9/11 - The Inside Job **NEW INFO & UPDATES WHEN THEY HAPPEN**

[GazeboflossUK]

wearechange.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://wearechange.org/91107

[Black Rose]

Even if everybody in America were to go on strike, it wouldn't change anything, it will take years if not decades to un-wrap the web of lies so that someone can be held accountable.

 

If they do launch an investigation, they will conclude it was down to the work of one dead man.

[GazeboflossUK]

I doubt all of America will (that would be a major, major event) and nobody expects that - But it's all spreading awareness of key issues that are being ignored.

[GazeboflossUK]

New Evidence that the Official Story about 9/11 is Indefensible

 

David Ray Griffin

The Canadian

Tuesday October 09, 2007

 

 

Early in 2007, Interlink Books published my Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. The stimulus for my writing this book was the appearance in August 2006---just before the fifth anniversary of 9/11---of four publications intended to bolster the official account by debunking the alternative view, according to which 9/11 was an inside job. The most explicit and well-known of these publications was a book by Popular Mechanics entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths.

My book’s introduction and conclusion dealt with the irresponsible way the press, including the left-leaning press, has dealt with this issue. One of their failings, I showed, was simply to accept the official reports --- especially The 9/11 Commission Report and the report on the World Trade Center put out by the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) -- as neutral, scientific reports. They thereby ignored the fact that the 9/11 Commission was run by Philip Zelikow, who was virtually a member of the US. Bush administration, and that NIST is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce and hence of the Bush administration (which has distorted science for political purposes to an unprecedented extent).

 

The book’s four chapters then demonstrated that none of the documents of August 2006 actually served to debunk the claims of the 9/11 truth movement. The first two chapters dealt with two documents---including a new book by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission -- that tried, by creating a completely new story, to debunk the claim that the U.S. military’s failure to intercept four hijacked airliners could have occurred only if there had been a stand-down order. I argued that this new story was too inherently implausible, as well as too contradictory of previous statements by the military, to be worthy of belief.

 

The third chapter dealt with NIST’s reports on the Twin Towers, showing that they are political, not scientific, documents, because they ignore all evidence not consistent with NIST’s theory, such as testimony showing that massive explosions had occurred and that steel had melted---even though the fires could not have gotten even close to the temperature needed to melt steel (which means that there had to have been another source of energy).

 

The fourth and longest chapter dealt with the Popular Mechanics book, which discusses all the issues (the failures to intercept, the WTC, the Pentagon, and United 93). My critique showed this book to be filled with distortions and outright lies. Although the Popular Mechanics book has been used as the basis for two TV specials intended to bolster the official story---one on the BBC and one on the History Channel in the USA (which is partially owned by the Hearst Corporation, which puts out Popular Mechanics) -- the fact that the public is increasingly seeing through this book’s deceptions is shown by recent reviews on Amazon.com.

 

My book, although it has yet to be reviewed by a single mainstream publication in the United States, has been supported by well-respected political commentators from the left and the right. Howard Zinn wrote: “Considering how the 9-ll tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9-ll deserve to be investigated and addressed.” Paul Craig Roberts, who was the assistant secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration, wrote: “Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."

 

My book was even endorsed by a former senior official of the CIA, Bill Christison, who had for the first five years after 9/11, he admitted, studiously avoided looking at the evidence that it might have been an inside job. He called my book “a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official US government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.”

 

Book reviewers in mainstream publications were evidently not moved even by Publishers Weekly. Although it had dismissed my first two books about 9/11 as “ridiculous” and “pure speculation,” it said of Debunking 9/11 Debunking: “All but the most dogmatic readers will find Griffin's evidence -- from the inconsistencies between NORAD tapes and the 9/11 Commission Report to rigorous exploration into the physics of the collapse--detailed and deeply unnerving.”

 

Another source widely used to determine whether a book is worthy of review is Choice, put out by the American Library Association. It has recently spoken, saying: “Griffin exhibits exceptional skill in detailed scholarly analysis. He concludes with a call to the reader, and all of us, to bring these issues into full public discussion and to expose the truth about 9/11, whatever it may be. Indeed, such ‘truth’ has certainly not yet been revealed due to extensive gaps and contradictions in official theories that he documents in detail.” Whether this endorsement will lead to any reviews remains to be seen.

 

In any case, I was motivated to put out the Revised and Updated Edition primarily because of new information about the alleged phone calls from passengers on the flights to relatives, through which reports of hijackers on the airplanes reached the public.

 

In the first edition, I presented extensive evidence that reported cell phone calls from the airliners, including the approximately 10 reported cell phone calls from United 93 (which crashed in Pennsylvania), could not have occurred, because the cell phone technology at the time did not allow calls to be made from airliners flying at a high altitude (Flight 93 was at 34,300 to 40,700 feet when the calls were reportedly made). I argued not that the relatives of the passengers had lied about receiving the calls but that they had been duped---by means of voice morphing, which is now perfected to the point that, advertisers brag, you can fool your spouse.

 

Even after my book appeared, Popular Mechanics continued to claim, on the basis of very weak evidence, that high-altitude cell phone calls were indeed possible (see the History Channel special, “9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction”). However, as I reported in the Revised and Updated Edition of my book, the FBI had in 2006 presented, as evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (sometimes called “the 20th hijacker”), a report on phone calls from the four airliners. According to this report, there were only two cell phone calls from United 93, and they were made at 9:58, shortly before the plane crashed, when it was down to 5,000 feet. When the FBI had to present evidence in a court of law, therefore, it would not claim that any high-altitude cell phone calls had occurred. (These two low-altitude calls from Flight 93 were, according to the FBI report, the only two cell phone calls made from all four flights).

 

The most well known of the reported cell phone calls from Flight 93 were four calls that Deena Burnett reported receiving from her husband, Tom Burnett. She knew that he had used his cell phone, she reported on several TV shows and later in her book, because she saw his Caller ID number. However, as I reported, there are now devices, such as “FoneFaker,” that will produce the person’s Caller ID as well as his or her voice. Deena Burnett and the others, I believe, were not lying; they were duped.

 

The most famous of the reported calls from the flights supposedly came from Barbara Olson, the well-known commentator on CNN who was married to Ted Olson, who was then the US solicitor general. Olson reported that his wife had called him twice from American Airlines Flight 77, stating that hijackers with knives and boxcutters had taken over the plane. Besides providing evidence of hijackers, this call also provided the only evidence that Flight 77 was still aloft (it had disappeared from radar and there had been reports of an airliner crash nearby). Although Olson went back and forth on the question of whether his wife had used a cell phone or an onboard phone, he finally settled on the latter.

 

In the first edition, I challenged this claim on the basis of evidence from American Airlines that their Boeing 757 (which is what Flight 77 was) had no onboard phones. After publishing the book, however, I became worried, because of some new evidence, that that statement from American Airlines, made in 2004, had referred only to their 757s at that time -- that their 757s in 2001 may well have had onboard phones. So I published a retraction, saying that the claim was uncertain.

 

That retraction, however, evoked new evidence, including a statement made by American Airlines in 2006 that their 757s in 2001 had had no onboard phones, so that anyone calling out from Flight 77 had needed to use a cell phone. Barbara Olson, therefore, could not have used a passenger-seat phone. That left open, of course, the possibility that Ted Olson was correct when he said that his wife had used her cell phone.

 

However, the evidence from the Moussaoui trial ruled out this possibility. In its report on AA 77, it listed one attempted call from Barbara Olson, which was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds.”

 

This was an astounding discovery. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. And yet it had undercut the testimony of the DOJ’s former solicitor general, saying in effect that the two calls that he reported had never happened. The implication is that unless Ted Olson had, like Deena Burnett, been duped, he had lied. Although this should have produced front-page headlines, it has thus far not been reported by any mainstream publication.

 

The Revised and Updated Edition of “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” provides the documentation for these reports from American Airlines and the FBI, which pretty thoroughly undermine the idea that any of the reported calls were genuine: If the cell phone calls were faked, why should we believe that the reported calls from onboard phones were genuine?

 

This new edition also contains more quotations from former military officers calling the official conspiracy theory impossible.

 

It also contains a report on Rudy Giuliani’s problematic response to a group of activists who asked him, with camera running, how he knew that the Twin Towers were going to collapse. (He had told Peter Jennings on ABC News on 9/11 itself that he had been warned.) Given the fact that he Giuliani is currently the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, evidence that he had inside information on the collapse of the towers---an event for which there was no historical precedent---should certainly be investigated.

 

This new edition has garnered some further endorsements. I was especially pleased to get one from former CIA case officer Robert Baer (the author of See No Evil, which inspired the movie Syriana), because he had written a critical review of my first book, The New Pearl Harbor. Having more recently, like Bill Christison, become convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, he wrote: "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation--not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture -- we will never know what happened on 9/11. David Griffin will never let this go until we get the truth.”

 

Also, hoping that my new book would be found even more convincing than my earlier ones, I was very pleased to see that John Whitbeck, an international law specialist, had written: “After reading David Ray Griffin's previous books on the subject, I was over 90% convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. Now, after reading Debunking 9/11 Debunking, I am, I regret to say, 100% convinced.”

 

The implications of this conclusion are, of course, enormous. But will you see the evidence for this conclusion discussed in the mainstream press? Don’t hold your breath.

[GazeboflossUK]

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

 

The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

 

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

 

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

 

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

 

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

 

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

 

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.

 

NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner

 

In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building's collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.

 

In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST's investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

 

Quintiere said NIST's conclusions were "questionable", that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.

[GazeboflossUK]

Alleged Trainer Of 9/11 Hijackers a CIA Informant

 

Alleged Trainer Of 9/11 Hijackers a CIA Informant

Sakka attempts to plug holes in 9/11 official story, claims Hanjour did not pilot Flight 77

 

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

 

The man who claims to have trained six of the 9/11 hijackers is a paid CIA informant according to Turkish intelligence specialists, who also assert that Al-Qaeda is merely the name of a secret service operation designed to foment a strategy of tension around the world.

 

In a London Times report, Louai al-Sakka, now incarcerated in a high-security Turkish prison 60 miles east of Istanbul, claims that he trained six of the 9/11 hijackers at a camp in the mountains near Istanbul from 1999-2000.

 

Sakka was imprisoned in 2005 after being caught making bombs that he planned to use to blow up Israeli vessels.

 

Sakka asserts that he is a leading Al-Qaeda operative, having directed insurgency attacks in Iraq and also the beheading of Briton Kenneth Bigley in October 2004.

Some of Sakka’s account is corroborated by the US government’s 9/11 Commission. It found evidence that four of the hijackers – whom Sakka says he trained – had initially intended to go to Chechnya from Turkey but the border into Georgia was closed. Sakka had prepared fake visas for the group’s travel to Pakistan and arranged their flights from Istanbul’s Ataturk airport. The group of four went to the al-Farouq camp near Kandahar and the other two to Khaldan, near Kabul, an elite camp for Al-Qaeda fighters.

 

When Moqed and Suqami returned to Turkey, Sakka employed his skills as a forger to scrub out the Pakistani visa stamps from their passports. This would help the Arab men enter the United States without attracting suspicion that they had been to a training camp.

"But, as with many things in the world of Al-Qaeda, there might be smoke and mirrors," reports the Times. "Some experts believe that Sakka could be overstating his importance to the group, possibly to lay a false track for western agencies investigating his terrorist colleagues."

 

However, when one considers what other experts have said about Sakka, it appears that his intentions towards "western agencies" are anything but deceptive - since Turkish intelligence analysts concluded that Sakka has been a CIA asset all along.

 

Prominent Turkish newspaper Zaman reported that Sakka was hired as a CIA informant in 2000, after receiving a large sum of money from the agency. This would explain why he was "captured" but then released on two separate occasions by the CIA during the course of 2000.

 

Sakka was later captured by Turkish intelligence but again ordered to be released after which he moved to Germany to assist the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

 

Shortly before 9/11, Sakka was allegedly hired by Syrian intelligence - to whom he gave a warning that the attacks were coming on September 10th, 2001.

 

In his book At the Center of the Storm, former CIA director George Tenet writes, that “a source we were jointly running with a Middle Eastern country went to see his foreign handler and basically told him something big was about to go down.”

 

"This is very likely a reference to Sakra, since no one else comes close to matching the description of telling a Middle Eastern government about the 9/11 attacks one day in advance, not to mention working as an informant for the CIA at the same time. Tenet’s revelation strongly supports the notion that Sakra in fact accepted the CIA’s offers in 2000 and had been working with the CIA and other intelligence agencies at least through 9/11 ," writes 9/11 researcher Paul Thompson, who was also interviewed for the London Times article.

 

Were the alleged "interrogations" of Sakka on behalf of the CIA merely a smokescreen to enable instructions to be passed on? This is certainly the view of Turkish intelligence experts, who go further and conclude that "Al-Qaeda" as a whole is merely a front group for western intelligence agencies used to foment a "strategy of tension" around the world.

 

Is Sakka still in the employ of western intelligence agencies? His apparent effort to plug the holes in the official 9/11 story is fascinating.

According to Sakka, Nawaf al-Hazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the Pentagon. Although this is at odds with the official account, which says the plane was flown by another hijacker, it is plausible and might answer one of the mysteries of 9/11.

 

The Pentagon plane performed a complex spiral dive into its target. Yet the pilot attributed with flying the plane (Hani Hanjour) “could not fly at all” according to his flight instructors in America. Hazmi, on the other hand, had mixed reviews from his instructors but they did remark on how “adept” he was on his first flight.

Exactly how "adept" one has to be to pull off maneuvers that would be impossible for veteran crack fighter pilots is not explored in the Times report.

 

 

RELATED: Flight School Head Admits Neither He Nor 9/11 Hijackers Could Fly 9/11 Planes

[GazeboflossUK]

Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.

 

Cossiga was elected President of Italian Senate in July 1983 before being winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.

 

Cossiga's new revelations appeared last week in Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera: TRANSLATION

"[bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now

know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad

with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."

Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals - he can't be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

[huntjd]

CIA likey. Mossad not so likely. I don't see what Israel stood to gain from supposedly planning 9/11, and as a jew refuse to believe Israel would knowingly kill jews.

[GazeboflossUK]

Americans could kill Americans....

 

But Jews could not kill Jews?

 

 

Anyway....this isn't a "Jew" issue......it's a "bad people" one. And there are bad Jewish people, as well as bad British, bad American, bad Russian - there's bad from everywhere.

 

I don't think these people necessarily see their own people as "off limits" when it coming to killing. They don't care who it is - as long as it's not themselves.

 

Hitlers war killded 22,000,000 People.

 

Under MAO TSE TUNG 60,000,000 peasants where killed in China.

 

300,000 inocent people killed in Guatamala..

 

Over 2,000,000 people killed by the government in Cambodia..

 

1,500,000 in Turkey..

 

In Unganda 300,000 People

 

More than 800,000 hacked to death in Rwanda.

[bart]

http://www.myspace.com/occupation101

 

Unsure if anyone has seen this film. I went to watch it at a film festival recently whilst I have been in Lisbon.

 

The Festival it self is coming to London

 

http://www.myspace.com/occupation101

 

I was not too shocked of what was reported however it was still very sad to see.

[GazeboflossUK]

We Are Change UK - 9/11 Questioned in European Parliament

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smzZFmI5lt4

 

http://www.wearechange.org.uk/

 

Members of We are Change UK were at the European Parliament in Brussels to watch the Premiere of Zero, a new film that questions the official version of events on 9/11. A panel of guests were in attendance to answer questions before and after the film. These included David Ray Griffin, Yukisha Fujita MP and Giullietto Chiesa MEP.

 

David Ray Griffin is one of the leading authors on 9/11, having written 6 books on the subject. His newest book looks at the 25 largest contradictions in the 9/11 Commission Report.

 

http://www.amazon.com/11-CONTRADICTIONS-Letter-Congress-Press/dp/1566567...

 

Yukihisa Fujita is a Japanese opposition MP who recently questioned the Japanese Prime Minister about outstanding questions regarding 9/11. This was televised on national television reaching an audience of millions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq4_07FmCyA

 

Giullietto Chiesa is an Italian MEP and journalist. He is one of the producers of the film Zero and was responsible for the screening in the European Parliament.

 

www.zerofilm.it

[GazeboflossUK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtPC0W4HII8

 

Criminal conspirator, Larry Silverstein, who “earned” $4.6 billion on the murder of 3,000 people on September 11, 2001, refuses to answer questions about the destruction of Building Seven.

 

Silverstein is obviously telling lies - why does he fail to answer the questions? Does he actually think anyone can seriously believe a word he says?!?!

 

Criminal.

[Black Rose]

The Conspiracy Files

 

9/11 - The Third Tower

 

An investigation into the final mystery of 9/11: a third tower at the World Trade Centre, which along with the Twin Towers, also collapsed that day. But this skyscraper was never hit by an aeroplane. The 47-storey tower collapsed seven hours after the first two, and has become the subject of heated speculation - and a host of conspiracy theories - suggesting it was brought down by a controlled demolition.

 

Nearly seven years on, the eagerly awaited final official report on the World Trade Centre will be published in July. Official investigators are expected to conclude that fire caused the collapse of this third tower at the World Trade Centre - but that would make this the first and only skyscraper in the world to collapse solely due to fire.

 

The Conspiracy Files explores the many unanswered questions in an attempt to find out what happened, and why some people think there was a sinister plot to destroy the building.

 

BBC 2, 21:00.

 

Might be worth watching (although I doubt it will explain the truth, just spin the lies more)

[GazeboflossUK]

Might be worth watching (although I doubt it will explain the truth, just spin the lies more)

 

Indeed it did.

 

The one-hour BBC program The Third Tower should have a positive effect on spreading the truth about what happened to WTC 7. Despite its attempt to debunk by twisting and omitting facts, there is much to cheer about.

 

Here are 30 examples of information from the program:

 

1) There is a WTC 7, many have never heard of it.

 

2) No plane hit WTC 7.

 

3) WTC 7 fell down.

 

4) Several videos of WTC 7 falling down are shown.

 

5) The collapse is compared visually to a controlled demolition.

 

6) Barry Jennings tells of hearing multiple explosions in WTC 7.

 

7) Barry Jennings was told while in WTC 7 "Get out of there, get out of there now", which sounds very suspicious.

 

8) Barry Jennings' time-line is not contradicted by anything Barry Jennings says.

 

9) After seven years, no final report on the collapse of WTC 7 has appeared.

 

10) The program will generate sales and Internet hits of 'Loose Change'.

 

11) The program will help raise the profile of Dylan Avery, Richard Gage, and Steven Jones.

 

12) The profile and web hits for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth will be raised.

 

13) New experts not well known are introduced, including Scott Grainger and Kamal Obeid of http://www.ae911Truth.org.

 

14) WTC 7 housed offices of the CIA, Secret Service, Department of Defense, and the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management.

 

15) WTC 7 was the only steel-framed building ever alleged to fall from fire damage.

 

16) All the steel from WTC 7 was taken away to be melted down.

 

17) One large piece of partially evaporated steel from WTC 7 was saved and is shown.

 

18) Thermal maps showing temperatures greater than 700 degrees Celsius five days after 9/11 are shown. Water poured over the area is shown.

 

19) Despite protests that fire took down WTC 7, little fire is shown in the program.

 

20) In the early morning of 9/11, the alarms in WTC 7 were placed on test status, meaning all fire alarms to WTC 7 would be ignored. One alarm went off, but since the alarms were on test, the location of the fire could not be pinpointed.

 

21) Steven Jones explains the evidence for thermite.

 

22) Dylan Avery has a great put-down of Richard Clark -- a classic, blunt, and to the point call-out.

 

23) The BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened.

 

24) The BBC claims that they put one of their most valuable media tapes, the day of 9/11, on the wrong shelf, with no evidence to back it up.

 

25) Larry Silverstein is quoted as saying "pull it." While the most important part of the quote ("and we watched the building collapse") is edited out, the full quote is widely available and well-known.

 

26) Mark Loizeaux is quoted as saying; "I'd make a great terrorist."

 

27) Scientific tests on steel beams with fires hotter than in WTC 7, didn't cause collapse.

 

28) The issue of skyscraper safety and building codes, assuming WTC 7 really fell from a fire, is breached.

 

29) Daniel Jowenko is quoted saying WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

 

30) A video (with audio) of a loud explosion that occurred in between the collapses of the North tower and WTC 7 is played.

 

Conclusion:

 

Many of these facts were included in the BBC trailer, and most were included near the beginning of the program. Since more people watch the trailer than the actual program, and many people start watching a program, but never finish, these facts are, in effect, emphasized.

 

Because the BBC has confirmed on national TV many facts long advocated by the 9/11 Truth movement, The Third Tower may accelerate the slow, controlled demolition of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

[GazeboflossUK]

THIS VIDEO INTERVIEW NEEDS TO BE WATCHED.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwvxt3_k7WM

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-nrEdJ7XaE

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WgJ40xf_Sw

 

After locating Barry in mid 2007, Jason and I visited him and he graciously granted us an interview during a lunch break. He had agreed to grant us an interview under the conditions that we, at no time, associate his interview with his place of employment.

 

Jason and I were so thrilled with the content of the interview that we decided to release a few bits and pieces.

 

A few months later, as the film was nearing completion, I called Barry again to touch base and see how things were going. It took him a bit to remember who I was, but as soon as he did, he began complaining about phone calls to his place of employment and that he was in danger of losing his job. He requested to have his interview pulled from Loose Change: Final Cut, and I honored his request.

 

Fast forward to February, 2008, where I'm doing an interview with the BBC, and I'm informed by their crew that Barry told them the reason he asked for it to be pulled was because of the article on Prisonplanet claiming he was stepping over dead bodies, which he denies saying. I call Barry to attempt to rectify the situation, and he is adamant that he did not use the phrase "we were stepping over people"

 

Fast forward one more time to two days ago, when the BBC piece finally aired. I now feel an obligation to release his interview, in its entirety, into the public where it belongs for three reasons:

 

1) To see the difference between the interview he gave us, and the interview he gave the BBC.

 

2) To establish Barry's timeline in his own words.

 

3) To preserve his testimony, in his own words, for the historical record.

 

I have remained true to my word and kept his interview out of the film, however, I can no longer keep it from the public. They deserve to hear Barry's story, out of his own mouth.

 

As I say in the end of the video, I would appreciate it if Barry could enjoy his privacy and live his life in peace. My intention with releasing this is so his story can be told, not to cause him any further grief or suffering.

[josef kay]

thanks for all those fantastic links and i do love a good conspiracy but i watched a program that blew loose changes so called facts out of the water one by one,great thread mate,just started reading and watching so may change my mind but it will be good watching along the way thank you

[Tnspieler1012]

It's a bogus staging of the question to say the government is 100% honest or it's operated by the devil's minions.

 

In any case, it's depressing how many people go along with these bullshit conspiracy theories.

[coldplay_is_louve.]

i don't believe our government set up the 9/11 attacks, but i do believe they knew about it.

 

bush was 'conveinently' on vacation in texas when they happened. :dozey:.

 

AND DID YOU SEE HIS REACTION?! HIS FACE WAS BLANK.

 

sorry to anyone who likes him, but i can't stand that asshole.

[GazeboflossUK]

In any case, it's depressing how many people go along with these bullshit conspiracy theories.

 

You need to get with it.

 

This thing is not going away. There's enough evidence - but it's just breaking the major points into the mainstream.....it's happening through the growth of alternative media.

 

We are smart, we are organised and have the backing of some highly respected & educated people.

 

The new NIST report on World Trade Center Building 7, for example, is a complete laugh a minute - they have lied so much that it's barely even a struggle to catch them out anymore. However - the criminals in your country don't seem to care anymore and seem more arrogant than ever - it's frightening.

 

Don't get burned.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Larry Silverstein, how did he make 4.6 billion of 911?

[UrbanBuckeye33]

Why don't you respect the lives of our citizens man? I don't cry conspiracy when your citizens die. If you think the USA is moving toward a dictatorship, then you know NOTHING about how our government works. Why don't you spend all of your precious free time researching the history of our government if you want to actually use your time wisely. I am sick of people from other countries calling this a conspiracy when they have no emotional tie to it.

 

Our government is not powerful enough to cover this one up. President Bush, though not a good president, is a good and religious man who would not kill this many people for personal gains. Just watch, he will step down in January without a fight, not some struggle to dictatorship. Crack open a history book instead of surfing the internet. Jeez, you people are easily swayed by "evidence" found on the internet.

[GazeboflossUK]

Your argument is pathetic. And your country, along with many others, is being covered with a blanket of pure despotism.

 

I do respect the lives of your citizens. That is why I am fighting alongside many thousands of them to separate the lies (disinfo) from the truths to clearly show the true conspiracy of 9/11. (And not the conspiracy put out by the government).

 

I have studied the history of your government and your founding fathers warned that governments always go rogue if the people do not keep them in check - and that is exactly the case today.

 

And what are you on about when you talk about "no emotional tie"??!!??

I think seeing thousands of innocent people murdered live on TV in such a horrid way entitles me to an emotional tie - how self important are you??!!

 

I certainly do not believe George W Bush was in any way made aware of the true inner workings of the operation. He gets told what to say and he says it - and he can't even manage that properly sometimes - so I highly doubt he would have even been told enough to say anything.

 

And your final comments of being "swayed" by "information found on the internet" ---- are ridiculous. The information has came from, tapes, documents, TV, speeches, scientific test (yes, remember that thing called science) and from many other areas. All looked at by hundreds of experts in their fields.

 

The comments you have made only suggest that you have been sold the official version and get your information from the mostly corrupt, corporate media - who are compromised in such a way that telling the truth would lose their owners money.

 

Stop hiding from the blatant truth - and learn to think for yourself.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Why don't you respect the lives of our citizens man? I don't cry conspiracy when your citizens die. If you think the USA is moving toward a dictatorship, then you know NOTHING about how our government works. Why don't you spend all of your precious free time researching the history of our government if you want to actually use your time wisely. I am sick of people from other countries calling this a conspiracy when they have no emotional tie to it.

 

Our government is not powerful enough to cover this one up. President Bush, though not a good president, is a good and religious man who would not kill this many people for personal gains. Just watch, he will step down in January without a fight, not some struggle to dictatorship. Crack open a history book instead of surfing the internet. Jeez, you people are easily swayed by "evidence" found on the internet.

 

Not dictatorship, but something close. We've lost too many freedoms and the constitution isn't used anymore. I don't agree with Gareth that 9/11 was an inside job, but just a sad event used by politicians to control the masses with fear and unconstitutional laws.

[Arazmire]

My aunt died on september 11, on the floor of impact in the second tower.

And I know how hard it is to accept that our goverment could have actually been behind all of this

But, I'm afraid it is true.

I'm not going to post a bunch of facts or interviews to prove it.

There is no point, the Bush/Cheney administration got what they wanted, and there is nothing we can do about it.

I just hope all 9/11 victims family members know this eventually.

[GazeboflossUK]

Massive news from a few weeks ago.....

 

FACT!!

 

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Centre Catastrophe!

 

 

Check this - http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761

 

Download the FULL scientific documentation from The Open Chemical Physics Journal here - http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

 

 

It's being discussed by scientists around the worldso become aware of it and finally realise that our governments have been hijacked by elite criminals.

 

Niels Harrit and 8 other scientists found nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Centre.

 

He is interviewed on danish TV2 News.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o]YouTube - A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles )[/ame]

 

 

Also - more undeniable science that no credible scientist can refute!

 

This view of the destruction of the South Tower of the World Trade Center displays a remarkable number of features that support the interpretation that it was destroyed by explosives. I want to acknowledge the tremendous service provided by Nate Flach who serves as the defacto "video archivist" for AE911Truth. He is the one who first called this video to my attention, because of the huge number of simultaneous squibs on the west side of the building above the impact point.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_B_Azbg0go]YouTube - South Tower Smoking Guns[/ame]

 

 

Near the end of the video I posted yesterday I pointed out a projectile that changed directions midair while trailing white smoke. After finding that projectile, I looked for it in other videos of the WTC2 collapse. I found a video from a similar point of view to the first (and Nate found me a high-res version of it), except in this video the trail can be followed all the way to the bottom of the collapse. This follow-up video explores the significance of this find.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBVhxnkK6s8]YouTube - South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)[/ame]

 

 

Now run with this....The info may appear so trivial to you but it's extremely important and truly devastating to the official story (which is 100% fraud)

 

There's a news blackout on this in the US and UK - ask yourself why? They can't address it as it's stone cold proof. We can make a difference if people just think about this for more than one minute....