always.”
-Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

If you mention the events of September 11, 2001 most people remember two skyscrapers - the World Trade Centre’s North and South Towers - collapsing in New York City. However, what is known by only a very few in the international community and even in America is that another third skyscraper, located across the street from the World Trade Center Plaza also collapsed later that afternoon - a newsworthy event in itself that received very little media attention. World Trade Center Building 7 - better known as the Salomon Brothers Building or simply WTC 7 - was not hit by an airplane, as were the Towers, however, in the end, it is officially reported to have collapsed because of fire. The collapse occurred in a most mysterious way - as government investigations, reports and numerous contradictions point out.

“Engineers and other experts …were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center…. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11…. Experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.”1

What the general public knows about the events of 9/11 is only what has been told to them by the mainstream media. Most people have not conducted even a simple investigation into the facts surrounding the “collapse” or “destruction” of WTC 7. Growth in undestanding the truth surrounding the events of 9/11 has been neglected by many not because of ignorance, fear or laziness, but because most people are inclined to trust what they read and hear in the media and believe that they have no need to investigate on their own. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Viewing the fall of WTC 7, a person even only remotely interested in the events of 9/11 is suddenly confronted with the reality that something is “not right with this picture”. The many videos of WTC 7’s demise are startling (Google: videos of collapse of WTC 7) because they are in gross contradiction to what the public has been told via “official” reports or through the mainstream media. The government does not want the general population to know of the existence of the WTC 7 building, nor the facts supporting its controlled demolition, because it then becomes a most reliable “smoking gun” motivating people to further investigate the crimes allegedly perpetrated by the government that eventful day.2 The very fact that only a few Americans are even remotely aware of the existence of WTC 7 and the fact that the building was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report support this claim.3

Writing an article such as this poses a little bit of a challenge in today’s politically charged, “anti-terrorism” milieu. Ridicule is often directed at authors or speakers who expose facts regarding the events of 9/11. Ridicule is intended to intimidate - preventing the person advocating the truth from coming forward and being heard. If ridicule is not successful in silencing, then some form of character assassination is usually the next course of action. People exposing the truth about 9/11 are very often labeled as conspiracy theorists. However, much closer to the truth are the now famous words of a courageous American actor by the name of Charlie Sheen:

“It seems to me that 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 per cent of their targets; that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions.”4

To label anyone a conspiracy theorist is an ad hominem argument and has no factual value. It demonstrates with clarity that the person or persons advocating a fallacious argument utilise this strategem as a desperate attempt to defend their inferior position from the obvious truth presented by their opponent. It is amazing how often this chicanery is used to refute the cause of truth and those sincerely interested in a factual, legitimate, independent investigation of 9/11.

It is not the intention of this article to provide theories as to who, what or even why the World Trade Centre Towers were or were not attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001 as claimed by government reports. Those are realities that should be investigated and clarified after having brought just a few undeniable facts to light. This article’s intention is to focus on WTC 7’s question-laden demise and the implications. Illumination of facts surrounding the collapse of this relatively unknown building is prismatic in diffusing the light of truth over the entire events of 9/11. If it is demonstrated that what the government has said “officially” about WTC 7 and what the facts reveal are diametrically opposed, then it is only logical to conclude that what the government has said about other details surrounding the 9/11 events are in need of serious “independent” investigation. The more diligently one searches for the truth, the clearer the panoramic view of the chasm that exists between the official government reports and the simple facts surrounding the fall of WTC 7.

Just recently, on this year's anniversary of the event, Charlie Sheen was further referenced by the media; even making demands of the current American President to re-investigate the 9/11 event. (Google: Charlie Sheen twenty minutes with the President).

“Sheen, the highest-paid actor on U.S. TV, argues that 'the official 9/11 story is a fraud' and says the commission set up to investigate it was a whitewash. He claims that the attacks simply served 'as a pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights'. The actor, 44, says the administration of former President George Bush was behind the attacks, which they were then able to use to justify an invasion of Iraq. He urged other Americans who were skeptical of the investigation into the attacks to demand the truth. He said: 'We cannot allow governments to continue to advance their political agendas by exploiting forged pretexts, and the fact that big budget hit pieces against 9/11 truth are still being rolled out proves that the establishment is upset that the population is waking up to false flag terror.'”5

Why do I reference Charlie Sheen and his truth-filled statements regarding 9/11? Charlie Sheen was first attracted to investigate the 9/11 incident after inadvertently viewing a video of the collapse of WTC Building 7. Viewing the almost free-fall collapse of WTC 7 compelled Charlie to investigate further. Easily recognised by any physics professor, the “free-falling” evidence is clear and most disturbing. Buildings do not collapse at nearly free-fall speed unless controlled demolition is involved. It is a demonstrable law of physics.6 Charlie sensed this intuitively and was motivated to find out why or how the building could come down that fast.

I too was motivated to further investigate 9/11 after seeing a video of the collapse of WTC 7. I had no idea that the building even existed until I came across a video on the internet where I watched it fall quickly and symmetrically into its own footprint. I was amazed how similar the collapse was to videos I had seen of intentionally controlled destructions of old buildings. I also realised that something was not correct in what I thought about 9/11 and what I was viewing in the video. I investigated further and ultimately it led to my writing of this article.7

The second noteworthy comment I would like to make in reference to this article is that the facts will speak for themselves. The difficulty lies in where the facts lead. No doubt there will be some readers who will refuse to accept the facts because they point to not only the questionable destruction of WTC Building 7 but the accompanied dismantling of their trust in the government of the United States. This is very understandable given the harsh reality of the article’s logical conclusions. I have found this to be the greatest impediment to readers or listeners accepting the revealed facts and the serious discrepancies surrounding the 9/11 events. In a word, this article may lead some readers to experience a certain loss of hope. However, trusting in the evidence, and not in what the US Government or the media has told you, is the surest way for truth to triumph over treason and deception.

A government and its official investigation agencies need to be honest, straightforward and trustworthy in matters such as these - out of respect for the lives that were lost and for the prevention of further loss of life. Investigation of a mysterious collapse of a building such as WTC 7 on 9/11 needs to be done in a professional and competent manner as to prevent any chance of recurrence and to foster public trust and confidence in the investigating agency and the government it represents. To act contrary is to foster public outcry.

This article proposes that WTC 7 did not “collapse” at all but rather was brought down in a “controlled demolition.” Looking closely at the controlled demolition of WTC 7 is the surest way to show that major statements reported in the official government reports do not just simply lack credibility but are intentionally deceiving. It is because of the clarity of the facts surrounding the demolition of WTC 7 that this building was chosen for this article as a simple vehicle to promote the truth surrounding the event. Uncovering the truth of 9/11 has the power to bring “positive, lasting change” to both America and the world.8

The purpose of this article is to bring to the attention of as many people as possible not only the reality of WTC 7’s one-time existence and demise, but its dubious collapse as explained by “official” government reports. It is critical to look at this particular 9/11 event because the mystery of the building's destruction, as reported by the government, is not just difficult to comprehend - almost impossible - but it defies the laws of physics, historical investigation, the observable facts and scientific evidence. In contrast however, the building’s perfectly symmetrical collapse is very much in accordance with an alternate theory that has yet to be legitimately and professionally investigated by the appropriate agencies of the government. Buildings do not collapse at relatively free-fall speeds unless “controlled demolition” is involved - and they do not collapse because of fire. Major official reports published by the American government; the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Report and the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Reports agree on this point: The collapse of WTC 7 was the “first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.”9

I will mention the significance of the videos of the building falling at almost free-fall speed later, but for now I need to emphasise that extensive historical research reveals that no modern steel-structure building has ever collapsed due to fire.10 According to W. Gene Corley PE, SE with Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc., “Following the adoption of fire-resistance requirements for high-rise buildings, the experience has been very good. No modern fire-protected building had collapsed as a result of a burnout prior to 9/11.”11

Please note, the following examples illustrate that the structural integrity of modern buildings is extremely resistant to fires.

The First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles suffered a very devastating fire in 1988 which raged for almost four hours completely destroying four floors. However, it did no significant damage to the structural integrity of the building and the building did not collapse.12

The One Meridian Plaza Building, a thirty-eight story structure in Philadelphia, suffered a very extensive fire in 1991, completely engulfing eight floors. Because three firefighters died while fighting the blaze the fire chief prudently let the fire burn. “The blaze, which burned for nineteen hours, raged from the 22nd floor to the 30th floor before a sprinkler system installed by a tenant on the 30th floor extinguished the flames.”13 Although a total of eleven floors were damaged, the building did not collapse. Due to insurance litigation, after inspection it was abandoned to remain standing for seven more years and was not demolished until 1998.14

The One New York Plaza Building in 1970 suffered a severe fire that burned for over six hours but did not cause the building to collapse. “Light, spray-on fireproofing, which at some point had been knocked away, left steel supports for the floors exposed to the blaze. They twisted and pulled away from their connections, initiating collapses that stopped only because the concrete slabs of the floors refused to give way. Although the building stood, the fire burned for more than six hours.”15

More recently, in Caracas Venezuela in 2004, fire destroyed the top third of the tallest skyscraper in South America. The 34th floor to the summit of the 56-story building was completely engulfed in flames. But the building did not collapse.16

“The blaze began before midnight Saturday on the 34th floor of the East Tower in the complex… By Sunday afternoon, it had burned for more than 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, reaching the roof. The complex was built in 1976 and is considered a Caracas landmark….“Engineers have gone up there and inspected... [the building] is very solid.”17

In February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.18

The most spectacular of all skyscraper fires to have occurred in recent times was the Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire in February of 2009.19 Although completely engulfed by flames for at least three hours it did not collapse. “Despite the fact that the fire extended across all floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.”20

The reader is cordially invited to do further research. However, I mention again, no matter how extensive your research, you will not encounter a single steel-structure building that has totally collapsed due to fire. This of course is excluding the claim by the US Government’s reports that WTC 7 collapsed solely because of fire.

World Trade Center Building 7 was built compliant with the Fire and Safety Codes of the City of New York. “Sprayed on the steel, almost like imitation snow in holiday decorations, was a layer of fireproofing material, generally less than an inch thick. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration”. Buildings 4, 5 and 6 in the World Trade Center remained standing “despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.”21

Which leads us to look at the “official reports.” Some very serious problems exist in both the government’s investigations and in the reports of their findings. The reports issued by FEMA and NIST as well as the 9/11 Commission Report are seriously flawed.22 They create more unanswered questions than they resolve. They also have the appearance of trying to intentionally deceive the reader by altering the facts or by omission of critical evidence. My points are not wild accusations but substantiated claims made by competent scientists who were members of the investigation teams. They resigned from their positions because of compromises they witnessed.23 My review of the reports has led me to the same conclusions. The government is not interested in the truth, but only in not allowing it to be known by as many members of the general public as possible.

The first official report about the mysterious collapse was issued by FEMA in 2002. The report summarised their findings with the following convoluted statement:

“Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.”24

The statement above is italicised and underlined by me to illustrate by example the report’s “confusing tone” in general. The report contains many speculations that are supported by “if” and “maybe” statements, but no real evidence to support the theories. The report’s conclusion that the “best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence” leads to only one disturbing reality. Where are the facts? Why was the document published and why are we reading a report which by its own words expresses that there is a high probability that what is being described as having never occurred?

Although diesel fuel was present on the premises of WTC 7, the report expresses - in what could be argued excessive verbiage so as to deceive - that investigators have no idea if the fires were sustained by diesel fuel. I quote the same official FEMA report.

“From a structural standpoint, the most likely event would have been the collapse of Truss 1 and / or Truss 2 located in the east end of the 5th and 6th floors. These floors are believed to have contained little if any fuel other than the diesel fuel for the emergency generators, making diesel oil a potential source of the fire. As noted in Section 5.4, the fuel distribution system for the emergency generators pumped oil from tanks on the lower floors to the generators through a pipeline distribution system. The SSB [Salomon Smith Barney] fuel oil system was a more likely source of fire around the transfer trusses. The SSB pump is reported as a positive displacement pump having a capacity of 75 gallons per minute at 50 psi. Fuel oil was distributed through the 5th floor in a double-wall iron pipe. A portion of the piping ran in close proximity to Truss 1. However, there is no physical, photographic, or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system.”25

It is important to note that the FEMA report - an official government explanation - proposes at best only “speculation.” This tone very much permeates the entire official document. In contrast, a simple forensic test would have laid the speculations to rest. This test is implied by law and recommended in fire investigation manuals of any fire where suspicion of explosion is involved. This test would have been a definitive answer as to why the building collapsed. However, the test was never conducted by FEMA nor by NIST. NIST was the second Federal Agency to investigate the events of 9/11. They too followed in the footsteps of their colleagues at FEMA and failed to present a trustworthy explanation to the public.

But NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says: High-order damage is characterised by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverised debris, walls, roofs, and structural members splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished.26 That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence -‘Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet’ - applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7.27

Tons of “dust” particles, remnants of the buildings involved, was produced on 9/11 and can be legally connected to the events on that day including the destruction of WTC 7. Testing of this dust was done by numerous private agencies as requested by individuals and insurance companies investigating the events of 9/11. All tests performed confirmed the presence of once “molten” metal that has undergone “super-cooling” - resulting in “spherical” metal particles. Spherical particles in the dust are a positive irrefutable indication that explosives were involved.28 The issue is further addressed in the following paragraphs because of its obvious implications.

As previously mentioned, it can be stated with great certainty that the NIST report involves fraud by intentional omission of evidence and deception. This is quite evident and easily demonstrated by the next quotations. They point out that NIST, and FEMA for that matter, should have checked for the evidence of explosives from the very beginning of their investigations and failed to do so.

“The Deutsche Bank building, which was right next to the Twin Towers, was heavily contaminated by dust produced by their destruction. But Deutsche Bank’s insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that this dust had not resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group to do a study, which showed that the dust in the Deutsche Bank was WTC dust, which had a unique signature. Part of this signature was “Spherical iron ... particles.”29 This meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.” 30

“The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization” 31 – meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F).32

“Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F).''33 This temperature is roughly three times higher than those reached in structural fires.34

The NIST Report mentioned neither of these studies. They omitted these studies because their investigators were well aware of what the findings would be. The conclusions would be in contradiction to their pre-determined cause of the collapse of WTC 7 which was fire. Therefore, they omitted them. These studies clearly indicate that explosives were involved in the destruction of WTC 7. Forensics do not lie! But the government reports in question often do!35

A third report that was published after the NIST final report conclusively evidences the presence of Nanothermite residue in WTC Dust. Thermite is an incendiary; however Nanothermite is a high explosive. Unreacted nanothermite, a residue with a distinctive chemical fingerprint, was reported by several scientists as conclusive evidence that explosives were involved in the 9/11 events. This report by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, and his colleagues, who included Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan did not appear until 2009 which was several months after the NIST final report.36

Tests for evidence of explosives should have been done immediately following the events of 9/11. “When NIST was asked specifically whether its investigation had looked for evidence of explosives, it replied in the negative. A reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, about this failure, saying: ‘What about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?’ Newman replied: 'Right, because there was no evidence of that.’ ‘But,’ asked the reporter ‘how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?’ Newman replied: ‘If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.’ [You couldn’t make this stuff up.]37

“When Shyam Sunder, who headed up NIST’s investigation of the WTC buildings, gave his press conference in August of 2008 – at which he announced that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery” – he began by saying:

‘Before I tell you what we found, I’d like to tell you what we did not find. We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down.’38 By making this point first, Sunder indicated that this was NIST’s most important conclusion - just as it had been NIST’s most important conclusion about the Twin Towers. However, although Sunder claimed that this conclusion was based on good science, a conclusion has no scientific validity if it can be reached only by ignoring half the evidence.39

Now let us mention the free-fall collapse of WTC 7 and its tidy rubble pile. It also serves as a simple but most reliable witness that what the government reports propose and the observable facts are at opposite ends. The evidence proposes that the building did not collapse as claimed by the government reports but was “demolished” by a pre-planned and professionally orchestrated effort. The WTC dust, containing evidence of explosives, strongly supports our conclusions. The perfect symmetry involved in its collapse, as viewing of any video of the event reveals, is also indicative of a controlled demolition. The “engineered ballet of destruction” would not have occurred from a collapse by fire.40 The destruction of the building had to have included a team of experts involved in its controlled demolition.

Looking closely at the details, it is quite evident that the team involved in the pre-planned destruction did quite a remarkable job - bringing the building down with great precision. In the “demolition industry” WTC 7’s demise reflects a great deal of talent, skill, and professionalism - dropping a building of such dimension within such a small footprint. To think that the building collapsed neatly onto itself because of a few random fires is similar to believing that if you drop 12 coins - let alone 47 - from shoulder height, they will land neatly stacked. Even if they were glued together, you and I know that they would not come to rest vertically but rather topple over. Similarly, actual collapses of steel-structured buildings due to buckling reflects the reality that random collapse and ordered demolition are quite different both in a physics lab and in the actual world.

Professionally designed, steel-framed modern buildings of the skyscraper type are engineered to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, and even collisions by aircraft. This article has demonstrated by historical investigation that before and after the 9/11 event, no steel structured building has ever collapsed because of fire—even though they have been ravaged by fires for up to 18 hours. Contrary to government reports, WTC 7 was not the first. A closer investigation of the fires in the WTC 7 building, as viewed from photographic data as well as a review of government reports, reveal that the building only incurred small and isolated fires for a time-period of roughly six hours. Some of the fires had even self-extinguished prior to the building’s destruction and this is very evident in the photographs from the reports.

Because structural integrity is over-engineered into all buildings - with safety factors of 300 and 400 percent - even substantial local damage to a building is not sufficient to cause a collapse. Buildings collapse or “topple” only because of damage caused by extensive earthquakes. (See figure AA Below.) It is very important to also note, that they do not collapse neatly into their own footprint - especially when that footprint is relatively tiny in relation to the height of the building. The only way to get a building to collapse within its own footprint is by controlled demolition.

“The steel skeletons of buildings like WTC 7 are extremely robust. They are designed to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes, and are over-engineered to handle several times the maximum loads anticipated during their lifetimes. Such steel skeletons have local structural integrity. An event that destroyed one portion of the structure would not cause distant portions to shatter. If some force obliterated the load-bearing columns well below the top of a 600-foot tall skyscraper, the top of the building would topple like a tree, not smash its way down through intact floors and into its foundation.”41

The photo above is of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. It is very indicative of the structural integrity of buildings, in this case withstanding even bombings. Worst case scenario, imagine some soot on the building and this is what WTC 7 should have looked like at days end. Still standing - on all its legs! “To now postulate that a collapse did occur due to office fires is the height of scientific recklessness.” (John D. Wyndham, PhD’s remark to NIST investigative body.)

See the pictures below (Figure AA) showing structural damage to high rise buildings caused by earthquakes and note the lack of neat footprints. These building toppled because of the uneven loads and stress caused by the forces of nature. Notice also that in many cases the rubble pile is extensive, with some buildings - in a certain sense - somewhat structurally intact, but just laying on their side. This demonstrates the incredible integrity that is over-engineered into steel structured buildings.

WTC Building 7
was about 5 times as tall as it was deep. Its collapse as viewed on all videos made of the event had all the classic signs of a controlled demolition.

By looking at the following diagram it can be seen that the collapse of the WTC 7 building had to be done with great precision if it was not to damage the adjacent buildings. The “rubble pile” left by its demolition demonstrates clearly that this was accomplished with great precision.

Notice that WTC 7 was wedged very tightly between the US Post Office and the Verizon building. The demolition had to take place with respect to the two adjacent buildings. And you can see in the following photo of the rubble pile - that is exactly what happened!

In the photos below notice the neat line of demarcation along Vesey Street in the photo at the top left of the page. Notice also that no substantial damage has occurred to the adjacent buildings.

WTC Building 7
is shown above collapsed neatly within its own footprint. Notice that the outside walls have been left on top. This is extremely unlikely to occur by a stroke of luck or by chance. This is a classic indication of a very precision - engineered controlled demolition.

To do a “good job” or an “efficient job” in performing work is very much a part of human nature. It is also a means of creating “less” work. The destruction of WTC 7 was no exception to this work ethic. In the demolition industry the rubble pile remaining after a building’s controlled collapse is everything. It becomes the company’s signature, their calling card of competence, as well as their advertising medium - and even their bragging rights. The rubble pile shows the skill and precision of the company to satisfy the needs of the client - no matter how difficult. Future clients are shown footprints and rubble piles of “difficult demolitions” in order to verify the company’s capabilities. Difficult but successful demolitions become the best means of advertising and obtaining new business. Demolition companies are keenly aware of the rubble piles because they are the ones responsible for its creation and invariably for its clean-up. By reducing the rubble pile to its smallest possible size, additional costs involved in final clean-up efforts are saved. A precisely created rubble pile is the most effective way to control costs. This is an industry standard. Demolition companies that cannot produce relatively neat, tidy rubble piles do not stay in business long. And those that cannot fall a building within its footprint better have a lot of additional insurance. It is absolutely necessary that controlled demolition companies demonstrate with consistency the ability to fall buildings within the vertical axis. The 9/11 demolitions were no exception. The photos confirm this fact. They inadvertently reveal the expertise of a highly competent demolition company.

How ironic that CDI, Controlled Demolition Inc, was involved in both the hurried clean-up and disposal of the Murray Building after the Oklahoma City bombing, as well as the hurried clean-up and disposal of the WTC buildings.42 The government only uses the best and the most experienced! And in the case of the WTC buildings there was no room for error! New un-written records in the industry were set - known by an elite few but speculated upon by many. In the future these records most assuredly will be entered into the Guinness Book with other fine records that CDI has set in the controlled demolition industry. It is a shame that no bragging rights can be claimed at this time. Patience is a virtue; time will tell. Peruse their website for a while. Get a feel for what controlled demolition is all about. See how the collapse of WTC 7 dances to their tune.43

The WTC 7 fell in less than seven seconds - almost the same velocity of an object free-falling in a vacuum under the influence of gravity. This speed of collapse - according to the laws of physics - irrefutably demonstrates that controlled demolition was involved. Irrefutably! It’s all about kinetic energy vs. resistance and the gravitational speed of falling objects. I won’t bore the reader with the equation.45 But I will supply a quotation from a group of over 700 professional architects and engineers who question by letter NIST’s Chief Investigator in charge of all aspects of the investigation, Dr. Shayam Sunder. The five-page letter addressed many of the discrepancies in the NIST Report as well as the fact that critical evidence was blatantly ignored in the report. Because of the brevity of this article I will only quote the section pertaining to the fact that even the NIST report admitted that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speeds for a period of time during its collapse.

“NIST has acknowledged the free-fall collapse of Building 7 for 100 feet of its 6.5-second fall only after being grilled publicly by experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet NIST does not acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse – that the structure had to have been removed – forcibly – by explosives. High school physics makes it clear that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural steel, because all of its gravitational potential energy is being converted to energy of motion.” 46

Even if the WTC building had collapsed because of fire, a fire that burned basically only on the south side of the building, then the collapse would have occurred in such a way as to be representative of the uneven heating and subsequent loss of integrity of the steel beams - thereby initiating a non-symmetrical collapse. Portions of the building not affected by fire would have still maintained structural integrity and offered resistance to the falling section of the building, thereby causing a collapse that would not have been at free-fall speeds nor perfectly symmetrical. The buildings collapse would have imitated more the collapse of a wooden structure with unburned and unaffected parts of the building left standing. A “buckling” would have occurred; not a complete, perfectly symmetrical, systematic falling of tons of steel and concrete!47

The pile of rubble produced by WTC 7 speaks mountains about the method of its collapse. Its shape is quite conducive of a controlled demolition and has no resemblance to a building felled by an “authentic” structural collapse. The rubble pile left by the controlled demolition of WTC 7 was less than two stories high. Only two stories! A perfect signature! Consider that the original building was 47 stories tall and had only minimal structural damage caused by debris or fires as reported by the government. Yet it collapsed perfectly inside its own footprint! People in the demolition industry know that this was a job very well done! It possessed a high degree of difficulty considering the adjacent buildings! Remarkable planning and expert execution! Not an ounce of luck involved here - only control!

In closing I would like to quote the words of persons who have spent hundreds of hours investigating the “collapse” of WTC 7:

“Buildings do fall vertically like Building 7, when destroyed by controlled demolition.

Controlled demolition destroys vertical steel structures while overcoming their tendency to topple onto adjacent real-estate. It does so by shattering the steel skeleton through the precisely timed detonation of explosive charges.”

“Most demolitions seek to implode the building, causing the mass to move toward the center, resulting in a tidy rubble pile. In tall buildings this is typically done by shattering the interior structures of the building first or ahead of the exterior structures. That causes the interior mass to fall first, pulling outer structures toward the center. Pieces of the outer walls end up on top of the rubble pile.”48

Building 7's documented vertical plunge and tidy rubble pile with exterior wall fragments on top are exactly the kinds of results that controlled demolitions achieve through careful engineering.49

The official government reports seem to have re-written the laws of physics. Demolition companies need to take careful note! “...follow new laws of physics that dictate to implode a building perfectly within its own footprint, you just need to set a few office fires.”50 The government’s response to any questioning of their official reports - and the obvious errors, deceptions, and omissions that they contain - can be summed up: “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!” In lieu of the evidence presented, the following quotation characterises what the government has intended from the beginning - to deceive the public as to the actual destruction of WTC 7 because it is in their best interest to do so.

To claim that the collapse of WTC 7 is “no longer a mystery,” as chief NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder stated, smacks of a desperate attempt to proclaim the authority of the official story by mere words alone, when in reality NIST’s laughable “new phenomenon” claim, the latest in a long line of changing explanations for the obvious demolition of Building 7, only heaps more embarrassment on NIST and makes the official 9/11 story look more untrustworthy than ever before.51

The truly sad reality is that even with the evidence presented, many people are so lulled by the comfortable existence offered by a prosperous lifestyle that their reaction to this article will be minimal instead of what is truly needed at this time in history. Public outcry is a necessary response to the intentional deceptions by governments.

I hope this article has intimated that in similar fashion to the destruction of the WTC Buildings on 9/11, so too has public trust been systematically dismantled by government leaders and public servants. Insulting government reports filled with falsifications and omissions is not a proper response to a public that desires and expects some semblance of truth from their elected officials. But, it is obvious that a new level of “lack of integrity” has been reached in government, and a truly higher plateau of “questionable character” has been displayed by many politicians and public servants - as the “official reports” of this tragedy plainly indicate. The need for this article’s authoring - and the truth that it contains - is proof of that statement. Hopefully, a new level of complacency has not been equally reached by the American people and many will rise to the occasion. The future of America depends on it. It is high time that American foreign policy looks at the international neighborhood with a different set of eyes - eyes that are filled with honesty, love and compassion and not deception and greed. The power to make a difference is in the hands of the readers. Just make sure the word gets out! The bullies on the block are no longer welcome.

Nearly 3000 lives representing over 90 countries were lost on September 11, 2001 during the destruction of the WTC buildings and surrounding events. Immediately following, America invaded Afghanistan launching their so-called “War on Terrorism.” Iraq was invaded March 20th, 2003 under the pretext that Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were present in the country and were a threat to national and world security. The weapons were never found - and believed to have never existed in the first place. Over 1.2 million deaths have occurred related to the war in Iraq. The war has uprooted more than 4.7 million Iraqis since its conception which was declared illegal by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the United Nations Charter in September 2004.

Within weeks of 9/11 the US Government passed the US Patriot Act and its “War on Terrorism”- a campaign that was spearheaded by the events of 9/11. The legislation has allowed the government of the United States to place any person, for any reason, and in any location throughout the known world on their “list of suspected terrorists.” As author of this article I too am at risk of being put on this list. The legislation, “strongly infringed on civil liberties” but was passed quickly by both houses of Congress and signed into law on October 26, 2001 How it was written and passed so quickly says much about the government’s proficiency in implementing their agenda of deception regards 9/11.

Thank you dear reader for your time and for allowing me to bring you the truth regards one small piece of the big puzzle of 9/11. May I encourage you to accomplish a minimal investigation in order to satisfy your own mind and further the cause of truth and justice - in memory of the lives lost. For personal investigation into the controlled demolition of WTC Building 7, I suggest the reader visit the following websites for their simplicity of design and overwhelming evidence. Remember to look only at the facts and not to dismiss or reject them because of the disturbing realities that the facts point to.

--MORE--"