HA Goodman destroys the Democrat rebuttal memo the FISA memo and Russian Dossier scandal. Allegations are not proof/evidence. There's no evidence of any Trump-Russia connections while there is the continuing cover-up of Hillary Clinton's crimes.
The video below specifically addresses the Democrat memo that supposedly "rebuts" the claims that FISA memo process was corrupted via false information (Russian Dossier/Russian Hackers etc). There is no evidence of any Trump collusion or significant interference in the election:
DEM MEMO RELEASED BY ADAM SCHIFF. DEFENDS FBI STRZOK PAGE AND DOJ BRUCE OHR
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, February 26th, 2018.]
Related:
7 DECEPTIONS INSIDE DEMS’ REBUTTAL MEMO
Contains misleading claims, omits key details, proves FBI/DoJ used FISA memo to obtain warrant on Trump associate
NEW YORK — Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee on Saturday released a purported rebuttal to a four-page House Republican memo from earlier this month that alleges abuse of surveillance authority on the part of Obama-era federal agencies.
The Democratic rebuttal contains misleading claims, omits key details, and, perhaps unintentionally, actually proves the FBI and Department of Justice utilized the infamous, largely discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier to obtain a FISA court warrant to monitor an individual formerly associated with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Here are seven key problems with the claims made inside the Democrats’ rebuttal memo.
1 – The House Democratic rebuttal opens with a seemingly deceptive statement that Steele’s dossier “did not inform” the FBI’s decision to start its investigation into Trump’s campaign in late July.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said on Saturday that a Democratic rebuttal to a GOP memo released earlier this month alleging abuses by the FBI and Justice Department will not affect the substance of the document.
“What you’re not going to see is anything that actually rejects what was actually in our memo,” Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
The first memo, released by Republicans on the Intelligence Committee, accused FBI and Justice Department officials of abusing their authority to obtain a surveillance warrant against a former Trump campaign adviser.
Chemical engineer Mark Basile has completed his own Raman spectroscopy study on red/gray chips and other materials, including paint. He is currently writing up the data and the report will be made publicly available soon - how soon depends on whether it will simply be posted as a publicly available PDF file, or published in a journal.
Raman spectroscopy offers several advantages for microscopic
analysis. Since it is a scattering technique, specimens do not need to
be fixed or sectioned. Raman spectra can be collected from a very small
volume (< 1 µm in diameter); these spectra allow the identification
of species present in that volume. Water does not generally interfere
with Raman spectral analysis. Thus, Raman spectroscopy is suitable for
the microscopic examination of minerals, materials such as polymers and ceramics, cells, proteins and forensic trace evidence - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy
Look for our next update in April 2018, and news about the promised independent tests.
The Second Amendment Is Not a Conservative Issue - Addressing Gun Violence at Schools Is Not a Political Issue: It's a Common Sense One - MEDIA MOMENT BLOWN. GAME OVER. Antigun Alt-Left Deep State Shills Blow Up: Trump Pivots Brilliantly - Parkland Shooting Survivor: CNN Gave Me "Scripted Question" After Denying Question About Armed Guard - CNN TOWN HALL FAKE NEWS!
Thoughts on the Parkland Student Protests and Congress' Hypocrisy on Guns and Shootings
Related:
Trump Proposes Bump Stock Ban: That Isn't How the Second Amendment Works, Donald - Trump Proposes Blatantly Unconstitutional "Fix" to Mostly Non-existent Gun Crime Problem - Trump Talks About Enacting Tougher Gun Laws; May Ban Bump Stocks (REACTION) - Trump Bans Bump Stocks & Who Knows What Else!:
Kafir Linda Clark Banning bump stocks isn't so bad, but the problem is if we give an INCH they will want a mile. SluggerStark That is exactly what will happen. I am Canadian and our gun laws used to be, more or less, like American laws. Now we have absolutely silly legislation regarding firearms and there is still lobbying for more. Like I say; look at my country, Canada or Australia. starfiremale As someone who lives in England, you must not let them take your guns!!!!!!! C'MON AMERICA YOU ARE THE LAST BASTION, IF YOU GO DOWN WE ALL GO DOWN!!
Trump Proposes Bump Stock Ban: That Isn't How the Second Amendment Works, Donald - Trump Proposes Blatantly Unconstitutional "Fix" to Mostly Non-existent Gun Crime Problem - Trump Talks About Enacting Tougher Gun Laws; May Ban Bump Stocks (REACTION) - Trump Bans Bump Stocks & Who Knows What Else!
“Michelle Malkin Investigates” host Michelle Malkin on filmmaker Michael Moore’s participation in a Russia sponsored anti-Trump rally and the Russian indictments.
Michael Moore is a Russian agent. Whether he knows it or not. Rod Rosenstein's latest revelations about a troll farm originating in St. Petersburg Russia and networking its way through a Russian couple has allegedly ensnared Michael Moore.
The indictment read "In or around November 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators organized a rally in New York through one ORGANIZATION-controlled group designed to “show your support for President-Elect Donald Trump,” held on or about November 12, 2016. At the same time, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through another ORGANIZATION-controlled group, organized a rally in New York called “Trump is NOT my President” held on or about November 12, 2016.Jon Bowne reports.
Now They've Crossed the Line - Michael Moore attends Russia-sponsored anti-Trump rally - Michael Moore Is A Russian Cuck
Steven Crowder debunks the top common myths and Leftist lies surrounding the scary AR15 rifle.
In the wake of the Florida school shooting, Paul Joseph Watson discusses a CNN article that calls for 16-year-olds to be allowed to vote as a means of pushing forward their progressive policies.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano suggests America should follow the Israeli model of arming teachers to protect schools.
DEBUNKED: Top 5 AR-15 Lies! | Louder With Crowder - CNN Wants To Give 16-Year-Olds The Vote - Should America follow Israel's model for protecting schools? - Ben Shapiro Debunks Gun Control Advocate Propaganda
Reality Check: Trump Did Not Make It Easier for Severely Mentally Ill People To Buy Guns
Related:
Steven Crowder Destroys Gun Control in 54 Seconds!! - Vox Rebuttal: Gun Control Propaganda Debunked - The Young Turks Rebuttal: Second Amendment Lies - The 2nd Amendment : For Muskets Only?!:
The Role of the Media: Whatever Happened to Investigative Journalists?
Media complicity in suppressing the evidence related to 9/11 is arguably the greatest barrier to exposing what happened that day.
Fran Shure, M.A., L.P.C., co-founder of Colorado 9/11 Truth, has written a series of articles for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth) entitled Why Do Good People Become Silent – or Worse – About 9/11?
Click on the title below to read her latest installment (Part 21), The Role of the Media: Act I - Whatever Happened to Investigative Journalists? as it appears on the AE911Truth website.
Mike Mckay Sadly, whilst I don't believe the "official conspiracy theory" that uneducated goat fuckers who lived in caves learnt to fly passenger liners by flying completely different types of planes and playing computer simulators or that every security agency on earth magically failed at the exact same time and THEN every defence organisation in the US just happened to be busy doing something else, inept or crippled by neither the president or vice president being reachable by phone
BUT, I don't think any definitive truth will surface in the lifetime of anyone currently living today if ever
The level of the people involved in such a crime would make it quite possible that it could never ever surface either due to dedication to "the cause" or by cut outs killing off loose ends
My Reply:
First off, know that I wrote several of the FAQs and an article for ae911truth...
The NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers, and physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help. HELP is the key word though. The Al-Qaeda terrorists were not "uneducated goat fuckers." To the contrary, they were highly-educated and many in the field of engineering! http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/the-madrassa-myth.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html
William Rodriguez is famous for two reasons as it pertains to 9/11...
"Most folks know that William Rodriguez is the 9/11 hero who saved hundreds of lives, the last person to escape alive from the World Trade Center before they collapsed... At the closed-door 9/11 Commission hearing, Rodriguez testified under oath that explosions were going off in the basement of the North Tower before the first plane impacted the building." https://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/last-man-out-on-911-makes-shocking-disclosures/
But something else he revealed, that also is not illuminated enough, is quite interesting when juxtaposed with what I pointed out about Crockett Grabbe...
"WASHINGTON - A hero janitor who helped victims escape from the World Trade Center's north tower before it collapsed told the 9/11 panel that he came across one of the hijackers in the building a few months before the attack. William Rodriguez, 43, of Jersey City met with the commission for the first time last week. A 20-year Trade Center employee who swept stairwells, he swears he saw United Airlines Flight 175 hijacker Mohand Alshehri in June 2001 and told an FBI agent in the family center at Ground Zero about it a month after the attacks. He never heard back from the bureau. Rodriguez said he was working overtime one weekend cleaning rest rooms on the concourse and mezzanine levels when Alshehri approached him. "I had just finished cleaning the bathroom and this guy asks me, 'Excuse me, how many public bathrooms are in this area?" http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/janitor-tells-9-11-panel-brush-wtc-thug-article-1.647085
These dots when connected suggest there may have been a much more active role in the controlled demolition by foreign terrorists than most 9/11 truthers would have you believe. Of course this would imply inside help, for example, from the security at the WTC and possibly those who conducted the fireproofing upgrades in the WTC towers that strangely correspond to the the floors of impact, fire and failure... http://911blogger.com/node/13272
Many people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."
Steven Crowder Destroys Gun Control in 54 Seconds!! - Vox Rebuttal: Gun Control Propaganda Debunked - The Young Turks Rebuttal: Second Amendment Lies - The 2nd Amendment : For Muskets Only?!
Even more important to demolition deniers than their newfound ability to claim one fire-induced collapse is the severe damage that would be done to their ideology if they had to accept the Plasco incident as a demolition.
The focus of Weinberg’s article was the response of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) — the organization I work for — to the destruction of Tehran’s first-ever, iconic high-rise. At around 8:00 AM that day, the upper floors caught fire and burned for a little over three hours before a series of explosions rocked the building. The structure then completely collapsed to the ground, tragically claiming the lives of sixteen firefighters and six civilians.
The day after, we issued a statement, based on our analysis of the available videos, urging the Iranian government to investigate the possible use of explosives. One month later, after compiling more evidence, we published a report recommending that investigators consider explosives and incendiaries as the primary hypothesis for the building’s destruction. Our purpose was “to help the people of Iran in their effort to understand the cause of this tragic incident.”
Fast-forward one year later to the first anniversary. Within an hour after we released a video to bring attention to the issue (the video is available in English and Farsi), Alex Weinberg’s hate-fest of an article was published. I use the term “hate-fest” not only because the article is unabashedly derisive and dehumanizing, but because Weinberg openly admitted his disdain of “9/11 conspiracy theorists” in an article he penned on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, in which he wrote:
“To them, airplane collisions could not have toppled the Twin Towers, and something else must have led to the unprecedented destruction. Let me just say that I take deep offense at this idea. Conservative commentators often deride 9/11 conspiracy theorists for their lack of patriotism or compassion or whatever, but I think this is a far too easy way of thinking. Instead, I hate them for the much more substantiative sin of being stupid and loud. To me — a structural engineering student and longtime supporter of skyscrapers and skyscraper-related causes — they might as well be protesting against evolutionary theory or the abstract notion of time.”
Weinberg’s stated reason for hating “9/11 conspiracy theorists” is odd when you consider that many of the architects and engineers who’ve signed the petition of AE911Truth did so because they view the official account of the World Trade Center’s destruction as an affront to their profession. Three skyscrapers collapsed completely and catastrophically in one day, killing more than 2,500 people, ostensibly under design load conditions (that is, conditions the structures were designed to withstand). Proving that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 did not actually collapse from fire would therefore absolve the building professions of negligence, or at least that is how some members of these professions see it. In reality, it seems that Weinberg’s hatred is borne out of something much deeper than his love of skyscrapers.
Whatever that something may be, his 2007 rant reveals unambiguously that he is deeply invested in the official account of the World Trade Center’s destruction, so much so that it has become his ideology and he despises those who question it. How ironic, then, that in his Gizmodo piece he would call AE911Truth the only group of Americans “ideologically invested” enough to pay attention to the Plasco Building incident.
The central thesis of Weinberg’s attempted psychoanalysis is that because AE911Truth “has spent the past decade convincing a brain trust of YouTube commenters that tall buildings simply cannot collapse due to fire,” “rather than accepting the Plasco Building as a thundering rebuttal to their theories, AE911Truth concluded that Plasco was also a controlled demolition.”
First, let’s get one thing straight: AE911Truth has never argued that tall buildings “cannot” collapse due to fire, nor have any of the architects, engineers, or scientists affiliated with AE911Truth, as far as I’m aware. The undisputed fact we cite is that, putting aside the issue of the World Trade Center’s destruction (and now the Plasco incident), no steel-framed high-rise has ever completely collapsed due to fire.
Occasionally, some architects and engineers will make the bolder statement that steel-framed high-rises do not collapse due to fire. Scott Grainger, a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, states as much in our signature documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence — Experts Speak Out. But that is not the same as saying that tall buildings cannot collapse due to fire.
More to the point, it is not our central argument, or even a critical argument, that no steel-framed high-rise has ever collapsed from fire. The purpose of looking at the performance of steel-framed high-rises in large fires is to put the World Trade Center collapses in their proper context as highly anomalous events. If a steel-framed high-rise one day does succumb to fire, it will not change the fact that the fire-induced collapse of a steel-framed high-rise is an exceedingly rare and improbable occurrence. Nor would the instance of a single steel-framed high-rise collapsing from fire make the slightest dent in the overwhelming scientific evidence that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition.
In other words, had the Plasco Building actually collapsed due to fire, it would not have been the “thundering rebuttal to [our] theories” that Alex Weinberg fantasizes. When we woke up on the morning of January 19, 2017, to the news that a burning high-rise in Iran had collapsed, we were not expecting to watch videos of the event and see signs that made it appear to be a controlled demolition. We started watching with curiosity, assuming that we were about to see footage of a fire-induced collapse, as reported. If it had turned out to be a fire-induced collapse, we would’ve simply updated our materials to reflect the fact that one steel-framed high-rise in the long history of high-rise construction had collapsed from fire.
But for people like Alex Weinberg, for whom I’m compelled to coin the term “demolition denier,” the question of the Plasco Building’s destruction means much more. Since no steel-framed high-rise has ever completely collapsed due to fire (putting aside the events of 9/11), the Plasco incident was a golden opportunity for Weinberg and his fellow deniers to say, “LOOK!!! Steel-framed high-rises cancollapse due to fire!”
Weinberg acknowledges this very problem on his own: “Prior to Plasco, it was difficult to produce counterexamples that would immediately disprove these truther axioms because out-of-control high-rise fires just don’t happen very often.” Sorry, Alex. It turns out you’ll have to keep waiting for your first counterexample — when the ratio will then be one-collapse-to-however-many-hundreds-of-fires instead of zero-to-however-many-hundreds.
By the way, the Plasco fire was not “out-of-control” by the time of the building’s collapse, and I mean that in the most literal sense. According to fire department spokesman Jalal Maleki, “The extinguishing process was going pretty well. We were at the end of our job. Everything was under control, then all of a sudden, and unexpectedly, two or three major explosions took place in the upper floors at intervals of two or three minutes.” [Emphasis added.] If you want to know what an “out-of-control” fire looks like, take a look at this one, which happened in Mashhad, Iran, six months before the Plasco incident.
But back to Weinberg’s conundrum: Even more important to demolition deniers than their newfound ability to claim one fire-induced collapse is the severe damage that would be done to their ideology if they had to accept the Plasco incident as a demolition.
Perhaps a few demolition deniers saw the videos of explosions shooting out of the Plasco Building and thought to themselves, “Hmm, maybe this one was demolished.” But, if they did, they kept quiet and decided not to go against the orthodoxy being written by people like the Pope of Demolition Denial, Mick West. The very same day we released our initial statement, West published the article “AE911Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job.” A rational person would be able to separate the World Trade Center from the Plasco incident, but apparently demolition deniers saw Plasco as a threat to their ideology and couldn’t entertain the possibility that it was a controlled demolition.
As Weinberg observes, “The debates over Plasco’s collapse have raged in the same hundred page forum threads and YouTube comment sections as the 9/11 arguments of yesteryear.” Weinberg is mostly referring to the International Skeptics Forum, where “giddy debunkers,” as he calls them, go to spew the same vitriol he did on Gizmodo and where they occasionally debate the few 9/11 researchers brave enough and giving enough of their time to argue with them. Whereas demolition deniers have filled out “hundred page forum threads” debating the Plasco incident, most 9/11 Truth activists have not given it much time. Indeed, it is demolition deniers — not “9/11 truthers” — who are obsessed with the Plasco Building demolition.
And yet despite all the “hundred page forum threads” that Weinberg could have drawn from, his argument is tellingly light on facts. Why include only a single video of the Plasco collapse when there are so many others available, like this one or this one? Or, if he needed to keep it to one video, why not this one, which is a compilation of several videos? Was he afraid that if he were to show these videos to a larger audience, one outside of his “church,” that some readers would see the incident for what it was?
And why did he feel the need to exaggerate the severity of the fire? The fire “spread quickly.” It was “nearly unreachable.” The flames “finally overwhelmed the structure.” Actually, the fire was limited to the building’s upper floors and was thought by the fire department to have been extinguished when, as mentioned above, “two or three major explosions took place. . . .” Weinberg omits these critical facts. As a result, his less-informed readers will have no idea that Plasco was actually a fire and explosion incident, which is how it was treated by the media and politicians in Iran.
Weinberg predictably trots out an expert to add a semblance of scientific credibility to his pseudo-scientific sermon. But his expert exaggerates the extent to which steel loses strength when heated to given temperatures, saying: “At 450 degrees [Celsius] or so, you get basically a 50 percent drop in strength and stiffness, and that’s very significant.” In fact, as we cited in our report, structural steel “loses about half its strength at 650°C” (Eagar and Musso: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?). Weinberg exaggerates the matter still further by suggesting that well-ventilated office fires can reach an obscenely high 1,100°C, which — although technically possible — is exceedingly difficult to achieve and clearly not what occurred in the Plasco Building, given the fire’s lack of intensity documented in videos.
The matter of design redundancy — i.e., the ability of a structure to handle multiple times the load it is carrying so that isolated local failures will not cause the entire structure to collapse like a house of cards — is conspicuously absent from Weinberg’s article. As we explain in our report, “[V]irtually every column would need to be heated to 650°C at the same time, losing 50% of its strength, to present the risk of a building-wide failure. This would be very difficult to accomplish even in a raging fire.”
Moreover, Weinberg’s attacks on the report are so unfounded that it’s clear he either didn’t read it carefully or he was deliberately intending to misrepresent it to his readers.
For example, he complains, “Most of the links in footnotes of the paper point to YouTube videos and the organization’s own PDF documents.” The sixteen YouTube links he is referring to are straightforward videos of the collapse or of the debris pile (Weinberg thinks it’s better to show only one video) — or they are interviews with firefighters featuring English subtitles, which were translated and provided to us by an Iranian living in Iran. The nine PDF links he refers to, with the exception of one English-language news article, are clearly-sourced Farsi news reports, which our Iranian contact also translated to English for us and which contain a variety of important evidence. In other words, the very thing Weinberg holds up to demonstrate our purported lack of rigorous research is actually a demonstration of the kind of rigor that Weinberg either willfully avoided or never even thought to attempt.
The fact of the matter is that Weinberg doesn’t care about finding the truth. The only reason the Plasco tragedy seems to mean anything to him is that it’s a threat to his demolition denial, and so he must turn it around and attempt to use it as ammunition against those who challenge his belief system. He pays lip service to the victims of the tragedy, writing, “Tens of thousands of citizens publicly mourned the firefighters when they were laid to rest,” but it’s just that, lip service.
If Weinberg actually cared, he would have interviewed someone from Iran, maybe a witness, maybe a victim’s family member, maybe the person who provided our video and article translations, or maybe the Iranian (also based in Iran) who volunteered, unsolicited, to translate the report into Farsi. Maybe he would have learned from these interviews that a large percentage of Iranians believe that the Plasco Building was demolished — a majority of them, according to our contacts. Maybe he would have found that this is also the position of Iran’s most popular reformist news site, Amad News, which has over one million followers on Telegram and which published both the English and Farsi versions of our report.
Of course, he didn’t do all of this because the ideology of demolition denial, to which he subscribes so fervently, is one founded on arrogance, self-delusion, and above all, a fear of any information that might undermine the ideology. The result is a callous lack of genuine interest in justice for the victims of mass murder — first the one on September 11, 2001, and now the one on January 19, 2017.
Demolition denial wouldn’t matter so much if it were espoused only by a small group of devout followers. But the reason it’s so damaging to society is that it’s also adhered to by many in the Western media. They’re not regular “churchgoers” (i.e., they don’t visit the International Skeptics Forum), but they are still firm believers. They mock the architects, engineers, and scientists who expose the falsity of their dogma and they give over-zealous preachers like Weinberg a pulpit to reinforce the faith.
The disastrous effect of their demolition denial has been to prevent justice for the victims of 9/11 for more than sixteen years while continuing to prop up the endless “War on Terror.” Now demolition denial has reared its ugly head again, causing the mass murder of twenty-two people in the Plasco Building demolition to go almost entirely unnoticed outside of Iran.
Recently Ry's been referencing the destruction of the Plasco building in Tehran and using that incident to back his contention that fire can demolish steel framed buildings. However, once again, there is more to the story than Ry's simple interpretation as videos of what happened in Iran raise alarm bells. Apart from the explosive nature of the collapse, with material being ejected laterally well below the collapse points, the clean up site featured molten metal/steel being removed, which is a red flag for incendiaries.
Plasco Building Collapse: Molten Metal Compilation [Video]
What happened here is very suspicious, and doesn't seem like the result of a "collapse" or that it was the result of a conventional office fire. To that point, see this recent 20 page report by ae911truth.org. The destruction of this building in Iran looks like it was made to "debunk" the 911 forensic evidence. Regardless of whether there was motive behind what happened to the Plasco building, the melted steel in the pile points to other non-conventional factors at work that caused the building's demise.
Even if one contends that this building was a natural collapse, there are some important differences to the collapses on 9/11 to consider that comments posted here noted...
Fred Dietz1 day ago I’m going to say “inadequate sheer studs”, as there was already an Iranian architect on Press TV saying that Plasco Building (Iran’s first high-rise) was never built inline with “national construction regulations”. But that’s also a world of difference from WTC 7, which had over 3,800 sheer studs that were inspected every year by NYC (and this was revealed in a 2012 FOIA). NIST outright lied in their report and said WTC 7 didn’t have any sheer studs. T Wayland5 hours ago Fred Dietz in another video i saw about this they were talking about how the building had needed repairs for years. Ariane Kosmolowski1 day ago This is not a symmetrical collapse as seen in WTC7. Different parts of the building collapse one after another. It also takes a while, and this is only 17 stories.
For an-depth examination of the larger issue here, see:
