BBC's 9/11 Yellow Journalism Backfires

Building 7 becomes the Achilles heel of the governments official conspiracy theory

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Monday, March 5, 2007

 

 

 

The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary hit piece and their flustered attempts to adopt damage control over questions about why their correspondent reported the collapse of Building 7 before it happened, have only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and exalted questions surrounding WTC 7 to the point where it is now the Achilles' heel of the official conspiracy theory.

 

The BBC was forced to issue a second response on Friday afternoon following a barrage of criticism against their initial effort to dismiss the Building 7 fiasco and their claim that they had mysteriously lost all footage from BBC World's 9/11 coverage.

 

Right from the word go the BBC have attempted to cloud this issue by erecting and attacking another strawman framed debate, the accusation they were somehow part of a grand conspiracy on 9/11, in order to try and detract credibility from the questions being asked of them.

 

In reality, this story boils down to two facets and the BBC has not provided an adequate answer to either of them;

 

a) What was the source of the information that led the BBC to report that Building 7 had collapsed before it did? In his second response, head of BBC World Richard Porter cites CNN, local news media and unnamed firefighters who were interviewed after the fact, but still cannot provide an individual or authority by name.

 

Porter attempts to create a scenario whereby the collapse of Building 7 was easily anticipated, and this is why news organizations jumped the gun to report its demise. In reality, WTC 7 stood over 300 yards away from the twin towers and was partly shielded by WTC 6 which did not collapse yet was completely gutted by raging fires and debris damage, whereas WTC 7 had limited fires. Building 7 was structurally reinforced in 1989 giving it, "Enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity," according to the New York Times.

 

The BBC's 9/11 Conspiracy Files documentary claimed that Building 7 was a "raging inferno," a gross error considering the fact that fires spread sporadically across just eight floors of the skyscraper.

 

PICTURE: This is what the BBC describes as a "raging inferno," another example of how they concocted fallacies to smear 9/11 truth in their atrocious Conspiracy Files hit piece.

 

Nobody could have anticipated the building's collapse unless they knew that explosive devices were in place to take it down. NYPD officers heard bombs as they ran away from its implosion. First responders were told that the building was to be "brought down," not that it was going to collapse on its own. The process of informing the news agencies in advance that it was in danger of collapsing was merely an attempt to precondition the watching audience to what would otherwise have been an extremely suspicious occurrence.

 

We can now be reasonably confident in identifying the Rudy Giuliani's OEM as the source of the "warning" that Building 7 was going to collapse. OEM is New York City's Office of Emergency Management. OEM personnel, by pure coincidence of course, arrived early on the morning of 9/11 to prepare for an exercise that simulated a terrorist attack on New York City. They were located in Building 7.

 

This means that the OEM were not only telling the BBC and other media that Building 7 had collapsed or was in the process of collapsing before it did, a forecast inconceivable in the context that no modern steel building had collapsed from fire damage alone allied to the fact that WTC 7 had been structurally reinforced to prevent such a collapse, but they were also handing out the explanation for its collapse in advance.

, the anchor Phil Hayton states, "It seems this wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack."

 

Richard Porter tacitly admits that such detailed foreknowledge of an event that is yet to occur is highly suspicious ("in one sense that's true") but then attempts to dismiss it simply because the reporter used the words "it seems."

Building 7 fell in an almost perfect implosion at near free fall speed and its debris barely even blocked the street next to it - the building collapsed in its own footprint. Surely a collapse as a result of fire damage, an event unparalleled with a modern steel building until that day, would have resulted in at least a marginally inconsistent collapse? Anyone with eyes to see can judge that this building was deliberately imploded, as news anchors like Dan Rather

.

 

PICTURE: The Windsor Building in Madrid by comparison was a raging inferno and burned for over 24 hours yet did not collapse.

 

The collapse of the Windsor Building in Madrid was, solely as a result of 9/11, anticipated by the media in triplicate but it never happened because modern steel buildings do not symmetrically collapse as a result of fire damage alone.

 

Who would have anticipated the collapse of Building 7 in such circumstances? Certainly not Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who was shown the footage of Building 7 along with the building's structural diagrams and immediately concluded it was deliberately demolished.

 

Whoever informed the news agencies that the building was about to collapse had precise knowledge of the fact that it was being deliberately "pulled," and only by identifying that individual or authority, be it Giuliani's OEM or anyone else, and putting them before a grand jury, can we move closer to cracking the cover-up.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&hl=en

 

b) How can we trust the BBC or the establishment media in general to provide accurate information about any major event when all they do is repeat what is told to them and relay it as gospel with no independent verification whatsoever, to the point where we are told a building has collapsed by a reporter while it mockingly stands behind her head?

Bob Woodward, the US journalist who helped break the Watergate scandal, last week called on reporters to "take more time on stories" and be more aggressive in verifying information given to them by official authorities. Woodward said the round the clock deadline news cycle is a "crazy environment" that needs to be "slowed down."

 

The BBC Building 7 fiasco is a damning indictment of the slippery slide from real investigative reporting to "rip and read" instant gratification, whereby news organizations become mere public relation conduits for governments and "official" authorities. In that context the BBC are just as complicit as anyone else in manufacturing the official conspiracy theory behind 9/11 and the one that has remained simply because it was reported first. This myth is propagated by the fallacies of building collapses before the fact, magic hijacker passports that survive giant firey airline impacts, and deliberate suppression of dozens and dozens of eyewitness reports of bombs at all levels of the twin towers.

 

The arrogance of Porter and the BBC in general in still refusing to even admit that they made an error in reporting the collapse of a building before it fell clearly illustrates the pomposity of these individuals in thinking themselves somehow above the scrutiny of the very people who fund their existence. This whole episode has led many who were previously highly skeptical of the "9/11 truth movement" to do their on research on this and the many other questions surrounding September 11.

 

Building 7 is the weakest link holding together the official conspiracy theory that was dutifully propped up and retold by the lapdog mainstream media on 9/11. The Conspiracy Files debacle allied to the WTC 7 BBC fiasco that followed it has given 9/11 truth a fresh impetus and we thank the BBC in the context that their fallacious yellow journalism has resulted in a new wave of interest in dismantling the official fraud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9/11 Not First Example Of Media Scripting & Foreknowledge?

 

Were Oswald, Pearl Harbor details leaked ahead of time?

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

 

 

The BBC and other news outlets reporting the collapse of WTC 7 in advance was not the first time in history that the media had pre-empted major events by reporting them before they happened. Did a newspaper in New Zealand report intricate details about Lee Harvey Oswald's connection to the JFK assassination before such knowledge was publicly available?

 

Our reports on the BBC Building 7 fiasco have gained overwhelming traction on the Internet but the establishment media has all but blacklisted the story.

 

As an addendum to the issue of the scripting and foreknowledge of major world events and how the official story is prepared ahead of the actual incident, we decided to take a brief look at a couple of other potential historical examples.

 

The assassination of John F. Kennedy occurred at 7:30am New Zealand time on November 23rd 1963. In November, New Zealand is 19 hours ahead of Central Standard Time in the U.S.

 

 

A newspaper in New Zealand, seemingly picking up information from wire reports, reported intricate details about Lee Harvey Oswald, including the description of his arrest, before he had been arrested in Texas.

 

Col Fletcher Prouty writes in his book the Guns of Dallas;

 

 

 

 

 

"I happened to be far away in New Zealand at the time of JFK's murder. I was on my way to breakfast with a member of Congress from Ohio. As soon as possible, we purchased the first newspaper available -- the Christchurch Star. It is amazing to re-read the front page of that paper today and find all of the detail, the remarkable detail, about Lee Harvey Oswald, about his service in the Marine Corps, about his living in Russia, about his Russian wife, and then the full scenario of the crime."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Then one begins to wonder -- understanding full well the capability of modern-day communications and reporting -- who it was that was able in so short a time to come up with such a life history of so obscure a twenty-four-year-old "loner." Even the Dallas police had not charged him with any crime by the time that paper had hit the streets. In the crime scenario it states that two Dallas cops, J D Tippit and M N McDonald, had chased Oswald into a theater and that Tippit was shot dead "as he ran into the cinema." Who fabricated all of that news? Who was at the right place at that moment to flood the whole world with all of this news about Lee Harvey Oswald, when even the Dallas police weren't too sure of their man, they said, because he carried two identities (Oswald and Alek Hidell) in his pocket."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How was a newspaper able to assemble and print precise details about Lee Harvey Oswald before he had even been caught, unless a script had already been prepared for the media as soon as the assassination occurred?

 

Researcher David Perry questioned Prouty's claims, pointing out that the newspaper headline was part of an "Extra" edition that hit the streets before noon New Zealand time, after police had arrested and released details about Oswald.

 

Perry contends that the press knew Oswald was in custody at around 10am New Zealand time, which gave the newspaper around an hour and a half to compile details about him that were freely available from previous reports about the alleged assassin.

 

The credibility of Prouty's claims rest on whether you believe a newspaper can compile a report, perform a print run, and be selling the newspaper all within within 90 minutes - at the pace and technological limitations of the 1960's.

 

 

The many warnings and foreknowledge concerning the December 7 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor are now widely known. But a lesser noted aspect is a November 30 1941 story that appeared in the Hilo Tribune Herald , one week before the Japanese kamikaze planes arrived.

 

The headline of the story was Japan May Strike Over Weekend, meaning the following weekend.

 

Though the full text of the story from the Hawaii newspaper is seemingly unavailable, many allege that this another example where the media were able to pre-empt news of a major world event before it happened and bizarrely forecast the future.

 

We'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether these two examples merit credibility. Feel free to leave your views on our comment board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, there is some major 9/11 news coming out. Well, It's major news if you care about this. Not that you'll hear about it on the news because it's very complex and most people will probably be too lazy to stick with it for long - when this get really serious I notice most folk just think it's all long winded nonsense. Well, here's a newsflash, 9/11 Truth investigations like this are no way nonsense but are in fact amazing demonstrations of great minds, great people and sheer persistence that will help us unlock many more area's of this crazy maze.

 

In the next few days I'm sure this story will expand as more of the details are verified.

 

 

Pilot's Lawsuit Alleges Airliners Rigged With Explosives

Boeing VP admitted fact in speech, remote control connection to 9/11 tantalizing

 

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

 

 

Field McConnell, a pilot for Northwest Airlines, has filed a lawsuit charging that many commercial airliners are rigged with explosives that can be remotely detonated. He refuses to fly until such devices are removed. McConnell's claim is seemingly given credence by none other than Boeing's vice-president, who tacitly admitted the fact in a speech last year.

 

 

"The lawsuit, filed last week, claims Boeing Co. and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) can’t assure him that B747-400 planes are safe. McConnell, who is the process of seeking an early retirement from Northwest, claims the planes are rigged by Boeing and can be remotely detonated," reports the West Central Tribune.

 

“I am obligated under company procedures and FAA regulation not to operate an aircraft if I suspect it is unsafe,” McConnell, 57, states in his handwritten claim."

 

McConnell's claims are given credence by a January 2006 speech given by Doug Bain, Boeing senior vice president and general counsel, at Boeing Leadership Meeting in Orlando, Florida.

 

"One nasty little thing is that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which has an almost explicit prohibition on possessing explosives. For those of you who are at BCA [boeing Commercial Airplanes], you might remember that every single door on an airplane has actuators that are triggered by explosives," said Bain.

 

Was this a slip of the tongue? Is Bain telling us that all airliners are rigged with explosives that can be remotely detonated? For what possible purpose?

 

 

The issue of remote control operation of airliners was again in the news last week. The London Daily Mail reported Sunday that the technology is expected to be installed in all airliners within three years, according to Boeing insiders.

 

Far from preventing another 9/11 style attack, as the Mail states, from everything we have learned about the U.S. government's complicity in the plot to slam airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, this technology enhances the possibility of a rogue agency remotely hijacking a plane and crashing it into their desired target.

 

One month before 9/11, German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that U.S. military-industrial complex giant Raytheon landed a 727 jet six times by remote control using GPS technology at a Hollomon AFB in New Mexico.

 

In April 2001, aviation history was made when a Global Hawk, which is equivalent in wingspan to a Boeing 737, flew by remote control out of Edwards Air Force Base, across the Pacific Ocean, and landed safely at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state.

 

As far back as 1984, NASA were conducting experiments involving crash scenarios and using remote control technology to fly large commercial airliners (pictured below).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

President Bush himself highlighted the use of this technology in a speech he gave at O'Hare Airport in Chicago, just over two weeks after 9/11.

 

"We will set aside $500 million in new funding for aircraft security....We will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe, and for example including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control."

 

In April of last year, Boeing were hit with a record fine of $615 million after the company broke the law by selling commercial planes equipped with the QRS-11 gyrochip, which is also used in the guidance system of the Maverick missile.

 

According to the Associated Press, from 2000 to 2003 Boeing shipped 94 airliners oversees, mainly to China, that contained the chip, a device used for "military applications," stated the report.

 

McConnell says he has evidence that "The QRS11 trail leads back to Communist China's funding of the second Clinton presidential run and then to Joe Giroir and Hillary Clinton, former partners at the Rose Law Firm, and finally the crime of Arkancide and the death of Ron Brown," and that "The Iridium satellite system used to steer electronically-hijacked jets fitted with QRS11 gyroscopes on 9/11 was probably commanded from virtual and physical war rooms embedded in Canada Steamship Lines vessels built by China for CAI-Carlyle Canada."

 

Was such a device or one of its offshoots used for the "military application" of executing the 9/11 attacks? The connection is tantalizing and one that deserves further study in order to ascertain the danger of rogue elements of the military industrial complex utilizing this technology to carry out another terrorist black-op.

 

McConnell appears as a guest on The Alex Jones Show today to present his evidence for such a scenario.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin Ryan & Prof. Steven Jones debunk the fraudulent NIST report concerning the collapse of the WTC towers on 9/11

 

9/11 Blogger

Thursday, March 8, 2007

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1cvkz_911-truth-nist-report-debunked

 

I found it interesting that they are trying to find an engineering company to make a scaled building of the WTC to do experiments in a controlled environment. Same structures etc, smaller scale. Discuss...

What was the "Big explosion from much much lower" on 9/11?

You Tube

Sunday, March 11, 2007

 

Full Clip: "Then, an hour later, we had that big explosion, from much much lower. I don't know what on earth caused that."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOnEZPM3BVA

 

Newly Unearthed Footage Exposes 9/11 Media Scripting

Bizarre foreknowledge and explanation of towers' collapse more cryptic clairvoyance

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Monday, March 12, 2007

 

Yet more archive news footage unearthed from broadcasts on 9/11 offers further evidence that the media were being fed a script in which a cover story was quickly groomed to offset questions about the highly suspicious collapse of the twin towers.

 

Two weeks ago we highlighted BBC World footage from September 11 in which a correspondent reports the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. New footage unearthed from Britain's Channel 5 news coverage provokes more questions about 9/11 scripting in a similar vein.

 

"Sections of the other tower are also crumbling - now the reason this is happening, according to the website for the World Trade Center, they're actually telling us that the structure, the outside cladding of this building is integral to the safety and security of it," states the news anchor following the collapse of the south tower.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL6N66vPCAs

 

"Once you penetrate that apparently the very structure of the building is under threat and that's why one tower has already collapsed."

 

The suspicious rapidity of the instant press release aside, why did the World Trade Center's website carry such a blatantly fallacious explanation for the collapse of the first tower? Even the layman knows that any modern building is anchored by core columns, not "outside cladding," and the twin towers were no different. To rest a building's integrity on its "outside cladding" is a reversal of all commonly accepted architectural knowledge. Why was the World Trade Center website peddling this nonsense in contradiction with the words of the twin tower's own designers?

 

Included in over a dozen examples compiled here, Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said that the towers could sustain "multiple impacts of jetliners" without collapsing.

 

In addition, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, stated that, “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”

 

The twin towers were desgined to absorb airliner impacts by means of their 47 huge core columns. The twin towers could not be compromised simply by damaging their "outside cladding," such a claim is patently absurd and why it was immediately peddled as an explanation for their collapse is highly suspect.

 

Later in the clip, the anchor comments, "It is completely enveloped in smoke, it is on fire, and we understand that this other tower is also in a situation of near collapse."

 

Based on the testimony of the experts who designed and built the twin towers, how on earth could officials and the media be so sure that the towers were going to collapse unless they were being fed a script by individuals who knew they were about to be imploded and were carefully preparing the cover story?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAPPGsFcdJo

 

Another video that was shot before the first tower had even collapsed shows people on the street telling others to get back from the towers because they are about to "explode."

 

Since no modern steel building had collapsed from fire damage alone and the fires were almost out, as described in the firefighter tapes, to forecast that the towers were about to crumble, a fortuitous act of clairvoyance that was also enjoyed by Rudy Giuliani, was an impossible prediction to make unless a pre-planned script was already circulating.

 

There are also videos of "experts" in news studios and even eyewitnesses on the ground intricately detailing why the towers collapsed within minutes and hours of them falling.

As the video below makes clear, if a crime were committed and immediately afterwards "experts" appeared on the scene claiming knowledge that no one could possibly have about the crime, would this be in the least bit suspicious?

 

Shortly after the collapse of the towers, a "random" eyewitness on the street interviewed by Fox News states with perfect clarity, "I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second - mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."

 

The individual sounds like he is reading a prepared statement. There is no "I think" or speculation in the statement, it's boldly proclaimed as an undoubted fact, despite the many reports of additional explosions relayed by firefighters, first responders and journalists that preceded the towers' collapse.

 

Google Videp Clip - The 911 Solution - The big clue everybody missed.

 

How did this "average Joe" manage to get ahead of NIST and FEMA in clearly annunciating what would later become the official cover story - especially considering that by the time the towers collapsed most of the "intense" fires had been replaced by oxygen starved black smoke?

 

In addition, more BBC video from the day of 9/11 has been unearthed in which a correspondent, within hours of the towers coming down, claims the reason for the collapses is because of their design. He then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns.

 

The news anchors in the Channel 5 clip also make mention of a car bomb at the State Department and the bombing of a shopping mall in Washington DC. These were not rumors generated as a result of "confusion" as is often the defense - the anchor cites a "senior U.S. law enforcement official" as the source. Why did officials inform the news agencies of these events when in hindsight we know they never happened?

 

The State Department bomb report was also picked up by Forbes, who attributed it to "State Department sources." Reports of suspicious packages would be expected in a time of such hysteria but can "confusion" account for reports of actual bombings attributed to senior officials?

 

It is commonly accepted that the breadth of the 9/11 attack was planned to be larger in scope because Flight 93 did not reach its target. Were the State Department and Washington Mall "bombings" intended to go ahead but for whatever reason failed or were called off? Was the media fed the script too early as in the case of Building 7?

 

By the evening of September 11, following a "perimeter walk around our building," the State Department publicly stated that no such bombing had taken place.

 

Why were senior State Department officials telling the media that there had been a bombing without even conducting a basic appraisal of the building's perimeter? Can this all be put down to "confusion" or were some elements of the 9/11 script changed according to how events were unfolding on the day?

9/11, Iraq: Cheney again claims tie

(even after the President has admitted there's no link)

Stewart M. Powell

Hearst Newspapers

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

 

Vice President Dick Cheney, lashing out at Democrats for the first time since the felony conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his former top deputy, resumed his controversial claims Monday that the war in Iraq is the central front in the worldwide U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

Cheney linked Iraq and al Qaeda even though post-invasion reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the presidential Commission on Intelligence Capabilities found no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda before the U.S.-led invasion on March 19, 2003.

 

In remarks to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Cheney contended that U.S. Marines face al Qaeda operatives in Anbar province, that the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown has unmasked al Qaeda car bomb operations in Baghdad and that Osama bin Laden has promised to make Baghdad the capital of a radical Islamic empire reaching from Indonesia to Spain.

 

"As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there is a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day, and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts," Cheney told the annual conference of the pro-Israel group, which interrupted his speech at least 27 times with applause.

 

"Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain," Cheney said. He said al Qaeda terrorists have made Iraq the central front in the U.S. war against terrorism.

Prominent 9/11 Truth Debunker Admits Smear Tactics

Confesses holocaust denial attack invented, states "there is no honesty to debunking 911 truth"

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

 

A prominent debunker of skeptics of the official 9/11 story has broken ranks and confessed that he used underhand tactics, including fallacious attribution of holocaust denial, to smear the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.

 

Screw Loose Change was initially a venture undertaken by two individuals to debunk what they considered to be a number of flaws contained in Dylan Avery's film. However, one of those individuals now states that the focus soon shifted from Loose Change and became a campaign to attack, "any 911 truther for any reason whatsoever."

 

On a new blog website called

Screw Loose Change Exposed, the dissenting individual, known as Pat, describes why he and his former debunker-in-chief James decided to go their separate ways.

 

Pat relates how James pushed him to to "All but invent the crisis of Holocaust denial" and apply it to the truth movement, "Though in fact, it is no more prevalent there than anywhere else," admits Pat.

 

Citing his refusal to "condone the underhanded methods we've tolerated," Pat writes that there is "no honesty to debunking 911 truth."

 

Debunkers' Revolt: Screenshot of the Screw Loose Change Exposed blog.

 

Pat writes that he is now keen to expose how his efforts were "hijacked by other entities" and promises to divulge "what REALLY happened behind the scenes at Screw Loose Change over the last year," warning that "it is only a matter of time before the shadiest methods of debunking become known."

 

This admission validates in part our continued efforts to rebut 9/11 debunkers and their ad hominem attacks and baseless hit pieces, from within both the mainstream and other media avenues.

 

It is also a damning indictment of how the holocaust card is continually played, most recently in the context of the global warming argument, in an attempt to silence debate and attack the messenger while refusing to evaluate the evidence.

 

We appreciate Pat for his honesty and though we will obviously never agree on all the issues, we look forward to his future posts and any further light they shed on the duplicitous tactics that are being employed to smear the 9/11 truth movement which, for all its shortcomings, is an genuine attempt to get questions answered and find out the full truth of what happened on that fateful day.

KSM: The Ultimate Patsy "Confesses"

Go back to sleep, you can trust a press release from a heavily redacted secret military tribunal of a tortured detainee conducted by individuals representative of an oligarchy whose every deception, gross violation of U.S. law, and act of imperial bloodletting over the last six years rests on maintaining the orthodoxy of the official 9/11 myth

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Thursday, March 15, 2007

 

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged "Al-Qaeda mastermind," has confessed to direct involvement in a myriad of terrorist attacks and assassination plots around the world, including 9/11 "from A to Z," but some are likely to be disappointed that after 5 years of torture he stopped short of accepting responsibility for killing Kennedy, creating AIDS and being the real Santa Claus.

 

 

The Pentagon's press release was subject to editing on behalf of the U.S. Defense Department to remove any sensitive material that Khalid might have unwittingly revealed between his water boarding sessions, but I'm sure we can trust this same gaggle of criminals that lectured us on WMD and "accidentally" misplaced over 2 trillion dollars.

 

In the document, KSM confesses to almost every nasty thing that's happened in the world over the past twenty years, as well as formulating plots to assassinate Clinton, Carter and the Pope. It's just a shame that the torture masters were not given more time to really put the screws to Khalid, because then we may have found out that he was also responsible for the Challenger disaster and the O.J. Simpson murders.

 

"It is not clear why Mohammed would have wished to confess to such a wide-ranging number of outrages," reports the Guardian, "The alleged confession is likely, however, to stiffen the resolve of the Bush administration in pursuing its controversial policy of putting the biggest cases of suspected terrorism through the closed military hearings."

 

It would be very clear why the establishment would be interested in hanging out the Ron Jeremy of terrorism to dry as the scapegoat for an official 9/11 story that holds about as much weight as a Milan cat-walk model. By invoking the "but he admitted it" line, any debate about the mountain of unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 is effectively silenced.

 

But this cuts both ways.

 

In his first interview following 9/11, Osama Bin Laden denied any involvement in the attacks.

 

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle," Bin Laden told the Pakistani based Ummat newspaper.

 

If Bin Laden wasn't involved in 9/11 then KSM's "confession" is rendered obsolete.

 

 

It all boils down to whether you trust a Pakistani newspaper or a press release from a heavily redacted secret military tribunal of a tortured detainee conducted by individuals representative of an oligarchy whose every deception, gross violation of U.S. law, and act of imperial bloodletting over the last six years rests on maintaining the orthodoxy of the official 9/11 myth.

 

But since Khalid has squealed on the "A to Z" of 9/11, perhaps he can provide some answers to a few troubling little questions that still have us 9/11 "conspiracy nuts" running around in circles;

 

- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the FBI ordering the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to go ahead? In his confession, KSM says he ran the attack but fails to explain why it was the FBI who provided the terror cell with the bomb materials through their informant.

 

- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for NORAD completely reversing its standard operating procedure on the day of 9/11?

 

- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the collapse of three steel buildings, one that was not hit by a plane, from fire damage alone for the first and only time in history?

- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for warning, according to Newsweek, a group of top Pentagon officials to cancel their flights on the evening of September 10th due to security concerns?

 

- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the record number of 'put' options, speculation that the stock of a company will fall, that were placed on American and United Airlines in the days preceding September 11th? This despite a September 10th Reuters report stating 'airline stocks set to fly.'

 

- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for blocking FBI anti-terrorism investigations before 9/11 related to the bin Laden family and Saudi charities that were front groups for Al-Qaeda?

 

- Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for advising the Secret Service not to remove President Bush from a completely unsecured Florida elementary school by letting them know he wasn't a target on 9/11?

 

I remain confident that that next time KSM spills the beans, he will be able to fill in these gaps and further enlighten us as to the real culprits behind some of history's enduring mysteries, including the disappearance of planes and ships in the Bermuda triangle, the Chernobyl disaster and why Britney Spears went insane.

 

KSM "Confessed" To Targeting Bank Founded After His Arrest

Fallacy of testimony exposed as story blows up in Pentagon's face

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Friday, March 16, 2007

 

 

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's alleged confession testimony has been thoroughly discredited after it emerged that one of the targets he identified, the Plaza Bank, was not founded until 2006, four years after the alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind's arrest.

 

In his confession, KSM claims, "I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing for the New (or Second) Wave of attacks against the following skyscrapers after 9/11: ...Plaza Bank, Washington state."

 

KSM was arrested in March 2003. According to the Plaza Bank's website, the organization was founded in early 2006, making it impossible for KSM to have even known of the bank's existence before 2003, never mind plotted against it.

 

Skepticism about the legitimacy of KSM's confession has gushed forth from all quarters, leaving the credibility of the Pentagon and the process of military tribunals in ruins and provoking additional questions about why the alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind admitted to involvement in such a vast range of plots.

 

After media commentators across the spectrum, from Time Magazine to Matt Lauer and even Rosie O'Donnell were openly cynical of the accuracy of KSM's testimony, officials speaking on condition of anonymity admitted that the claims were exaggerated, but still insist KSM's responsibility for 9/11, "from A to Z" is genuine.

 

 

Former CIA field officer Robert Baer also expressed his doubts, questioning "What the Pentagon's objective really is in releasing the transcript of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession."

 

"On the face of it, KSM, as he is known inside the government, comes across as boasting, at times mentally unstable. It's also clear he is making things up. I'm told by people involved in the investigation that KSM was present during Wall Street Journal correspondent Danny Pearl's execution but was in fact not the person who killed him.

 

There exists videotape footage of the execution that minimizes KSM's role. And if KSM did indeed exaggerate his role in the Pearl murder, it raises the question of just what else he has exaggerated, or outright fabricated," writes Baer.

 

The facet of the Pearl murder and why the establishment would want to shut the lid on the whole affair by pinning the blame on KSM is interesting in the context that in September 2006, Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf fingered Omar Sheikh as Pearl's assassin, adding that he was an MI6 agent working for British Intelligence. In the transcript of his alleged confession, KSM cryptically discusses CIA and Mossad involvement in the Pearl execution but the text is heavily redacted.

 

KSM's claim that he ran the 1993 World Trade Center bombing is also highly suspect because it also conveniently sweeps under the carpet the fact that it was the FBI who provided the terror cell with the bomb materials through their informant and ordered the bombing to go ahead.

 

In addition, KSM was a known CIA asset in the eighties and was used as a go between during the CIA-funded Afghan "jihad" against the occupying Soviets.

 

It is well established that before his mysterious arrest as the alleged mastermind behind the September 11 plot, Mohammed was granted a visa to enter the US just six weeks before the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York.

 

Other questions that have arisen concerning the testimony revolve around KSM's Americanized use of the English language, including the term "A to Z," which many see as a form of slang that befits tabloid headlines more than it does the vernacular of radical Muslim extremists.

 

A CNN online poll shows that a massive 74% disbelieve all of the claims made by KSM and BBC respondents were equally cynical.

 

Think Progress makes the point that KSM's comments on torture and any potential reference to the fact that he was tortured himself are redacted in the transcript.

 

The upshot of all this is that the much vaunted KSM confession, which seems to have been intentionally inflated so the book could be closed on a number of nebulous plots cited by the Bush administration as justification for its policies, has blown up in the establishment's face and only succeeded in detracting credibility from the government's official 9/11 story and the mythical war on terror.

Here comes the flood.....

Bloomberg Kills 'Sensitive 9/11 Probe'

SUSAN EDELMAN

NY Post

Monday, March 19, 2007

 

Mayor Bloomberg killed a study on the city's response to the 9/11 attacks after his lawyers said they did not want a report that cited any missteps or dealt with "environmental" or "respirator issues," says a former city official.

 

City lawyers raised fears that the proposed "after-action report" - which the U.S. Department of Justice had offered to fund - could lead to criticism and fuel lawsuits, David Longshore, former director of special programs for the city's Office of Emergency Management, told The Post.

"The Bloomberg administration acted to sweep any potential problems under the rug," said Longshore, who was trapped in a loading dock outside the WTC while both towers collapsed. He later developed sinusitis and throat polyps and sued the city.

 

Longshore, who left his city job last year, showed The Post his work notes on internal OEM discussions with city lawyers in February 2003. His notes say the Law Department "doesn't want a critical report" and "does not want a report that says we did anything wrong."

 

O'Donnell Comments Garner No Media Coverage

Talk show host's 9/11 rant ignored

 

Infowars.net

Monday, March 19, 2007

 

Rosie O'Donnell's blog comments last week, in which she stated some of the facts surrounding the controlled demolition of building 7 on 9/11, have garnered no media attention.

 

O'Donnell wrote :

• The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.

• Silverstein said to the fire department commander “the smartest thing to do is pull it.”

• Firefighters withdrawing from the area stated the building was going to “blow up”.

• The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint.

• Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.

 

After going public with this skepticism over the official story of 9/11, O'Donnell then continued to address the issue in a Q&A with her readers on her

website.

 

Despite our efforts to alert readers to this information, the mainstream media has not touched the issue, despite the fact that they seem very willing to hype up O'Donnell's respectively meaningless public tiff with Donald Trump.

 

A clip from the Rush Limbaugh show last week, confirms that the media have actively chosen to ignore the story;

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emz5hpxkrw

 

Limbaugh typically advocates rehab for 9/11 truthers and refers to O'Donnell under that umbrella.

 

Clearly the establishment media knows about this story and has chosen the blackout option, rather than the discrediting method of debunking.

 

Charlie Sheen, who went public with his views almost exactly a year ago now, was the first high profile celebrity to put his reputation on the line in the name of 9/11 truth and garnered major attention from outlets such as CNN at the time.

The BBC has some explaining to do?

 

Please watch the following showing the BBC news reporting the collapse of building 7 on 911 23 minutes before the building collapsed.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

 

If you think the BBC has some explaining to do please sign our PETITION

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/wtc7bbc/

Youtube still have these videos

 

 

Please watch the following showing the BBC news reporting the collapse of building 7 on 911 23 minutes before the building collapsed.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

 

If you think the BBC has some explaining to do please sign our PETITION

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/wtc7bbc/

 

Already posted loads of info about this in the my 9/11 Thread.

http://www.coldplaying.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29134&page=34

That's great, thanks, but it won't harm to keep it visible.

Merged threads. Keep things tidy.

No problem, thanks

Street-Level Explosion Before Collapse of WTC 1

 

Witness

 

Here's an interesting eyewitness report about a large explosion at ground level right before the collapse of the North Tower. The witness is apparently a New Jersey musician.

 

"I'm not a conspiracy theorist; I don't go in for that junk. I'm very patriotic, and I believe in my elected officials -- I even write songs about them. But nothing said in the official (and largely unpublicised) story about the cause of the collapse of World Trade Center Seven jibes with what we witnessed that day. If the government story of the events at the Twin Towers have always seemed fishy and incomplete, I know damned well the few official accounts of the collapse of Building Seven are fishy and incomplete.

***

Just before the fall of the North Tower, we saw a large explosion coming from the street-level area around World Trade Center 7. I remember thinking that it looked distinctly like a bomb had been detonated underneath the city, and, of course, that's exactly what I thought had occurred.

***

EDIT (Wrong thread)

 

Debunking NY Post's Tabloid Hit Piece On Sheen/O'Donnell

As sophisticated as a Chicago Bears fan after a heavy drinking session

 

The New York Post has produced a typically and purposefully ignorant hit piece against both Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen for going public with their views on 9/11, commenting that they should "keep their traps shut".

 

As far as hit pieces go, gossip writer Richard Johnson's scribe is about as sophisticated as a Chicago Bears fan after a heavy drinking session, but considering his other stories today were about Paul McCartney sending a bunch of flowers and Jay-Z making a bet with the editor of Playboy, we shouldn't expect too much.

 

The piece, clearly aimed at those who don't have the attention span to read the entire word "Hollywood," headlined as it is "H'Wood," labels Sheen as a "hooker-loving Hollywood hunk," denounces his father, Martin Sheen, for having been arrested in the past for protesting and calls Loose Change a "loopy YouTube documentary."

 

Choosing to focus on name calling and slandering character assassinations, Rupert Murdoch's Post cannot even get the most basic of facts correct. Whatreallyhappened.com's Michael Rivero is referenced in the piece but is referred to as "Matt Rivero". Any visitor to Whatreallyhappened.com will see instantly that at the top of the page it says Michael Rivero's Whatreallyhappened.com, proving that writer Richard Johnson has not even looked at the website he is trouncing, a running theme where baseless debunking and awful journalism is concerned.

 

Johnson needs to stick to reporting on Britney Spears' latest haircut if he can't even be bothered to conduct cursory investigative research.

 

After a healthy serving of ad hominem name-calling slurs, Johnson finally addresses Rosie O'Donnell's comments, stating that she is repeating a "widely debunked rundown" of Michael or (Matt as they have it) Rivero's discredited theories about Building 7. Putting aside the subtle assertion that all questions and theories about the collapse of WTC 7 belong to Michael Rivero, it is entirely incorrect and untruthful to state that they have been discredited and debunked.

 

Indeed, it is the official narrative that has been repeatedly discredited and debunked. Both NIST and FEMA have had to change portions of their reports on several occasions because the conclusions failed to fit the evidence.

 

Neither body has yet been able to produce an official report that can explain how fire damage caused the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11.

 

Debunkers of the controlled demolition theory continually cite "raging infernos" inside the building, yet officially only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires before its collapse. The NIST report concluded after extensive controlled recreation experiments that it could not comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained.

 

Remember also that experts stated about Building 7:

 

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been

PARTLY EVAPORATED

in extraordinarily high temperatures.

Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in Building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them. Can sporadic fires on just eight floors of a 47 story building do that? NO, according to NIST, they cannot.

 

 

Is the New York Post suggesting that NIST's theories are "twisted"? That is the information that Sheen and O'Donnell are respectively going off, not just some made up nonsense from cyberspace.

 

Sheen, O'Donnell and celebrities like them are not simply "repeating" the views of "conspiracy theorists," they are relaying the views of experts in their field. People such as Kevin Ryan of Underwriter Laboratories who stepped forward shortly after the release of the NIST report to point out that UL testimony to NIST regarding the ability of jet fuel fire to melt steel was inaccurate. Kevin Ryan was fired from UL shortly thereafter.

 

Several demolition experts are also on record as stating that they believe WTC 7's collapse to have occurred as a result of a controlled implosion. Indeed, controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, unaware that the structure had collapsed on 9/11, immediately concluded that Building 7 had been deliberately demolished when he was shown the footage by a Dutch television crew, and maintains that position to this day.

 

The Post also makes reference to WTC owner Larry Silverstein's infamous "pull it" comment, also suggesting only insane "conspiracists" could take it to mean an admission of controlled demolition. However, the fact remains that no one has been able to explain this comment. A spokesperson for Silverstein later attempted to explain the comment away by stating that by "pull it" he had meant "evacuate the fire fighting operation". The problem is, according to FEMA, there were no fire fighting procedures in Building 7 and fire-fighters were outside of the collapse zone that had been set up many hours before WTC 7 fell.

 

The official FEMA report stresses this in chapter five, stating "...the fire-fighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."

 

In more recent revelations that the Post fails to address, it was discovered that the BBC had reported that Building 7 had collapsed up to 30 minutes before it actually fell. This indicated that the press were being spoon fed information about what was going to happen on 9/11.

 

Debunkers have charged that Building 7 was expected to collapse before it did, which is true, and the BBC merely jumped the gun - but that begs the question - how did officials know the building was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC's source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious?

The BBC has still not named its source of this information on 9/11.

 

In the most infamous debunking piece to date, Popular Mechanics relied on a combination of all kinds of theories to explain away the collapse of Building 7, realizing themselves that neither the fires nor the falling debris could explain the collapse of the structure:

 

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.

 

However as we have previously reported, Building 7 was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing. It was essentially a 'building within a building', as the New York Times put it. To suggest Building 7 would have been weakened as an overall structure by damage to limited portions of it is totally untrue. Besides, who in their right mind would design a building with 47 columns, knowing that removing one column would cause the entire thing to collapse?

 

The fact remains that the Building 7 saga has not been debunked no matter how many times debunkers, or in the case of the Post poor excuses for reporters, say it has been. 7 thus remains the key to unlocking the fraud that is the official story behind 9/11.

 

 

The hit piece also contains leaked details of the upcoming Loose Change Final Cut movie, in which it is announced that Charlie Sheen is set to narrate the documentary.

 

Arising out of Alex Jones' role as a consultant on the project, we have known this information for over a year and withheld it for the very important reason that the project's integrity during its embryonic phase depended on maintaining its secrecy.

 

We confirmed that the information had been leaked to the media on Monday but now it is verified that the Post already knew the details before they tried to trick William Rodriguez

into admitting it during a subsequent conversation.

 

The project has now been compromised as a result of a blabbermouth on the 9/11 truth circuit, the identity of which remains unknown, that spilled his guts to the Post's debunker in chief Richard Johnson, but the net effect will probably only raise the film's profile.

 

Details of the film leaking early, along with the Post being mandated to report on the comments of Rosie O'Donnell, could only make the entire project and 9/11 truth in general go supernova.

It's all about to get very interesting people!

 

The mainstream media are going to have to childishly smear people like never before.

If you honestly think for a moment that 9/11 was an inside job your completely insane and should not be allowed to reproduce for the good of humanity.

Wow, a third response from you with a take on my sanitiy this time...

 

I'm "completely insane" and "should not be allowed to reproduce for the good of humanity".

 

Well, whatever gets you to sleep at night.