Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Big Three, Part One: Free Fall
I have already responded to this particular part of Mr. Nobles' site, so I will not repeat the arguments here.
The Big Three, Part Two: Collapse Symmetry
This sections deals with the symmetry of the buildings' collapses. Mr. Nobles makes the astounding claim that "there is no actual symmetry observable in the collapses of the three WTC buildings." As we will see, this is simply not true.
He first points out the slight lean that Building 7 exhibited in its collapse.
Although this has already been addressed, it is worth noting that slight leans often happen in controlled demolitions.
There is clearly a difference between this:
And something like this:
He claims there was no "east to west" symmetry to Building 7's collapse either, pointing out that the kink is not in the exact center of the building.
Kinks also often occur in controlled demolitions, and are not always in the center.
The key thing is that the center of Building 7 began to fall before its perimeter, which is a classic characteristic of demolitions. The issue of the east penthouse is problematic enough itself.
He next moves onto the Twin Towers. He claims that since both of the upper sections of the Towers initially tilted, their collapses were not symmetrical. This is absurd. Debunkers have often made special points about the tilts of both WTC 1 and WTC 2. While the tops did initially tilt, it is important to note what happens to the bottom sections of the buildings. As soon as the collapses begin, all four sides of the lower sections of the Towers are wiped out symmetrically in a top down fashion. The tilts therefore create a problem for the official story. The collapses started out asymmetric, but what followed was a top down symmetrical collapse of the lower structures.
It is clear that the collapses became more symmetrical as they progressed. Any natural collapse would have become less symmetric as it progressed. To claim that no symmetry was observable in the collapses of these three buildings is simply nonsensical.
The Big Three, Part Three: Total Destruction
In his third part, he claims that the destruction of the three WTC buildings was not total. He starts out by trying to say that Zdeněk Bažant's papers have not been refuted, and that Bazant himself has refuted the peer reviewed refutations of his work. Anders Björkman has in fact responded to Bažant's response.
In any case, the three points Mr. Nobles makes in regard to the destruction of the buildings are:
■Large sections of the Twin Tower’s core structures left behind after the main portion of the collapse (before they themselves collapsed)
■The sections of perimeter column still standing above the rubble for several floors
■The majority of WTC 7′s still-assembled northern facade draped over the rest of its debris pile
While parts of the cores of both Towers remained standing, this footage shows the remaining core of the South Tower included neither north nor west columns.
And the North Tower's core was almost totally destroyed before it collapsed anyway.
For some reason he feels that the small sections of the perimeter columns standing are worth using as proof the collapses were not total. Of course, these sections would have made up something like maybe 5% of each of the Towers.
The fact that part of Building 7's facade was still assembled to an extent is a small detail in light of the fact that all of the building's structural supports were totally destroyed in the collapse.
Mr. Nobles claims that the buildings "were not totally totally destroyed."
I would agree with this somewhat. The buildings and their structural supports were almost totally destroyed, which is an occurrence that rarely occurs outside of controlled demolition.
Ultimately, the points Mr. Nobles has raised do not disprove the notion that the buildings were demolished. Everything he has cited can occur in other demolitions, so it is misleading to suggest that the observed characteristics of the collapses are not consistent with demolition.
It would also be nice if Mr. Nobles elaborated a little. I'm all ears to whatever points I may have gotten wrong, but I'm not a mind reader Mr. Nobles.
But anyway, he's apparently grateful for the attention.
The only one of my points Mr. Nobles addressed is one that he acknowledges I got right.
I personally don't think Hess's "inflection is clear," but I do know that there are still flaws in the official timeline. First off, the interview occurred "off Broadway by City Hall.” While Broadway itself is fairly close to Building 7, City Hall is quite a bit farther.
Also, Hess's estimation that they were trapped for "about an hour and a half" may have been somewhat conservative, as Barry Jennings stated in his interview with Loose Change that "I was trapped in there for several hours." In any case, if they were trapped for an hour and a half, then they most likely were trapped since 10:00 AM. That is, if they were trapped for an hour and a half and were rescued at 11:30 AM, this would have given Hess enough time to make his way all the way across town to City Hall to give his interview just before noon. A more detailed account of this can be seen in parts 6-9 of my film World Trade Center 7: An Engineered Collapse.
And as I already mentioned in my previous post, Barry Jennings was very clear about what he experienced.
I'm glad you appreciated my mention of you Mr. Nobles. I'm doing that again today and will probably be doing it more in the future.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
I have decided that this argument is invalid because it assumes that controlled demolition causes a building to fall at free fall. This is hardly ever the case. However, this particular argument gave me an idea on how to figure out if the rate of the Towers' collapses was consistent with demolition.
A free fall drop of 15 seconds would be from a height of approximately 3617 feet. The Towers were approximately 1368 feet tall. 3617/1368 = 2.64
Therefore, a 15 second free fall drop would be from a height approximately 2.6 times higher than either of the Towers. Now let's do this with buildings that are all known demolitions.
15 story building. 155 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 3.1 seconds.
Its actual fall time was about 6.25 seconds. How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in that amount of time?
629/155 = 4.05
A 6.25 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.
30 story building. 380 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.86 seconds.
A free fall drop in 7.375 seconds would be from a height of about 875 feet.
875/380 = 2.3
A 7.375 second free fall drop would be from a height of over twice that of this building.
31 story building. 376 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.83 seconds.
A free fall drop in about 10 seconds would be from a height of about 1640 feet.
1640/376 = 4.4
A 10 second free fall drop would be from a height over 4 times higher than this building.
24 story building. Approximately 288 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 4.23 seconds.
A free fall drop in 8.4 seconds would be from a height of about 1139 feet.
1139/288 = 3.95
An 8.4 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.
20 story building. Approximately 240 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 3.86 seconds.
A free fall drop in 6 seconds would be from a height of about 590 feet.
590/240 = 2.45
A 6 second free fall drop would be from a height about 2 and a half times higher than building.
So, to summarize:
(15 story building) 629 ÷ 155 = 4.06 About four times higher
(30 story building) 875 ÷ 380 = 2.3 About two and a third times higher.
(31 story building) 1640 ÷ 376 = 4.4 Almost four and a half times higher.
(24 story building) 1139 ÷ 288 = 3.95 Almost four times higher.
(20 story building) 590 ÷ 240 = 2.45 Almost two and a half times higher.
And for the Towers:
3617 ÷ 1368 = 2.6 About two and a half times higher.
It was seem that, based on the debunkers' own arguments, the Towers evidently did fall in time intervals that would be considered consistent with buildings brought down with controlled demolition. But this is extremely problematic because:
a) Both of the collapses started from the upper sections of the buildings, not the bottoms.
and b) Supposedly no explosives were used to bring the buildings down according to the official story.
The only other example of a steel structured building collapsing from top-down due to fire is the partial collapse of the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. This building was a 13-story structure that burned for over 7 hours. A section of its facade collapsed from the fire. Here's how long it took to collapse.
10 seconds for 13 stories to partially collapse. (13 stories equals approximately 160 feet) How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in 10 seconds?
About ten times taller.
In conclusion, the rate of fall of the Twin Towers appears to be consistent with the rate of fall for buildings brought down with controlled demolition. At the same time, their fall rates are inconsistent with the rate in which other steel framed buildings have fallen top to bottom from fire. So ask yourself, "what is more likely to have destroyed the buildings? Fire or explosives?" You decide.
This is extremely problematic in the case of Building 7.
47 story building. 610 feet tall. Free fall time would be 6.1 seconds.
See: Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7
A free fall drop in 6.6 seconds would be from a height of about 701 feet.
701/610 = 1.1
A free fall drop of 6.6 seconds would be from a height less than 100 feet shorter than the height of Building 7. In other words, NIST would have us believe that fire accomplished something that even explosives don't always accomplish.
Monday, July 26, 2010
"Why would anybody seeking to create a bogus reason to go to war need the Twin Towers to collapse?"
Here is the answer.
Now it's my turn to make an inquiry...
When will "debunkers" stop with the a priori objections and recognize that such arguments are incapable of trumping the peer-reviewed forensic science produced by the 9/11 truth movement?
Anyway, here is his video, and more answers to his questions and objections...
Participants in RAF Shoot-Down Drill of Hijacked Airliner Believed Threat was Real Until Last Minute
RAF jets practise shooting down hijacked down hijacked airliner.
RAF fighter pilots staged a dramatic rehearsal of plans to shoot down a passenger jet hijacked by terrorists.I know it's from The Sun so it may not be 100% accurate but if it is then this is pretty screwed up. I'm guessing the 'target' was just an ordinary passenger plane. If so, what if one of the pilots was a bit trigger happy? This whole thing was run directly by top people in the British government.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Home Secretary Theresa May and Security Minister Dame Pauline Neville-Jones were on stand-by throughout to give the order to open fire.
Two Eurofighter Typhoons armed with cannons and missiles were scrambled from RAF Coningsby, Lincs, to intercept the incoming plane.
Their crews believed the threat was real and were not told it was a practice drill until the last minute.
It has been government policy since the 9/11 terror attacks in America in 2001 to shoot down as a last resort any aircraft posing a threat in UK airspace.
If the RAF cannot make contact or the intruder fails to obey instructions, a senior government figure has to make the chilling decision to blast a packed airliner from the sky.
The exercise was a grim necessity, due to fears that a high-profile event like the London Olympics in 2012 will offer an inviting target for extremists.
John Yates, the Metropolitan Police counter-terror chief, and senior security and military figures were also involved in the operation earlier this month, which was co-ordinated from Whitehall in London.
Prime Minister David Cameron was aware of the dummy run but was not directly involved on the day. Further training missions are expected.
An anti-terror source said: "The aim was to run through the responses needed to confront an aircraft in terrorist hands.
"The inescapable reality is that such an aircraft, even if it was a passenger jet, would have to be shot down if that was the only way to prevent a strike on Britain. It would be agonising for those involved but there would be no alternative. One concern which has to be addressed is that the London Olympics could be targeted.
"A key tactic would be to intercept a suspect plane over the sea. The decision to destroy it would be taken by a senior government minister."
Terrorists hijacked four passengers jets in the US to carry out the 9/11 massacre, which killed 2,976 people.
And British Islamic terrorists are serving life for plotting to blow up transatlantic jets. The source added: "We know that targeting aircraft is an ongoing al-Qaeda priority."
Last night the Home Office confirmed: "Government departments and other agencies took part in a major incident exercise on July 8. It was an important test of contingency plans."
This is how black-ops are carried out - by blurring real world and simulation.
Friday, July 23, 2010
No plane struck the 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper (Building 7).
"Who cares? A meteor didn’t hit it, either. King Kong didn’t use the building to attack Cloverfield. That’s not how the building fell down.
And while no plane struck the building, debris from the collapsing 110-story WTC 1 did":
It shouldn't have to be pointed out anymore, but since they keep bringing it up...
Regardless, the damage has been shown to be less severe than previously thought.
I'm sure Mr. Nobles is well aware that the official story is that fire alone brought the building down, but I find it misleading to still try to use the damage as a viable excuse.
No evidence of fires in Building 7 for the first 100 minutes after being struck by debris from Tower 1. (Yet fire from the debris is the official explanation for building collapse.)
"And then there was plenty of evidence of fires for the next 321 minutes the building burned."
I agree on this to an extent, but the question is if the fires were severe enough to cause collapse in the first place. And truthers and debunkers have said NIST is simply wrong on their temperature calculations.
"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
"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
Mr. Nobles closes this argument with the following:
"If Mr. Deets has an alternative hypothesis for the sources of these fires, he has yet to posit it."
Mr. Nobles, if you have better evidence than NIST that the fires were severe enough to cause the building to collapse, you have yet to posit it.
He also mentions Barry Jennings' testimony about explosions in this part too, and falsely states that he and Michael Hess got out of the building at 12:10 to 12:15.
Jennings was quite clear about what he experienced.
A free-fall drop of 2.25 sec. is finally officially acknowledged. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) lead investigator explained months earlier that, had there been free fall, there would have been no structural components below.
"Yes, and this period of free fall acceleration confirmed the computer modeling already performed by NIST. The building had lost structural integrity over eight floors at that point of the collapse."
This has long been responded to.
Mainstream media quickly transitioned coverage of the building collapse to a “feel good” spin, focusing on the building being vacant when it came down. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings were more candid with their immediate comments, relating it to the familiar demolition of buildings we all well know.
"So? Isn’t it a good thing no one was in the building when it collapsed, Mr. Deets?"
Um... I don't think he was suggesting there was something wrong with no people in the building. His point is that the building appeared to be a demolition to several people. And this includes experts as well here, here, here, here, and here.
No mention of the collapse of Building 7 in The 9/11 Commission Report.
"There’s plenty of mention of the collapse of Building 7 in the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. That’s the actual scientific paper coming from the government on this matter.
Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission Report was about how the attacks took place and the official response to these attacks. Building 7 fell seven hours after WTC 1. Why should the 9/11 Commission Report have mentioned this event? So again, who cares?"
Quite a lot of people care about this and other related issues Mr. Nobles.
The Commission Report was not an engineering report, but they didn't know that fire was the official explanation for its collapse yet. Again, it goes back to assuming that fire brought the building down, which fire has never done before.
The New York Times characterized as “perhaps the deepest mystery in the investigation,” a FEMA-report appendix about a steel specimen recovered from Building 7, rather like Swiss cheese, a product of extraordinarily high temperatures.
"And that mystery has been solved. The specimen is currently at the Worchester Polytechnic Institute. The scientists there have examined the specimen. Its corrosion is due to a eutectic mixture. As the Wikipedia article makes clear, when you hear the term “eutectic” you begin to think “lower temperatures than normal for physical changes,” because that’s what eutectic systems do."
I think this was well addressed in the previous post on the topic.
No mention in the NIST Building 7 Final Report of this mysterious steel specimen.
"There was no way to ascertain where in the building the piece had come from, if it had come from Building 7 at all. NIST had all the specifications for the steel that was used in building WTC 7, and used that extensive documentation to calibrate its computer modeling. Others have studied the actual piece and are on record as saying the damage suffered by this piece was not a factor in the fall of the building."
Actually, it was confirmed that the steel came from Building 7, because Jonathan Barnett pointed out that "They didn't use this particular type of steel in Towers 1 or Towers 2, so that's why we know its pedigree." NIST completely failed to address this steel at all, along with any other actual steel from Building 7.
Mr. Nobles closes with the following:
"Mr. Deets would do best to find another hobby for his retirement years."
Mr. Nobles would do best to find something better to do than try to outwit a NASA engineer.
Monday, July 19, 2010
A very good documentary on the 7/7 bombings. Very precise, informative, and (as pointed out in part one) not made by someone claiming to be the Messiah.
Side note: The maker of this film informed me that more parts will be uploaded, so the playlist will have more videos added in the future.
7/7- 5 Years On
The BBC Ripple Effect: Exposing the Lies and Distortions of "The Conspiracy Files-7/7"
BBC 7/7 "Documentary": Just a hitpiece, or something more sinister?
7/7 Crash Course
London Bombings Data Page
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Pat states, "It's about as bad as you might expect."
I myself expect former NASA guys to be pretty sharp, but maybe Pat's "snarky commentary" will cut him to shreds.
Deets' site states, "seven problems - One: No plane struck the 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper (Building 7). More on no plane."
Pat replies, "Ooooh, mysterious! No plane struck St. Nick's cathedral either. Or, you know, WTC 3, 4, 5, or 6."
Pat is trying to equate the damage to these buildings, and in one case the destruction of a puny 4-story church, with WTC 7. Doing this is even more ludicrous today than it was when radio host Rob Breakenridge did it in April of 2008.
Because the August 2008 government report on WTC 7, oddly enough, put the final nail in this type of talking point when it stated that Building 7 was "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that the fires were "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings."
Deets' site states, "Two: No evidence of fires in Building 7 for the first 100 minutes after being struck by debris from Tower 1. (Yet fire from the debris is the official explanation for building collapse.) More on no fires."
Pat Replies, "No evidence? These retards continually refer to the eyewitness testimony about "explosions", but the minute we talk about WTC-7, suddenly they are not interested in what the firefighters saw."
Oh, How Typical ! Arch Debunker Pat Curley Grossly Misrepresents Firefighter Testimony and then Wrongly Accuses 911 Truthers of the Same Thing
Deets' site states, "Four: No mainstream media covered the building collapse other than that first day, when Dan Rather said on network TV, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much... when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down." More on Dan Rather."
Pat replies, "Key word in there: Reminiscent. As usual, the Troofers are unable to recognize analogies when they see them."
Pat's words are only analogous to a good point because he omits the un-debunkable evidence laid out in points 6 and 7 on Deets' site:
SixForensic evidence of explosives combined with the resemblance of explosive demolition equals CONSPIRACY PROVEN FACT, NOT THEORY!
New York Times characterized as "perhaps the deepest mystery in the investigation," a FEMA-report appendix about a steel specimen recovered from Building 7, rather like Swiss cheese, a product of extraordinarily high temperatures. More on FEMA.
No mention in the NIST Building 7 Final Report of this mysterious steel specimen. More on NIST.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Last Building Standing
Stunning Video of WTC7s Damaged South Face Discovered on a 9/11 Truth Debunking Website
Was 10:45 a.m. the Originally Planned Demolition Time of WTC 7?
The points raised by RKOwens in his video are akin to points raised by RepresentativePress.org in their article "WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 'Controlled Demolition' Theory."
In the case of the North Tower we are told that "police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed," with one of the pilots repordedly stating, "it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down,'' 20 minutes before it collapsed.
It might be argued that since the police chopper pilot had a better view and saw the buckling of the perimeter columns that he was able to make a more unique and accurate prediction of the situation, however, he made his statement about collapse at 10:06 a.m. and his statement about buckling at 10:21 a.m. So, whatever "telltale signs" he may of seen at 10:06 a.m., it wasn't yet the buckling of any columns, which after all is the crux of this argument.
In a post on 911blogger.com that asks for any refutation of the article on Representative Press many problems with the bowing scenario are pointed out, here are three very good ones:
1) It is only an initial event, and does not provide any explanation for the global collapse events.The following is an except from the essay "A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario - A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means.":
2) Its cause is based purely on speculation. The bowing may have occurred, but there is no evidence that supports that fire alone could have caused this, let alone after only a few minutes of fire.
3) If this was so obvious, why wasn't it the FIRST theory of collapse and not the THIRD theory of collapse?
Stage 1: Thermate Melts and Corrodes Core Steelwork
During Stage 1, extending from up to 10 minutes before T-0, thermate coatings on key parts of the core structure steelwork are ignited via the wireless ignition control system. The two areas attacked are: the core columns on a few floors below the crash zone, just above where most of the columns transition from box columns to wide-flange beams; and the inner portions of the hat truss that connect it to the core.
The thermal/corrosive attack on these two portions of the structure leaves the entire block of the core structure above the upper mechanical equipment floor "floating," with no major steel members to transfer its gravity loads to the lower portion of the core or to the perimeter walls: it is now supported by the web-trussed floor diaphragms. The upper core block now exerts massive inward forces on the perimeter walls due to the high degree of leverage involved in the translation of the core block's gravity loads into pulling on the perimeter walls. It is these forces that produce the inward bowing of portions of perimeter walls that NIST claims are due merely to the sagging of floor diaphragms still supported by the core.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
There IS overwhelming physical evidence that reveals explosives were used to bring down the 3 WTC buildings on 911. There is nothing theoretical about the claim - forensic proof has sealed the case.
Simply put, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find Molten Steel, Thermite traces, plus actual fragments of High Tech Explosives in the rubble pile, and to have the freefall collapse of steel framed buildings, WITHOUT using incendiaries or explosives of the sort commonly employed by the military and demolition companies.
Either basic scientific principles (ones that have NEVER been disproved) are drastically in error or we are looking at the physical evidence of the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. Ergo, 911 was an inside job.
For almost 9 years there has been a concerted effort by official investigators and the mainstream media to keep people ignorant of this information. However, thanks to the work of independent investigators and the availability of information via the Internet, these efforts have largely failed. The scientific proof of the inside job is irrevocably in the public domain.
However, there still remains a high level of ignorance concerning this key scientific evidence - due primarily to a self induced, culturally influenced aversion to even consider the 911 truth question.
In today's society people have been conditioned to reject all things labeled "conspiracy" as if such claims were wholly unsubstantiated. Association with mental illness and irrationality have hamstrung our ability to even look at the data. This is especially true when it comes to issues that can be labelled as being part of a "big government conspiracy". Most people when it comes to these topics end up being too indignant, ignorant, embarrassed or afraid to even discuss them. Alas, no matter how good the information, even the most intelligent among us who decide not to weigh up the evidence, will always fail to see through the official deceptions.
Moreover, because conspiracy claims are the subject of such strong ridicule, many people who do actually chance to look into the details often find them psychologically too difficult to accept - regardless of how damning the information may be.
Further adding to the disconnect here is the general population's inexperience at recognising the significance of hard scientific evidence. Few people, upon seeing video of the freefall collapse of WTC7, or seeing data that confirms structural steel had melted in all three buildings, would understand the strength of this hard science - even if explained to them.
On top of all these hindrances we also have to deal with the disinformation put out by various "independent" 911 truth debunking "experts" who help fuel society's irrational anti-conspiracy bias (conspiracy-denialism). Appearing online and in various 911 "documentaries" these individuals push distortions, provide pseudo-scientific trick explanations, heap ridicule and tell outright lies about the facts in question. Their agenda is to act as credible authority figures, using their academic or professional backgrounds to discredit the hard evidence and build a "consensus" opinion backing the official lies. The mission, transparent to the well informed, is to basically hoodwink open minded members of the public. Many of these debunkers, who are too intelligent not to understand the science proving the inside job, appear to be on the Government payroll. Indeed most are probably involved in a modern day version of Operation Mockingbird.
Nevertheless, despite the pervasive lies presented in the official 911 reports, the censorship by the corporate media, the disinformation efforts of the supposedly independent debunkers, and our own inabilities to come to terms with challenging information, the physical evidence of the inside job still stands. The World Trade Centre forensic evidence proves the official account is a lie and ends the 911 conspiracy debate. [Presently there are 6 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting the inside job hypothesis that remain unchallenged in the scientific literature.]
Whatever the truth is concerning the involvement of Osama Bin Laden, he certainly could not have rigged the Twin Towers or WTC7 with explosives.
The War on Terror is a hoax designed to foment conflict between the West and militant Islamic groups for the purpose of US strategic domination of the Middle East. Only the truth about 911 will end these Wars.
The first step is identifying the propaganda to be overcome whilst simultaneously recognising the hard scientific evidence of the inside job. Once EVERYONE understands the truth then the game will be over.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Yesterday the Queen who doesn't sweat (I wonder how long before the David Icke fans pick up on that!), visited ground zero and addressed the UN for the first time since 1957. Is it possible for a reigning monarch to commit treason? Coz some would argue that just by associating with the globalist crooks, she is. Today I guess she's returning to the UK to hold another garden party or something like she did last year on 7/7.
Considering the media hype surrounding the fifth anniversary of 9/11, the fifth anniversay of 7/7 doesn't seem to have attracted much attention. The majority of the British newspapers seem to be focussing on Cheryl Cole as always (but apparently she's dying of malaria so I'll let them off this time), I suppose it's not as bad as last year when they held Michael Jackson's memorial service on 7/7/2009.
I guess the reason they are not giving it much attention is because they don't want people to look into it. It is after all one of the the most suspicious terror attacks in recent history. Unfortunately however, much to the frustration of 7/7 researchers, there isn't really enough evidence to prove anything. Unlike say 9/11, which has been scientifically proven to be a fraud, or Flight 253, which was expertly exposed as a flase flag by Kurt Haskell. But there are numerous coincidences, anomolies and unanswered questions that, when put into context, point towards government involvement.
The Simultaneous Drill
The most widely known coincidence is the drill that Visor Consultants were running on the morning of 7/7, which according to Peter Power mirrored the real events "almost precisely". The drill simulated simultaneous bombs going off at three tube stations - for years that was all the information we had. Then in 2009, Peter Power revealed more details in a BBC Conspiracy Files documentary. The tube stations chosen for the drill were Liverpool Street, Kings Cross and Russell Square. The real attacks occured at Liverpool Street, Edgware Road, and on the Piccadilly Line in between Kings Cross and Russell Square. Peter Power also revealed the client - Reed Elsevier.
While the BBC piece portrayed Reed Elsevier as just some obscure publishing company, Reed Elsevier is actually a massively corrupt global medical-media conglomerate, who own thousands of scientific journals and also have links with the arms industry. The ownership of scientific journals by companies like Reed Elsevier is the primary reason why scientists who question the status quo - such as man-made global warming skeptics or vaccine critics - are denied the opportunity to publish in 'prestigious' journals. While defenders of the status quo are able to easily - no matter how obviously flawed their studies are. Reed Elsevier's former chairman, Jan Hommen, attended Bilderberg in 2007 and 2010.
On it's own, the coincidence of the simultaneous drill may not seem that suspicious to some, but this was not a one-off. Real life events often coincide with eerily similar drills. On the morning of 9/11 there were numerous war games taking place simulating planes being hijacked and flown into buildings. One of those drills involved false blips - or 'phantoms' - being added to military radars. Audio recordings from 9/11 appear to show confusion amongst NORAD officials, who weren't immediately sure whether the events unfolding were 'real world or exercise'. Also, FEMA were in New York City the night before 9/11 in preparation for a bioterror drill. When the real attacks happened, they were conveniently able to take control of the scene quickly, thanks to their preparations. Drills are often used to compartmentalize the excution of and response to false flag operations.
Peter Power claimed in the BBC piece that the exercise was nothing more than a Powerpoint presentation. However, earlier statements from him appear to contradict that claim.
"Yesterday we were actually in the city working on an exercise involving mock broadcasts when it happened for real.Just a Powerpoint presentation? Peter Power also appeared in a BBC Panorama program a year before 7/7 entitled London Under Attack, a televised terror attack simulation similar to the recent CNN Cyber Attack program. It is extremely obvious to any awakened soul watching these programs that they are watching military-intelligence propaganda. These sorts of things are done all the time - partly as a psy-op and partly as way of bragging about their crimes like the psychopaths these people are.
When news bulletins started coming on, people began to say how realistic our exercise was - not realising there was an attack."
Around about 11 o'clock, two hours after the tube explosions had occured, a number of interviews and photo-ops took place at Russell Square. During that time an unnamed man with a bandage on his head, an unbottoned shirt and neatly torn trousers was filmed and photographed, but never interviewed. This mysterious man is suspected by some to have been an actor.
These types of operations do often involve actors for dramatic effect. At the G20 protests in London for example, anarchist provocateurs destroyed a window at the Royal Bank of Scotland. I remember sitting at my computer all day that day watching several live news streams, reading twitter updates and listening to Alex Jones discuss 'the groom of the stool'! And I remember protestors being interviewed on TV describing how the police were penning them in, and that that the RBS was the only building on that road that didn't have its windows boarded up, and it appeared to them as if the building was singled out. It was fairly obvious that there were operatives of some kind engaging in amateur dramatics and squirting fake blood over themselves to sensationalize a generally peaceful protest - as if often done during these sorts of protests. It's possible that similar operations could have been going on on 7/7.
Note the brown and silver cloaks that the 7/7 bandaged man had draped over him. A number of other unnamed people were also filmed wearing those cloaks or holding them in their arms (such as these two unnamed women, during a very strange interview). It's possible that these cloaks could have been used to identify operatives, who may have believed they were just taking part in a drill or something, perhaps even those "mock broadcasts" Peter Power mentioned. Bus bomb survivor Daniel Obachike also claims to have seen the bandaged man in Tavistock Square, seconds after the bomb went off at 9:47.
Two most iconic photos of 7/7 are of victims burned by the blasts. The roof of the bus was completely blown off by its bomb (one witness described the blast as "half a bus flying through the air") and a photo released last year of one of the tube train interiors shows massive damage. Perhaps it is for these reasons that it was initially claimed by experts that the explosives were 'of military origin'. Over the weeks that followed, the story changed to home-made peroxide based explosives made in a bathtub. You'd think that experts would be able to tell the difference between the two! Peroxide explosives like TATP undergo what is known as an entropic explosion. Entropic explosions are powerful, but do not release much heat. So the fact that people were severely burned seems to contradict the official story.
Also a number of witness reports seem to indicate that the tube bombs may have actually been attached underneath the trains. Mark Honigsbaum, in an audio report for the Guardian, said that survivors of the Edgeware road bomb described how floor panels "suddenly flew up" and that the train had been derailed. On the one year anniversary of 7/7 an Irish survivor of the Liverpool street bomb told his story to Sky News Ireland and he too mentioned a floor panel raising up. But the most interesting account comes from Bruce Lait.
"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag"When interviewed by the BBC, Bruce Lait stood by his initial statement.
The ID's of all four bombers allegedly survived the explosions and were found within a few days. The BBC made the laughable claim in the Conspiracy Files documentary that the bombers likely wanted to be found out and thus planted their IDs a short distance away from where they blew themselves up. What they didn't mention was that ID belonging to Mohammad Sidique Khan was found at three different bomb sites. On 9/11 the passport of Satem Al Suqami is alleged to have survived the crash of Flight 11 and was 'found' in less than an hour. The passport was given to a police officer by a 'passer-by', before the south tower even collapsed. That passport was most likely planted, the ones on 7/7 probably were too.
The alleged movements of Hasib Hussein, the bus bomber, are quite illogical. He supposedly boarded a bus at Kings Cross station, which took him down the road. There he got off and boarded the Number 30 bus which would have just taken him back to Kings Cross station - if it had not been diverted to Tavistock square, which he couldn't of known would happen. Also, the bus he was originally on would have stopped at Tavistock Square next anyway. So if for some reason he wanted to blow the bus up at Tavistock square he could have just stayed on the bus he was originally on. The only way this makes any sense is if he was told to board the Number 30 bus by someone who knew it would be diverted to Tavistock Square. The bus blew up right outside the British Medical Association, which was full of doctors at the time. A recent BBC documentary highlighted the extraordinary set of coincidences that made that possible.
Two days after the attacks, the New Zealand Herald reported that two apparent suicide bombers on 7/7 were shot outside Canary Wharf. The report was never followed up on.
But by far the most sinister anomaly of them all, which ranks right up there with the death of Barry Jennings in terms of its 'WTF?' factor, is the death of a woman named Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, a New Zealand doctor who became a local heroine for her actions during the london bombings. She told a New Zealand newspaper that the police carried out a second controlled explosion on the bus. Not long after, she died a mysterious death, and there was an obvious media campaign to discredit her. The Telegraph, the Guardian and other publications did a character assassination of her - describing her as someone who lived a fantasy life, and they claimed she wasn't a doctor, when this google cache of a page that no longer exists clearly shows that she was. Did Richmal see or say something she wasn't supposed to?
Five years on and still so many questions unanswered. Family members have been campaigning for an enquiry for a while, but the best they have been offered is an inquest similar to the Diana Inquest - and we all know what a whitewash that was!
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
"Hey buddy. Just wanted to say I noticed you took YouTube up on their profit sharing offer if they are allowed to post advertisements next to and on your videos. They have been sending me these offers for over a year, and my videos get way more views than yours (my total upload views are 2,500,000, yours are 30,800). Yet, every single time I've rejected this offer. Why? Because I'm only interested in spreading the truth, not making money. I've never accepted a penny for making my videos.
So, the next time you and your little truther friends talk about how us debunkers are being paid for doing what we're doing, just remember how hilariously hypocritical you are."
Unfortunately for Mr. Owens, his accusations were completely false. I responded with the following:
"I don't know what you're on about. First of all, I have never accused you or any other debunker of being "paid" by anyone to do what you do. I'm sure other truthers have accused you of it, but I have never thought that. Just because I'm a truther doesn't mean I believe everything all other truthers believe. Secondly, I've never accepted any offers from Youtube. The only reason I might have some ads on my videos is because I have some copyrighted material in them. Youtube did inform me of that, but they haven't offered to pay me and I haven't recieved a check yet. Like you, I could care less about making money off this. Next time watch what you say about my videos and motives."
Mr. Owens did apologize (sort of):
"Alright, if what you say is true then sorry."
I accepted his apology, and sent him this link to show what I said was true.
I found Mr. Owens' message very intersting because it showed his apparent strategy for how he would respond to my videos. It's been over three months since I released my updated "9/11 Un-debunked" series, and Mr. Owens has made no attempt to legitimately refute a single video. And he is fully aware of them. About two months ago I had a short debate with Mr. Owens about Building 7, and here was his summary of why the building could not have been a demolition:
I directed him to two of my videos, one of which was part of my Un-debunked series:
Sounds of Explosions- How Much Do They Matter?
9/11 Un-debunked Version 2.0: Every Characteristic Of Controlled Demolition
He only responded to the first of my videos discussing the "lack of sound" issue. He essentially criticized it, claiming that I had no proof the explosions featured in the video came from the WTC. He basically missed the whole point of the video, which is that the actual "sound" of an explosion is not neccessary to warrent an investigation into whether explosives were used or not.
I felt it odd that he did not bring up my other video, as it clearly addressed the issue of the lack of explosive flashes in all of the buildings. My video features these three demos that clearly produced no flashes.
Now I was willing to believe he didn't bring up the other video because he genuinely had no response for it, and therefore excepted that this was a misleading argument in the debate over the collapse of the buildings. However, I was shocked to see that about a month later he brought up the exact same arguments to another truther almost word for word.
It seems to me that Mr. Owens has simply chosen to ignore my videos, and instead has decided to make baseless accusations in an attempt to discredit me. Very similar to how debunkers have chosen to avoid any scientific debate over the nanothermite paper and have continuously tried to discredit the authors and the journal. I see a pattern here.
Mr. Owens, you are more than welcome to respond to my rebuttals of your videos, but I don't appreciate the empty accusations. But I'm not usually one to hold a grudge, and I did accept your apology, so I hope we can eventually get back to more civilized debates in the future.
I wish Mr. Owens and everyone else a happy 4th of July.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Commenter "RedBloodReign" states:
You might find this surprising but thermite wasn't found in the debris of the twin towers by looking at footage of the burning towers and saying "Wow, that looks really hot, must've been thermite!" The scientists tested the debris and found unburned thermite as well as thermite bi-products.Furthermore, the video is not of a daylight fire, which is important because Dr. Jones conclusively proved through videotaped experiments that it can't be aluminum from the plane as the government and "debunkers" have claimed because aluminum is silver in color when poured in daylight.
You should also notice that the stuff falling out of the building is not liquid metal. It's chunks of stuff that's usually light enough to be carried in the wind.
No experiments or peer-reviewed papers, such as those produced by Steven Jones and his colleagues on the topic of thermite and 9/11, have been offered by his detractors.
In other words, put up or shut up.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Tom Lehrer famously said "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize". Well last night political satire was drugged, raped and murdered in an alley, when Tony Blair - "Middle East Peace Envoy" (which is a joke in itself) - was announced as the winner of a prestigious liberty medal and a $100,000 prize by the National Constitution Centre in the US. This is the man who turned Britain into an Orwellian surveillance state and illegally and deceitfully invaded Iraq!
You seriously cannot make this stuff up - first Obama gets a Peace Prize, then Monsanto is named company of the year and now this!
What's next, an environment award for BP? ... Oh wait, that already happened last year!
Damn it, that was the most ludicrous thing I could come up with and it still happened.
Ok ... Errm ... How about awarding the Pope a child protection award?
*Checks Google to make sure that hasn't happened!*
Seriously though, Judging by the past winners of the Liberty Medal, it's not really surprising Blair would win. These awards are a joke.