Monday, May 31, 2010

Bill Hicks on JFK: Two Critical lessons for the Citizens of the USA


[Language warning]

The two points being made here are vital ones:

1.) Think for yourselves- believe in scientific facts and common sense,
2.) Don't get brainwashed by trivial entertainment and miss out on what's really going on out there.

The country has been taken way from you, and it's time to wake up and start thinking independently.

Related Info:

Alex Jones interviews Jim Marrs about JFK, the parallels to 911, JFK the Directors cut, and what went into the making of the movie

The Kennedy Assassination - Jim Marrs Interviews Doug Horne

Debunk This! Part 6: J.F.K Conspiracy - Second Shooter

Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura, Season 2 Episode 5 (JFK) 4 PARTS

SacredCow.com - Bill Hicks

The History Channel: JFK and 9/11

Jim Garrison's (Kevin Costner's) Closing Argument / Final Speech - JFK

The JFK Assassination Autopsy Cover-up; Only One Picture is telling the Real story here:

This should be a laugh...

Friday, May 28, 2010

NORAD and NORTHCOM proudly display their token



This is so sickening...

NORAD, U.S. NORTHCOM dedicate 9/11 memorial
http://www.afspc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123206005
The North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command commemorated a new 9/11 memorial during a ceremony at the commands' headquarters May 18.

The memorial, featuring a steel beam recovered from the World Trade Center donated by the National Homeland Defense Foundation, stands near the entrance of the NORAD and U.S. NORTHCOM headquarters building.
This is like building a giant statue outside the Rockefeller Foundation headquarters of Hitler doing this ...



... as an Auschwitz memorial!

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Molten Steel in the Rubble of the World Trade Centre Collapse = Inside Job


The picture here shows superheated Molten Steel being pulled from the rubble of the World Trade Centre buildings weeks after the collapses.

We know this is steel because other materials such as copper or aluminium exhibiting a yellow or near white colour would be completely liquid. The melting point of copper is 1080 degrees Celsius whilst the melting point of aluminum is only 660 degrees Celsius. The metal in the picture is still plastic even though some of it is well above 1000 degrees Celsius.

You are looking at building steel that has been heated to an extraordinary temperature in a rubble pile that had neither the fuel or air requirements to do so. For instance in a forge, that heats iron to a red hot appearance, we require a sea of hot coals wherein the iron is submerged. Air is pumped in into this mass to increase the temperature. The problem here is that the rubble pile was not a sea of coals and according to official reports, it presented conditions that were described as "oxygen poor"[US DELTA Study Group].

The ONLY other way of heating steel to such a high temperature here would necessarily require the use of large quantities of explosive incendiary materials. The building fires could never cause such melting and neither could later conventional fires in the rubble pile.

The reports of superheated metals seen throughout the rubble must be taken seriously and the implications recognised. Just from this evidence alone it would appear that large sections of the World Trade Centre Buildings were subjected to the actions of incendiary devices.

Most damningly, analysis of the slag from the steel and also from previously molten iron spheres (which were found all throughout the dust) has revealed the signature of the incendiary Thermate.

This smoking gun scientific evidence shows that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were subjected to large quantities of thermite-type incendiaries confirming that the collapses were not natural fire induced events. 911 was an Inside Job.

Related Info:

9/11 - Ground Zero Molten Metal Confirmed

The Un-Debunkable Molten Metal

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Debunking JayBlack12100

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog recently posted the following two videos from "JayBlack12100".





As to the first video, here is much more in-depth review of Ryan's presentation, which debunks the notion that he is the one guilty of dishonesty.

Here is a video putting the 9/11 fires in perspective.



The second video omits the forensic evidence cited in Gage's presentation, which has now helped to convince over 40 structural engineers and 60 aerospace engineers, nearly 1,200 other architectural and engineering professionals, as well as almost 8,200 other petition signers, including metallurgists, physicists, scientists, explosives experts and demolition contractors.

But never mind all of them since Jowenko disagrees about the Towers.

As I've noted before, he does not think the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition due to their unconventional nature, but as the website 911review.com has pointed out:

A demolition that is planned as part of a covert operation to fit a narrative of events that attributes the total destruction of the building to a different cause (such as a jetliner crash and consequent fires) has a very different set of requirements than a demolition that is planned to legally remove a building in an urban setting.
And as 911blogger.com user "stallion4" has noted:

The towers weren't conventional demolitions. They were "top down" demolitions, which are rare in the professional demolition industry...

Building 7 was a classic demolition job -- bottom up -- the type of demolition that Danny Jowenko is qualified to give his professional opinion on.
Despite claims to the contrary, Jowenko has remained quite sure WTC 7 was a demolition. Perhaps the more conventional nature of WTC 7's demolition can be explained by evidence that indicates 10:45 a.m. was the originally planned demolition time.

Here is why Gage doesn't include the collapse of WTC 7's penthouse in his presentation, and here are two videos that put squibs, fires, explosions, demolitions, collapses, crushdowns and the World Trade Center in perspective:



Sunday, May 23, 2010

The Physics of WTC 7





About a month ago I had a debate with several debunkers at once about the collapse of WTC 7. In particular, we debated about the period of free fall that occured during the collapse. Here are some of the more memorable responses I got from them:

"I'm still gonna say wiping out 30 meters of supports is too fucking obvious for a secret op." -Weirdo10o4
(Apparently it wasn't that obvious, as NIST needed a high school teacher to point it out to them.)

"consider that I can roll a bowling ball down a long flight of stairs. As it rolls down the stairs, it spends time in free fall--between each stair" -EdgemanLL2
(The very obvious difference of course is that when a ball rolls down the stairs, nothing is removed and the ball only free falls for a few inches. Building 7 was in free fall for about 100 feet, or 1/6 of its height.)

"It wouldn't need to give up any of its energy to buckle or crush anything." -CaptMandrake360
(I almost didn't even know how to respond to that.)

The main person I was really debating with was the infamous RKOwens4, who apparently thinks that NIST actually predicted the period of free fall.

"The only point I'm trying to make is that NIST DID predict it and DOES have an explanation for the 2.25 seconds of free-fall. So don't go around saying, 'The 2.25 second free-fall came as a total surprise to NIST' or 'NIST can't explain why the building fell at free-fall for 2.25 seconds.'
As I said, the NIST report on WTC7 actually PREDICTED a 2.25 second free-fall of WTC7, due to the buckling of 8 floors near the base of the building."
-RKOwens4

I wasn't entirely sure how Mr. Owens came to this conclusion, as there was nothing about the building entering into free fall in NIST's draft report and, as mentioned above, David Chandler was the one who had to point it out to them. But perhaps he believes NIST's calculations did predict the free fall and NIST was just simply unaware of it. This seems unlikely though, when one looks at the differences between the Draft Report and the Final Report:

The Draft Report stated:
"The collapse time of the upper 18 floors of the north face of WTC 7... was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This is consistent with physical principals." -NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Draft for Public Comment, 610

However, the Final Report states:
"The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7... was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corrosponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below." -NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (Final Report): 607

Note that the phrase "consistent with physical principals" is completely absent from NIST's newer passage. In fact, "consistent with physical principals" appears nowhere in NIST's final report. There is a "consistent with" statement in the final report, but it says nothing about physical principals. After giving its three stage analysis, NIST states: "The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed earlier in this chapter." -NCSTAR 1-9 (Final Report): 603
Basically, what NIST is saying is that its three stage analysis on this page is consistent with its three stage analyses on earlier pages! How nice of NIST to assure everyone that a later part of their report agrees with an earlier part of their report. It's apparently not consistent with physical principals, but it's consistent with their report! In any case, these facts show that there was absolutely no indication prior to publishing their final report that they had predicted free fall at all. It was one thing they said was impossible. However, this too was a detail Mr. Owens disagreed with:

"Can you provide me with a link to where they ever said that any period of free-fall would have been impossible from a fire-induced collapse?" -RKOwens4

I do wonder if Mr. Owens has actually watched NIST's technical briefing.



I also briefly discussed how the fires could not have been hot enough to cause the collapse in the first place. Mr. Owens was (not surprisingly) unconvinced.

"Now, go read the report and explain to me WHY expanding floor beams pushing the core columns out of alignment was not enough to cause the building to collapse. Tell me why, specifically." -RKOwens4

Specifically, because the fires could not possibly have been as hot as NIST stated to do that.

"raising those five floor beams to a temperature of 600°C would require an enormous amount of energy, far more than was available from the burning of the office furnishings underneath the floor beams." -Kevin Ryan

Debunkers can easily hand wave away Kevin Ryan's statement, as he is a "truther" and therefore has no credibility. But unfortunately for them, even Dr. Frank Greening, a long time debunker, agrees that the fires could not have been as hot as NIST says.

"NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300°C [570°F]--a condition that could never have been realized with NIST's postulated 32 kg/m2 fuel loading." -Dr. Frank Greening

While Dr. Greening does not believe the building was demolished, he does agree that NIST's report is false.

The above three videos are basically my response to these debunkers who feel there was nothing strange about the free fall of WTC 7.

Far from solving the mystery of WTC 7's collapse, NIST has done nothing but created more mysteries. And debunkers have certainly not solved them.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Excuses


But the government couldn't track the location of the planes because the terrorists on 9/11 turned off the transponders!

But NORAD only had 14 fighters on alert and none were at Andrews Air Force Base located 15 miles from the Pentagon!

But NORAD didn't know about Flight 93 until one minute after it already crashed!

But Payne Stewart's plane wasn't intercepted for over an hour!

Why not just blame it on the war games? I guess the detriment of charges of intentionally being stalled outweighed the benefit of a legitimate excuse.



"There is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.'" - Capt. Daniel Davis, Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal

Saturday, May 22, 2010

The State Department Debunked!

Cass Sunstein has been hard at work I see. I haven't laughed so hard since Bin Laden went green. It seems an actual government website has a conspiracy theory debunking section. America.gov, a State Department website, has a Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation section, including an article on 9/11. This site really is the ministry of truth personified. It's the usual BS we've come to expect from debunkers, there's almost no point going though it, but I will anyway because I need to take a break from making my video about state child abuse.

The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories

Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most popular myths are:
Right from the beginning they spin it. There are not "Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories", there are numerous pieces of Evidence. They always use the word theory, they never use the word Evidence.

1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:
Ahh, the good old appeal to authority. 1200 independent Architects and Engineers aren't credible, but our few experts who have a vested interest in defending the official story are. They're credible because we say so. So shut up!



Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
Strawman. We've never claimed the demolition of the twin towers was a conventional controlled demolition. The statement is also completely false. Controlled demolitions can be initiated anywhere.



Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
"Non-experts claim", Haha. Could the propaganda get any more obvious?! Anyway, they're talking about the squibs here which seems to be the only feature of the demolitions the mainstream debunkers focus on. Popular Mechanics and the BBC only talked about the squibs as well. Perhaps because the squibs provide the least conclusive evidence for demolition. All the other features are much harder to refute, therefore they simply ignore them. Sometimes I wonder if some of the explosives were actually intentionally mistimed to provide them with a strawman.

Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded signs of any explosions prior to the tower collapses. Instead, seismic spikes were noted when debris began hitting the ground.
Well that's debatable, but again, the seismic stuff is a distraction from more conclusive evidence.

Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.
Not if you control the security and have a cover story. That's the point. That's why demolition implies inside job. This is also a logical fallacy: "We can't possibly imagine how a covert demolition could be pulled off, therefore we are going to deny all the evidence that proves a covert demolition was pulled off."

Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
What should they have found, a load of wires? We're talking about skyscrapers with miles of network cabling! It wouldn't have been hard to disguise the wires, if indeed there were any. The explosives could have been, and probably were, detonated wirelessly.

The officials may not have found any of the "telltale signs" of demolition but independent scientists have, some of the actual explosive itself has been found in dust samples.

For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article (PDF, 56 K) on the WTC collapses, the March 2005 Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5, “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers,” and the video 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.
Now that's odd. They link to a video by RKOwens4. What's the State Department doing linking to some guy's YouTube video?! Unless ... I'll leave it to you to fill in the blanks there ;).

2) No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11. Instead, it was a missile fired by elements “from inside the American state apparatus.”

Conspiracy theorists making this claim ignore several facts:

• The remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA.

• The flight’s black boxes were also recovered at the site.

• Numerous eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Some saw passengers through the plane’s windows. Missiles don’t have windows or carry passengers.

• Numerous photographs show airplane debris at the crash site, as was also witnessed by survivors and rescue personnel.

I agree with all of this.

Friday, May 21, 2010

The Military Mindset



One response that comes up time and time again from people who are suffering from cognitive dissonance with regards to 9/11 is the disbelief that the US military would be so evil as to attack thousands of innocent civilians. Most people who give this response obviously don't put much thought into the military mindset.

A few days ago, me and my friends were talking about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, which I personally believe was the worst single event in human history. 50,000 innocent Japanese civilians were killed instantly and hundreds of thousands more died of radiation poisoning.



We were wondering what it must have been like to be the crew of the Enola Gay - what they must have felt, how they dealt with it etc. Did they ever think to themselves "This is wrong" and consider disobeying their orders?

Today, a Guardian article answered some of those questions. They went and interviewed the last surviving crew member. Theodore Van Kirk, now 89, was the navigator aboard the Enola Gay.

The article rightly points out that he and the others should not be blamed for the bombing, as they were simply acting on Truman's orders...

It would be wrong to hold Van Kirk, now 89, in any sense responsible for the extreme human suffering that the bomb caused. As Harry Truman, the president who ordered the dropping of the bomb, told Tibbets when they met in 1948: "I'm the guy who sent you. If anybody gives you a hard time about it, refer them to me."

However that is kind of the main problem with our society. Police, security and military officials will often do things they know to be wrong but rationalize it by pointing out that they are "just following orders". We saw this at the G20 in Pittsburgh - all the militarized police who were imposing total martial law were "just following orders". In Nazi Germany, most of the men who served Hitler were "just following orders", that's how this typically works. What's especially frustrating is the fact that if these people ever grew a pair and disobeyed their orders, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But the military mind control essentially robs alot of people of their humanity and thus makes the morally right choice inconceivable to most of them. The dehumanization can be summed up by this quote from the article:

Van Kirk says he never lost a night's sleep over Hiroshima. Such lack of anguish is testament, as he says himself, to the training that he received in the US air force that shielded its pilots from introspection. It is testament too, perhaps, to the ability of man – and all 12 crew members of the Enola Gay were men – to compartmentalise extreme events and emotions and thereby neutralise them.

It's interesting how the article said it was an "ability of man". Really, there's nothing human about it. 'Robots' is the word I would have used. Now I'm not attacking these guys, far from it. It would be extremely disrespectful of me to slag off World War II veterans so I'm not going to. I'm just highlighting this as a pretty blatant example of mind control. I feel sorry for them.

This is the power of military indoctrination. A quarter of a million innocent deaths and no real emotional response. If people are capable of that, 3,000 people on 9/11 is insignificant in comparison. It is entirely possible that 9/11, just like any other military operation, was largely carried out by people "just following orders"; people with the same military mindset as the otherwise well-intentioned men who served Hitler and the otherwise well-intentioned men who flew the planes and dropped the bombs on Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Google Books: Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory


Click here to read some of the book for free on Google Books. Much more of the content can be accessed by using the "search in this book" box located on the left-hand side. For instance, the search query "NIST" yields 34 viewable pages.

Note: I strongly disagree with some of Griffin's research, such as his analysis of the phone calls from the planes on 9/11 and the Pentagon crash. However, his book does an excellent job in regard to the destruction of the WTC Towers and lack of air defense on 9/11.

A critique of Ryan Mackey's essay: "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Debunking Popular Mechanics?: PM Book Alleges FAA Source For Pre-9/11 Statistical Data; FAA: Such Statistics Do Not Exist.

"Popular Mechanics and the military should get their stories straight on NORAD! As it is, we have caught Popular Mechanics and the military lying about NORAD's true capabilities on 9/11." - Dean Jackson

The NORAD Papers--NORAD's Mission To Monitor and Control Territorial Airspace on 9/11

Excerpt from my article "Foreknowledge and Lack of Air Defense":

The Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths cites an article in a 2002 edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette, which claims that, "Before September 11, the only time officials recall scrambling jets over the United States was when golfer Payne Stewart’s plane veered off course and crashed in South Dakota in 1999."

Popular Mechanics adds, "Except for that lone, tragic anomaly, all NORAD interceptions from the end of the Cold war in 1989 until 9/11 took place in offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). . . . The planes intercepted in these zones were primarily being used for drug smuggling."

But an October 13, 2001 Calgary Herald article reported that before 9/11 fighter jets "were scrambled to babysit suspect aircraft or 'unknowns' twice a week."

As Professor David Ray Griffin pointed out in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, "Twice a week would be about 100 times per year, and 'babysitting' is not what planes would do with jets suspected of smuggling drugs into the country."

Furthermore, a 1994 United States General Accounting Office report on continental air defense states, "Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress."

As the New York City Activist blog pointed out, "Admittedly this is the early 1990′s, not 2001, and the quote is from a report which recommended trimming down the force. But still it casts a lot of doubt on the Popular Mechanics claim that intercepts were a rare occurrence."

And as Griffin points out in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, "In this account NORAD made 379 interceptions per year, 354 of which 'involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft in distress,' not intercepting planes suspected of smuggling drugs. Besides the fact that 1992 was part of 'the decade before 9/11,' it is doubtful that the pattern of interceptions would have changed radically after that."

A Canadian government performance report on their arm of NORAD for 1999-2000, the same period as the Payne Stewart flight, relevant to military operations in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, backs up Griffin’s statements. The report states, "If required, 'unknown aircraft' are intercepted and identified by aircraft dedicated to NORAD. Over the past year, NORAD has intercepted 736 aircraft, 82 of which were suspected drug smugglers…"

While not addressing these reports, Mike Williams of the “debunking” website 911myths.com states, "The Popular Mechanics claim that there was one intercept of a 'civilian plane over North America' in the decade before 9/11 still seems quite absolute, but then that just means it wouldn’t take much to disprove it. Just find a media report of an intercept, an interview with a pilot who was intercepted when they accidentally flew too close to the White House, anything like that... How difficult can it be?"

Being that Williams only provides two examples of other intercepts for comparison on his webpage concerning the Payne Stewart incident, and that he could not find all the information needed to draw firm conclusions on these, he should know that finding any detailed statistics on such matters is difficult.

The aforementioned entry on the New York City Activist blog highlights the following from the 2004 Complaint & Petition to the NY Attorney General (Spitzer at the time) for a new criminal investigation into 9/11:
Also necessary would be data on cases of errant planes or unknowns in which no scramble orders were issued. Of special interest would be the prior performance within NORAD’s Northeastern Air Defense Sector (“NEADS”), which is headquartered at Rome, New York. Such a cumulative analysis–with special attention to cases when passenger planes deviated from course in the air-traffic control zones within which the 9/11 attacks occurred–would provide indispensable context for serious research into the subject of air defense response on September 11. This data is currently unavailable to the public, and there is no indication such an analysis was undertaken by the Kean Commission.
When 9/11 researcher and activist Aidan Monaghan sent a Freedom of Information Act Request to the FAA he was informed that, "...The FAA does not track or or keep information about the request for support of NORAD for intercepting aircraft throughout the National Airspace System."

When Monaghan tried obtaining FOIA information from NORAD he was advised that they are not subject to the FOIA because they are a bi-national organization between the U.S. and Canada.

Perhaps those in government are the ones worthy of the question, "How difficult can it be?"

Read the entire article here.

Related Info:

Debunking 9/11 Myths - Popular Mechanics

The 9/11 Truth Movement has no credentialed experts...

Thursday, May 13, 2010

The Liberal-Conservative Party!



So the UK election resulted in a hung parliament. The Conservatives won the most seats but didn't have enough for a working majority. The UK Independence Party and the British National Party recieved 5% of the total votes between them, but neither party won a single seat due to the screwed up voting system. The Green Party recieved only 1% the total votes, but managed to secure one seat.

After a few days of speculation, David Cameron and the Conservatives agreed to form a coalition with Nick Clegg and the Liberal-Democrats to create what Cameron termed "A Liberal-Conservative Government". So now we have two puppets (both of whom have been compared to Obama) for the price of one. Cameron is Prime Minister and Clegg is his deputy.



On paper these parties shouldn't really be able to find any common ground. They are considered to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and the Conservatives are supposed to be Euroskeptics, while the Lib Dems are the most pro-EU of the lot. The fact that they have now joined forces and are now calling themselves "Liberal-Conservative" just proves the entire left-right system is a sham.

The UK is now on track to becoming a one-party state. Whereas before we had the illusion of democracy by electing middle management teams, pretty soon we're not even going to have that.



Now of course Cameron's euroskeptic persona has always been fake. He promised the British people a referendum on the EU treaty, he broke that promise. Now that he's formed a coalition with the most openly globalist of the three main parties, when he starts to go back on other promises and moves us further into the EU, as I'm certain he will, he'll have an excuse.



Elections really are rather depressing when you know how the world is actually run. I got a chuckle out of this though - when Cameron gave his first speech as PM, he said "It's about making sure people are contro- ... in control" - almost slipping up and saying "It's about making sure people are controlled!"

The most frustrating thing about all this is that even though I've managed to expose the election farce to many of my friends, pretty much all of them are ok with it because they're all for globalization. Nothing I say can convince them that organizations like the EU and the UN are not their friends! I think I'm gonna have to make a video called "Why World Government is Bad!"

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Time To Broadcast The Truth

If you're like me, then you're probably pretty irritated by all the new and pointless features Youtube is adding to their site. They're making it more and more difficult all the time to upload the videos you want to upload. There are so many good videos out there about 9/11 related stuff, and it's a shame we only really have Youtube to post our videos on. I would sometimes think, "There really ought to be a youtube just for 9/11 videos." Well, I've decided to create just that. That's right. My new blog, 911truthtube.blogspot.com, will allow people to upload their 9/11 videos without worrying about Youtube's limitations. All the facts about my site can be read in the top post, and I eagerly await the videos that will be posted.

Related Info:

Rampant Un-American Censorship of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

WTC Free Fall Rebuttal to dprjones

StooBradley
YouTube.com
May 04, 2010

In a recent video dprjones challenged "Truthers" to address his 5 points about the collapse of the WTC towers on 9/11. Contrary to his advice to avoid facts and evidence, here is my rebuttal that offers a more accurate way to measure collapse speeds and a closer look at NIST's methods and conclusions.



References:

Nanothermite Debunking Rebuttal - deRoy

Race With Gravity

9/11: Blueprint For Truth

NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed!

The Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7

WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial

Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report part 1 of 2

Related Info:

Speed of Fall - Twin Towers' Rates of Fall Proves Demolition

Two Seconds That Will Live in Infamy (June 2009 Update)

Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7

My Demolition Company

25% Scooped Out?... I THINK NOT!

Debunking NIST's FAQs

The UK Election Puppet Show [Updated]



In the US, when a party is in power, the other party at least pretends to be opposed to the globalist agenda that the party in power is carrying out. Here in the UK they don't even give us that! The leaders of all three of the major parties (Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat) are blatantly globalist controlled, it's amazing how few people can see it. They're all Pro-EU, they all fearmonger global warming, which even Phil Jones has now admitted hasn't happened in any significant sense for 15 years, and neither the Conservatives or the LibDems oppose Blair and Brown's wars or the growing police state in any serious way. On issues that matter there is virtually no difference between them.

The two big issues in the election debates are the economy and immigration. While there is a fair bit of psuedo-fighting between the parties over these issues, it's all a smokescreen. As long as we're in the EU, we can't really do much about either of these things anyway! All three parties have all broken promises to offer the British people a referendum on EU Treaty, which casts further doubt on how trustworthy they are.

So far there have been two televised debates between the three parties and the third and final one will take place on Thursday. Apparently the smaller parties don't exist according to the organisers of these things, because none of them were invited to take part. Could it be because they're not puppets? We can't have any anti-globalist, libertarian, climate skeptics on TV now, can we?! For an analysis of the first debate see:

Televised election debate another shining example of Britain’s commitment to democracy

A few weeks ago it looked very much like David Cameron and the Conservatives would win. That was until the first debate, which resulted in Nick Clegg, leader of the LibDems, gaining a massive boost in popularity. Britain was hit with "Cleggmania", some newspapers were calling him the British Obama, complete with poster ...



The comparison is certainly justified! They're just throwing it in our faces that he's a puppet. David Icke has written a relatively lizard-free analysis of Nick Clegg and the election in general, which can be read here.

So yeh, over the past week I worked hard to put this video together. It was an absolute bastard to upload though, it kept stopping half way through due to an "unkown error" and when it finally did complete (24 hours later), Youtube processed it wrong and squished it to a standard 4:3 resolution. So I had to add "yt:stretch=16:9" to the tags to fix it. Hopefully it will be spread around and will wake a few people up to the false paradigm. Yesterday I got a nice endorsement from Nufffrespect who found one of my videos and set it as his channel video. I made this video relatively sheeple-friendly with no real talk of conspiracies (I was gonna include some stuff about the Kennedy assassination but couldn't fit it in) and used simple analogies like at the end when I say "It doesn't matter to the globalists which one wins, in the same way it doesn't matter to Simon Cowell who wins The X Factor each year"! I expose the fraud that is 'The War on Terror' with simple statistics, and I included some clips from one of my favourite South Park episodes (Douche and Turd) and one of my favourite Simpsons stories (Citizen Kang), which sum things up quite well!



"It makes no difference which one of us you vote for.
Either way, your planet is doomed... DOOMED!!!"


There's also some stuff about depleted uranium and footage from the Wikileaks video, aswell as footage of a british soldier biting the head off of a live chicken!

Music:
South Park - Douche and Turd
Requiem for a Dream (Paul Oakenfold Remix)

... Yeah okay, I sold out. I used music everyone else uses in their videos. When I first started making videos, I vowed that I would never use O Fortuna, Requiem for a Dream or that music from Matrix reloaded in any of my videos, but I couldn't think of anything else. I didn't have the time to spend weeks surfing the internet trying to find music like I normally do.

-------------------------
UPDATE:

So the election is tomorrow and now it looks as though Cameron is once again the favourite to win. Nick Clegg has seen a drop in popularity after the second and third TV debates and Gordon Brown's 'bigot' comment became a national scandal. Because you know, calling someone a bigot is clearly the worst thing Brown has ever done. Never mind the big brother state, the surrendering of Britain's sovereignty and the crimes against humanity! The scandal seems somewhat staged if you ask me.

In the third debate Clegg and Brown finally pointed out that Cameron's immigration policy would not affect people in the EU, which led to an astonishing piece of truth from the BBC:



Sadly this isn't getting as much attention as it should. Regardless of people's views on immigration, this fact essentially exposes the entire election debate as being a farce.

GlobalResearch has chimed in with their take on the election. In an article entitled Britain's Election: Welcome to No Choice Democracy, Finian Cunningham writes ...

"All three main political parties have said that economic austerity is the necessary tough medicine to cure Britain’s sick fiscal condition. Despite the outrageous aggrandizement of wealth by a tiny elite, the wider public is being told that they will have to pay for the economic crisis through higher taxes and massive cuts in public services.

In an advertently shocking admission of the stranglehold on Britain’s politics, a Financial Times (26 April) front page headline read: “Brutal choices over British deficit”. Its report went on to say: “The next government will have to cut public sector pay, freeze benefits, slash jobs, abolish a range of welfare entitlements and take the axe to programmes such as school building and road maintenance.” In other words: you can vote, but it won’t make a difference – this is how the economy is going to be run as dictated by capital.

Ruled out from the outset, it seems, are imminently sensible and workable options, such as taxing the super-rich whose combined wealth is more than twice than of Britain’s budget deficit, or immediately ending budget-draining criminal wars of foreign occupation."


The key point is this, What's the point of debating immigration if we have our doors open to the whole of Europe? What's the point of debating economics when we are spending enormous amounts on these illegal wars and are sending billions of pounds a year to the EU? What's the point of debating what to do about a slight increase in global temperature, when we are contaminating parts of the world with deadly radioactive material with a half-life of billions of years? - The whole thing is a blatant sham!

David Cameron has made some interesting statements recently. In the third election debate, he said that he 'can guarantee' that he 'would never join the euro'. He also promised recently that he would relax the Big Brother state. Nice pledges Dave ... shame I don't believe you! Considering how well his last 'cast iron guarantee' held up, I don't have much faith in the new promises from the Queen's fifth cousin twice-removed!

Not that I really care much about the currency we have now. Frankly, I'd rather not have to look at the ugly mugs of Queen Elizabeth and Charles Darwin whenever I draw money out the bank!



At the end of my video I compared the election to Simon Cowell's reality show / social engineering tool / crime against music, The X Factor. Today Cowell got political and wrote a lengthy sermon for the Sun, endorsing Cameron over his good buddy and number 1 fan, Gordon.

"I don't believe a General Election is the X Factor." - Simon Cowell

Really? ... A staged puppet show followed by a pointless vote, the result of which benefits the puppet masters no matter who wins ... Sounds alot like the X Factor if you ask me!

I really hate celebrity endorsements. I am reminded of that disturbing "I Pledge" video that was circulated in the run up to Obama's inauguration.

The fact that Cameron is the favourite is somewhat encouraging as it shows people are at least subconsciously aware of the problems. Cameron is definitely the least openly globalist of the three candidates, and he does appear to be better than Gordon Brown (which isn't difficult). Then again, Obama appeared to be better than Bush. It's the same old psy-op. Cameron is even using Obama's "Change" slogan.



I guess only time will tell whether or not I'll have to make a video called "The David Cameron Deception"!

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

More Discrediting by Association

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog asks the rhetorical question "How Indeed Could We Think of the Truthers As Kooks and Weirdos," pointing to these articles posted on 911blogger.com yesterday.

Photobucket

An anonymous commenter on Pat's blog first made note that above the 911blogger post in question it is clearly stated:

Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it.
This person then pointed out how one comment at 911blogger called Webre a crackpot and how none of them were supportive in any way (exluding Webre's comments, which were supportive of himself). This was also the case, with only one exception, when Pat's Jedi nemesis Jon Gold posted a warning on 911blogger a year ago to "Be Aware Of Disinformation Being Promoted By Alfred Webre."

Pat's anonymous contributor closed his comment, stating:

How sad, and how opportunistic to lift this out of context as if Webre has any following. Obviously, Pat will latch on to anything. Actually, this goes to the core of what SLC is about: focus on the fringe: enlarge, then present as the whole.

In fact, this is what MSM does as well. Interviews with the 9/11 family members? First responders? Survivors? Let's not go there.

Too transparent.
One of Pat's regulars, "Billman," chimed in stating that the above commenter almost made a good point but was nullified, because as Pat noted, David Ray Griffin co-authored a memorandum with Webre suggesting 9/11 treason trials to Congress.

As Victoria Ashley has pointed out on 911blogger before, this is the tactic of discrediting by association, "which Griffin often walks right into."

I do not agree with all of Griffin's choices, or research, but I know one thing, it's easier to attack his credibility than it is to debunk his good work.

Bin Laden "Living Comfortably in Iran"

Is there a country you want to invade? Can't get those pesky free-thinking citizens to agree? No problem, we've got just the thing to you! It's called Feathered Cocaine - The Bogeyman Reviver! Guaranteed to resurrect your favourite long-dead, face-changing, ex-CIA asset ... or your money back!

Monday, May 3, 2010

They Are the Ones Who Are Not Skeptics

In his post "They Are Not Skeptics," Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog informed his rearders today that we 9/11 skeptics do not fit the bill to be called as such. Here is the intro to Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale's new blog, which refutes this assertion:

Scootle The Anti-Skeptic

December 31, 2010
SkepticDenialism.blogspot.com

Hi I'm Scootle Royale. I'm 20 years old and I'm from Wiltshire in England (The home of Stonehenge).

When I was a young teenager going through secondary school, I was very supportive of the scientific establishment. I was strongly anti-religious, I was pro-globalism, and I genuinely believed the only way to make poverty history was to genocide everyone living in poverty and start again! In the summer of 2007, as I was about to start a university course on the wonders of data-mining, I watched an episode of South Park that completely changed my life. It was called "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" and it was a parody of 9/11 truth. Although the episode was basically a hitpiece, the writers inserted enough points in there to spark my interest in the subject.

Unlike most people however, I took a more neutral approach. I read the Popular Mechanics debunking piece quite early on and at first I fell for it as it seemed very authoritative and credible. When I did deeper research however, I realised that the piece was nothing more than propaganda. It was full of strawman arguments, ad-hominem attacks, arguments of ignorance/incredulity and appeals to authority. The biggest shock I got from studying 9/11 was the revelation that scientists lie! I never really trusted the government or the media, so I had no problem coming to terms with the idea that they were lying about 9/11, but I was very naive when it came to the scientific community. I always thought of it as as an open forum, free from political motivation, religious persecution and corporate control, where anyone can voice their dissent and put forward alternative theories. Oh, how wrong I was!

Most "skeptic" and "anti-denialist" arguments, seem to fit the following template: "9/11 truthers claim ___, science says ___", "global warming deniers claim ___, science says ___", "creationists claim ___, science says ___", "anti-vaxers claim ___, science says ___" etc. What they never seem to understand is that it's the so-called "science" that these groups are questioning! For one thing, it isn't "science" saying those things, it's scientists ... difference! I know the scientific method. I trust the scientific method. What I don't trust is scientific institutions. Investigators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a supposedly credible scientific authority, have been caught commiting so many blatant acts of scientific fraud in their so called "investigations" of the World Trade Center collapses, that it's hard to keep track of them all!

And when you look into other things as well, such as the climate change debate, the vaccine debate, and the intelligent design/evolution debate, you see more examples of fraud and persecution on the part of the scientific establishment. This is why, when it comes to these issues, one needs look at both sides equally from a more neutral perspective, and not invest yourself entirely in one side. I check out the 9/11 debunking sites just as often, if not more often, than I check out the 9/11 truth sites. And they do have alot of good points. They do a good job at debunking things like Pentagon no-jetliner claims and other stuff that I believe the truth movement needs to drop. But when it comes to the forensic evidence of demolition of the three World Trade Center buildings, they're completely full of shit! And again, it's the same story in the other debates.

If I were to sum up my world view in one word it would be "anti-skeptic". I am a skeptic, a true skeptic. But unlike so-called professional skeptics like James Randi, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, the SGU people etc, I don't violate my own rules and commit blatant logical fallacies when it's convenient. It is they who are the real denialists, and I guess that makes me a skeptic denialist!

This is my personal blog. After contributing to the 9/11 debunkers blog for more than a year, I decided to start my own blog so I can talk about things outside the scope of that blog. On this blog I'll discuss all kinds of things, including 9/11, other conspiracies, the Illuminati, mind control, intelligent design and evolution, unexplained mysteries, the nature of reality and other random stuff I find interesting or entertaining, such as music and pop culture.

If you wish to contact me you can do so either through my YouTube account or my Prison Planet Forum account. I'm on these sites pretty much all the time and I check my private messages more often than I check my emails.
___________________________________________________________

Pat does mention one thing that could convince him:





Related Info:

Debunking PseudoSkeptics - CSICOP, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc

Why James Randi, Michael Shermer and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics!

How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression

I have seen the light! [Satire]

Circular Rationalism

JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"

911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!)

Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories