Coast To Coast AM - Sept 11 2013 - 9-11 Truth/ Spying on Democracy - C2CAM Radio, Disclosure Radio

Published on Oct 1, 2013

Coast to Coast AM:Date:Sept 11 2013
Coast to Coast AM:Host:George Noory
Coast to Coast AM:This Weeks Guests:Massimo Mazzucco, Heidi Boghosian
Coast to Coast AM:9-11 Truth/ Spying on Democracy

Coast To Coast AM / C2CAM Radio Broadcast on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQMtt-_t1oxmsiIXTnU9Iqw?sub_confirmation=1

Coast To Coast AM - Sept 11 2013 - 9-11 Truth/ Spying on Democracy - C2CAM Radio, Disclosure Radio

In the first half, Italian filmmaker and investigative journalist Massimo Mazzucco talked about his ongoing research into the 9-11 attacks, and why he's concluded that the official version of the events is false. In recent years, the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) have brought forward a solid scientific argument that Mazzucco believes both confirms the theory of controlled demolition of the Towers, and disproves the official theory that the collapse was due to gravity.

"When they tell you that four people who had never flown a jet before (they only flew little airplanes), suddenly jump into the cockpit of planes...and perform maneuvers that are described as never seen before by air traffic controllers, and practically impossible by military pilots with 30 years of experience," you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to doubt the official explanation for 9-11, he remarked. Mazzucco pointed out that it was unlikely that none of the four black boxes were ever found, as well inconsistencies in the official story regarding the collapse of Building 7, which they blamed on fire. He also revealed the little known fact that by the year 2000, the Port Authority, which owned the Twin Towers, was facing an asbestos removal bill of about $1 billion-- the cost of building new towers.

----------------------------------------­-----

Appearing in the second half, Executive Director of the National Lawyers Guild and host of the "Law and Disorder" radio show in New York, Heidi Boghosian, addressed the extent to which the US government is actively acquiring personal information on Americans through their phone calls, emails, and Internet usage. She warned that the government now has the means to suppress the most essential tools of democracy. For instance, they have spied on some reporters, and threatened them with charges of espionage and conspiracy. We really have "an affront, not only to the Constitution, but for an open society where we can keep the government in check rather than having them control us," she stated.

She cited how multinational corporations have sometimes partnered with the government in their surveillance efforts. For example, a secret program called the Hemisphere Project actually paid AT&T employees to work alongside DEA agents, sharing phone records dating back to 1987, without a judicial warrant. "It's a simplistic argument to say that if we don't have anything to hide, we have nothing to worry about," she said. "Because the more we allow spying on various aspects of our lives" (via such technology as drones, RFID, video cameras, and biometrics), our rights are whittled down, and "we have virtually no privacy left." Yet, Boghosian remains hopeful that there's a sea change taking place, among both US citizens and lawmakers, and that the current surveillance overreach will be scaled back.

Related:

I have major disagreements with points in Massimo Mazzucco's film regarding the Pentagon no-jetliner theories and Flight 93 allegedly being blown up as opposed to having simply crashing in Pennsylvania. I also take issue with the ideas presented that the hijackers were innocent scapegoats and drones being swapped out for the 9/11 flights. A more likely scenario is that the hijackers were involved in the plot and going to carry it out, before being hijacked themselves by remote control. For more info relating to these topics please view these pages:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/slides.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/debunking-video-worth-considering.html http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/12/alleged-911-plotters-offer-to-confess.html
http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html
http://911review.com/articles/larson/FakeCallsCritique.html

That said, it's a very lengthy film with loads of solid points. So rather than tossing the baby out with the bathwater, please direct viewers of the film to this page.

The False Thinking and Assumptions of 'Informed' 911 Truth Doubters: A Message to the Honest Critics that have Been Fooled by the Propagandists.

Many aggressive non-truthers - the honest doubters of the 'conspiracy theorist position', as opposed to the leading 'professional' Debunkers - have serious issues to consider when it comes to fully understanding and confronting their own 911 beliefs.

They have three main problems to reflect upon which arise from the propaganda put out by the 911 truth 'Debunkers':

1. The doubters have been taught, via Debunking websites, to cynically equate straw man arguments and fringe ideas with valid criticism of the official story and thereby tend to miss the real arguments under examination.

Positions like the 'no-planes' theories, something that serious researchers have long rejected, are seen as part and parcel of the 911 truth claims. Truthers are commonly seen as naive or uncritical thinkers and are intellectually looked down upon because of these wrongly held assumptions.

In the minds of the 911 truth doubters they see the overall truther case, that goes against the official narrative, as being almost entirely irrational when, in fact, the conspiracy argument is based upon proven observation, science and (when pointing out the flaws of the Government's position) official documentation.

2. Furthermore, beyond falling for the straw man arguments that don't address real issues, the doubters are also fooled by the outright false official explanations, plus the plethora of false arguments put up by the 911 truth 'Debunking' (disinformation) fraternity, that do 'address' the real issues.

In this instance the key 911 truth 'Debunker' rebuttals rely upon many unsubstantiated explanations and false analogies. They pretend to adequately cover the highly relevant issues at hand, like freefall collapse rates and molten steel, but don't. Unfortunately the honest 911 truth doubters fall for these deceptions rather than thinking twice about what is being put to them - even after it is has been pointed out by the 911 truthers.

For instance, we find debunker 'explanations' have been made against the mountain of material that documents the melting of steel at the World Trade Centre ruins -something that could only occur if high temperature incendiaries were used. The melted steel, strong evidence of an inside job, is 'dismissed' via a number of completely inadequate explanations - that there was no melted steel, only red hot steel; that other metals had melted and that it was not steel; that the rubble pile fires could have done the job anyway, that what was witnessed was melted aluminium or lead etc.

These explanations are trotted out to trick those who are both unfamiliar with fire and materials science and unfamiliar with what was actually observed and recorded. Indeed none of the 'truth debunking' answers, no matter how elaborately padded, actually accounts for the data we find in the FEMA report, from the USGS, in the RJ Lee Report, from numerous eyewitnesses, the photographs, or the independent research by scientists not part of the US Government. From the accumulated evidence we know that steel was definitely melted like 'Swiss cheese', that pools of molten metal were seen, that hot dripping structural steel was observed, and that iron rich spheres of metal (previously molten) were found all throughout the dust, and that this evidence cannot be reconciled with welding or post disaster clean up activity.

The question to those who believe the debunking explanations is very simple - do the debunker claims and analogies actually account for what was observed? If not, then these represent NO explanation for what was seen. Those familiar with the science, and are able to do further research, will find that the debunker explanations are bogus.

3. The last key point to make in addressing the views of those who aggressively reject 911 truth claims is the fact that many of them are acting, or rather parroting the view, that asking questions, in the face of official assurances, is a bad thing. Truth should never fear inspection and interrogation! We should  be asking questions and we should be debating the issues - using logic and science.
_________________________________________

So, when  the question arises over which side is fielding propaganda, especially if the material deals with 'difficult' issues, we can actually discern who has the better argument (ie telling the truth) via methods of reasoning and properly applied scientific knowledge juxtaposed with the recorded observations.

No claim, regardless of whose side it comes from should be taken at face value. In this information war data must be interrogated. And be mindful. The Debunkers/Disinformation fraternity will falsely claim that this is exactly what they have been doing and not what truthers are doing. Such wholesale accusations are just rhetoric. If one CHECKS the evidence and arguments, the truth behind such claims becomes apparent. Check the evidence - it's not that difficult.

Therefore, if the 911 truth doubters are honest with themselves (as opposed to the likely disingenuous government-connected 'Debunkers') they will reassess what they think they know and engage in further research. It's time to understand that 911 was indeed an inside job - and that being an unwitting part of the 911 lie only helps to maintain the never ending War on Terror.

As long as there is the threat of false flags we will never find peace. The enemy is within our own ranks and we must recognise this sad fact. Responsible individuals MUST inform the public - to explain that we are all  subjects of a heinous staged terror event, and that justice needs to be served so that peace can be attained.

Spookyone

C2CAM - 9-11 Truth - Coast To Coast AM

9/11 material starts at 0:39:27

Published on Jul 17, 2012 by Boomdaddy03

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE LATEST UPDATED VIDEO THAT CAME OUT TODAY http://www.youtube.com/user/Boomdaddy03

Subscribe To Get Notified Of The Latest Releases As They Come Out http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=Boomdaddy03

Date: 06-09-09 Host: George Noory Guests: Richard Gage, Martine Colette

A practicing architect for 20 years, Richard Gage is the founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth. He discussed the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises on 9-11, and why nearly 700 architects and engineers have found evidence for explosive controlled demolition, and are calling for a new investigation. Lauded as an engineering feat when they were constructed, the WTC Towers, according to the official explanation, were said to collapse because of the fires burning on the upper floors. Yet, Gage pointed out that other high-rise buildings with hotter and longer fires never collapsed in this manner.

Further, in the case of fire, if a building was to collapse, it would fall over and not straight down, he said. This type of collapse indicated there was no resistance from the structures below, he added. The collapse of Building 7 was also a curiosity, as the fires seen in photos & videos were fairly small, Gage detailed. However, witnesses near Building 7 said they heard the sounds of explosions, lending credence to the idea that controlled demolitions took place.

Evidence for controlled demolition of the Towers comes from a study by Dr. Steven Jones of the pulverized dust that surrounded the area after the collapse. The material was found to have the chemical signature of thermite, created through nanotechnology, something that military departments have been experimenting with in laboratories. Gage speculated that this thermite might have been planted in the Tower's elevator columns during a lengthy modernization project that was begun 9 months prior to 9-11. Because of this and other evidence, he is calling for a new and independent investigation to uncover the full truth about the events surrounding 9-11. He recommended signing the AE911 Truth Petition and visiting the NYC Coalition for Accountability Now site.



Related:

Alex Jones and Richard Gage Debunk the National Geographic Hit Piece on 9/11 Truth

9/11 Debunker Gets His Ass Handed To Him By Richard Gage - 20/07/2009

Debunking Dave Thomas, Ryan Mackey, and Zdenek Bazant et al.

Richard Gage's Auckland Presentation Silences the Debunkers

9/11 WTC Debate: Collapse by fire or explosive controlled demolition? 1/11 - Edited version of Gage and Mohr's debate with added comments and videos to address the sound issue and other points raised by Mohr.

If you were keeping score, Mohr probably did win the debate...

Chris Mohr's "respectful rebuttal" smells like debunking

AE911Truth Debates Explosive Expert: Richard Gage, AIA vs. Ron Craig

Reply: Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!

Reply: Richard Gage Explains the Lack of Explosive Sounds

RIBA, AIA and Aaronovitch attack Gage

Cowardly AIA Panders to Political Correctness

Controlled Demolition Not Possible?

VIRAL EMAIL LETTER: The Laws of Physics and the Collapse of the 3 World Trade Centre Buildings on 911.

Dear People at [Insert Media Name here],

I've included a link to a You Tube video that I think everyone at your [Newspaper/TV Station/Radio Station] should watch. The video explains why our troops should not be in Afghanistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0



Our troops must be withdrawn as soon as possible.

And note, there is no dishonour to our soldiers who have engaged in operations fully believing their missions were of vital defence importance to our country. Our forces have done the best they can under the circumstances and now it's time to disengage from this unnecessary fight.

The material in this clip is known to millions of people online in various other forms.

Thanks for you attention.

[Insert Name here]
--------------------------------------------------

Media Contact List

Write an E-Mail Message to Congress, the President and the Media!

A note to letter senders. The key value of this video is the experimental data cited that proves the official story is a lie. No matter what one says about other details of the murder the forensic material highlighted here shows the destruction of these buildings involved explosives.

The Argument of the 911 Truth Debunkers as Analogous to Denying the Existence of a Car.

These are some of the debunker "arguments" that have been made against the existence of the physical evidence proving nanothermite explosives, the freefall collapses of the towers, the evidence of melted steel etc:

"Your car has a poor choice of tires, no sensible person could call that thing a car with those tires"

"The colour is all wrong. No car of the type you describe is of that colour. You're not describing any car known to science."

"The engine in your car is not a known or standard type, your car therefore has no engine. It can't really be called a car."

"The windshield on this car doesn't exist, even though it might appear to exist, is solid, is see-through, and keeps the wind and rain out. A car without a windshield is not a car."

"Your car cannot possibly be found where you claim, even though there are pics, witness reports, scientific reviews etc. Because we deem it impossible, the car cannot exist. Everyone who says it does, no matter the evidence, is a wacko."

"Because of all these "proven" deficiencies you don't have a car at all. It's not a car."

"Furthermore, we have calculated (even tho the official investigators couldn't) what you may think is a fully functioning car is actually just a bicycle. Of course, being troofers, you will be unable to see or understand what we are pointing out to you. Just trust our brilliance and accept what we are saying."

Dear readers, if you can suppress common sense, the laws of physics, a multitude of credible eyewitness reports (many from trained observers), and the findings of independent researchers & scientists, then you can believe in anything.

If you can think for yourselves you will believe only what the established evidence tells you.

911 was an inside job. The evidence is clear cut. (AE911truth.org)

Who is Really "Stupid and Wrong": Key Ideas and Evidence Concerning 911 that Prove the Attacks involved Inside Help. (911 Truth Debate in Australia)

A letter sent to Australian media:

Recently the President of the Trades Hall Council and Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, Kevin Bracken, telephoned into a local radio program that was discussing the Australian troop deployment to Afghanistan. Mr Bracken aired the implicit view that, in terms of the deployment's role in "stopping terrorism", we should be mindful that our commitment was, from the outset, completely unnecessary. His argument follows that we are fighting an unnecessary war because the attacks of 911 were orchestrated by a conspiracy originating closer to home, that Osama Bin Laden was merely a patsy.

Predictably, when this matter was raised in the Australian Parliament the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, quickly responded by characterising Mr Bracken's opinions as "stupid and wrong". However, when we compare the US Government's official story regarding 911 with the hard evidence relating to the World Trade Centre attacks we can quickly determine that the only people who are wrong here are those who back the official story.

There are four main points of physical evidence revealed in the destruction of the World Trade Centre Buildings that provide smoking gun physical evidence that completely undermines the official account; that fires caused the "collapses" of these structures:

Point One. The destruction of the Twin Towers, and World Trade Centre 7, exhibited features that were not at all consistent with a gravitational collapse. In fact these features can only be reasonably described as the products of explosive forces. World Trade Centre Building 7 in particular raises a huge red flag. Designed, like the towers, to withstand earthquakes, fires, and hurricanes, with only minor damage, and not hit by an aeroplane, this structure collapses in a manner identical to a controlled demolition seven hours after the disintegration of the Towers at 5:20pm. The collapse here defies the Laws of physics save for the use of explosives that would allow for such a rapid demise.

Point Two. Despite the building fires being too weak to melt structural steel there is ample evidence showing the melting of steel during and after the building destruction. The phenomena of melted steel is an impossible occurrence under the observed fire conditions witnessed in the buildings and can only have resulted from the presence of chemical incendiary (superhot burning) devices.

Point Three. Investigations by independent scientists showed the signature of the chemical incendiary THERMATE in multiple dust samples (and also upon a previously melted section of steel frame). The amount of material present in the dust samples indicated that many tons must have been used and provided clear evidence of foul play.

Point Four. In the last few years an international team of researchers looking into the WTC dust found high tech explosive particles (nano-thermite chips) in every sample collected. This military grade product, found in quantities that also indicated many tons were present, cannot be explained in any conventional way. This was the final nail in the coffin of the official story that fires had caused the World Trade Centre building collapses.

These four points of forensic proof indicate an attempt had been made at deceptively demolishing these three buildings. The deception was only partly successful.

The immediate question following this evidence is how could so many tons of explosive and incendiary materials be brought into these buildings ? At this point no one can surely say except to point out that the evidence is, nevertheless, there. One thing we do know is that an elevator modernisation program was underway in the Towers during the months leading up to the attacks providing plenty of opportunity to thoroughly rig these structures.

So what about the official investigations ? When it came to conducting the scientific "investigations" into the building collapses the FEMA and NIST studies basically ignored or whitewashed these obvious signs of inside work. In fact the "separate" investigations consisted of the same people who had connections & contracts to the US military. Some of these individuals even had connections to nano-thermite (explosive) research !

When we look at 911 from an objective stand point it is obvious that the attacks involved a large degree of inside help and that a cover-up was, and still is, in operation. The problem with successfully communicating this information to those who remain skeptical are twofold:

1. There is a strong reluctance by people, who have been psychologically conditioned to accept the official account, to take a second look at any evidence that interferes with their established views (and this includes the Australian Prime Minister), and

2. There are numerous liars in the US corporate media and Government who will try to keep a lid on anything that greatly rocks the establishment. They'll censor or deride all attempts at having a reasonable debate on this matter and push false counter claims to the truth evidence (debunking) so as to mislead the public.

In terms of the Australian experience involving our own terrorism "experts", the academics and bureaucrats who brief our media and the Government also appear to either not recognise the truth or deliberately go along with the lie.

On the other hand, our intelligence heads at the ONA and ASIS, who should be less susceptible to deception than others, almost certainly recognise the truth and more than likely push the lie about 911 to those not in the know. Their mission, like that of the CIA, is to "play the game" and protect strategic and corporate interests. The 911 lie is simply too big to let out of the bag, the repercussions for the shadowy intelligence community being too great.

In the middle of this mess is the Australian media's inability to report on such matters. Our investigative journalists, who should have been more curious and critical of the official 911 story, seem to be as misled as the general population.

The time has passed to gloss over the "conspiracy theories" concerning the 911 attacks. When we are talking about having our troops remain in Afghanistan, potentially for up to 10 more years, we need to be honest with ourselves and not trumpet the false belief that we are preventing more terror attacks like 911. That assertion is plainly ridiculous.

Anyone who engages in enough research can determine who is telling the truth about 911, either the US Government or independent researchers. The fact is that Australian troops arrived in Afghanistan under mistaken pretenses and now we have to decide whether they should stay for humanitarian reasons or withdraw.

Please visit these vital 911 truth sites and make a reasoned judgement on what to believe: Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, 911Blogger, and (for counter-disinformation) Debunking the Debunkers Blog [Google them].

Please vote!

Herald Sun Poll: 65% Agree that the Official 9/11 Story does not Stand up to Scientific Scrutiny

Related Info:

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Australian Union President, Kevin Bracken – A True Working Class Hero!

Defending The 9/11 Truth Tellers

Aussie Trades Unionist Exposes 9/11 Cover-up

There are civilized debunkers out there. Just gotta know where to look!

This is a debate I had with a debunker awhile back. This discussion I had is total proof that it is possible to have a rational and intellectual debate with a debunker. (The tone of this debate, as you will see, is completely in contrast with my previous debate.) Here is my discussion with debunker Gunny467, regarding the thermite theory and nano-thermite paper. It's a short debate, but a refreshing one:

AdamT:

Hello Gunny. I wanted to pick up from where we left off in our discussion. I see from your channel that you are open to a civil debate that you would like to finish. And that's fine, just keep the debate civil on your end as well. Now, to pick up from where we left off on the chain of custody issue, I have a few questions. The claim I keep hearing from many is that there is no proper chain of custody for the four samples Dr. Jones has obtained, therby the samples are possibly contaminated. However, the one thing I have yet to hear explained is what this alleged contamination is supposed to have done to the samples. What exactly do you think happened to the samples that caused Dr. Jones and the others to come to the conclusions that they did? Because as far as I know, other studies by other groups such as the RJ Lee group and the USGS group have found similar elements in their own samples, particularly finding the iron-rich spheres. I would really like to hear your input. Thank you.

Gunny:

Well, with no clear chain of custody it can't be proven that the samples he tested were from ground zero. It's possible they were substituted en route to a destination. Another possibility is that they were contaminated by improper handling. The motive for tampering is easy, money. He's made a substantial dollar amount doing lectures and tours about his findings. Money he wouldn't have made if there wasn't a paper. If a chain of custody issue had been raised with the official samples most conspiracy theorists would have said it indicated proof of a conspiracy. I see no reason to hold Dr. Jones to the same standards. Iron rich spheres by themselves aren't indicative of a thermite reaction. His paper starts with the answer he wants and devises questions to get there. He ignores any data that doesn't fit his theory. It's bad science.

AT:

The first thing I should point out is that you're right, the samples didn't come from Ground Zero. They came from areas away from Ground Zero such as the Brooklyn Bridge and other buildings in the city. That proves that they were not contaminated by the cleanup efforts. Second, I really doubt he is doing this for money. He basically gave up his job to investigate 9/11. And I see no evidence what so ever that Dr. Jones is just lying about the dust. Again, other studies have essentially found the same things. Also, didn't NIST start with a conclusion and tried to find evidence that supported their conclusion? I do think the iron spheres are extremely important because their presence implies that iron had melted. Iron does not melt until temperatures of 2800 degrees F. I can't think of anything that could cause that except thermite.

Gunny:

Well not necessarily. Acetylene torches welding steel can have that effect, so someone collecting a sample that had been contaminated from cast of near a construction site not in the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero. Specifically, if a sample was collected from the Brookline bridge, the amount of contamination from vehicle cast of would be enormous. Any truck carrying welded scraps to or from a dump could have left iron sphere contaminated dust on the bridge. The samples weren't collected by professionals, but by supposedly by random people who wanted some of the dust. He didn't then test the samples for four years after they were collected by people with no experience in handling evidence. This casts considerable doubt on the initial integrity of his samples. In addition certain types of paint (specifically rust preventative paints) have varying levels of them as a byproduct of their manufacturing process. College professors don't really make a lot of money, unless they publish an important paper. I've read the NIST report. It doesn't have a specific conclusion at all. It's presented facts indicate to an almost certain degree of probability that events happened in a manner consistent with a catastrophic failure due to an impact with a jetliner. The steel didn't melt. It was weakened by several hours of exposure to a high intensity fire caused by burning fuel. The already massive damage to the superstructure resulted in a systemic failure of the support structure resulting in collapse. In addition to the information already sent, I would like to note that the molten metal pouring from the building is suspected to be from the remains of the Jetliner itself, as it's aluminum body melted from the intense heat.

AT:

To address the iron sphere issue, I would agree with you about them except for the fact that they were also found by the RJ Lee group and the USGS group. Particularly the RJ Lee group who obtained their samples from the Deutchse Bank building for environmental studies. They found the exact same type of iron spheres across the street from the WTC, so the cleanup could not possibly have produced the spheres at least there anyway. The USGS also found these spheres in their own dust analysis. The acetylene torches have been raised as a possibility, but they are a highly unlikely cause since spheres from thermite and spheres from torches have distinct differences. This is a good video that addresses this issue:



Also, the material flowing out of the South Tower does not appear to be from the plane. I have made a video addressing this issue:



Gunny:

Well, I really want you to understand that this is not a brush off, but instead me gathering my files and taking some time to address those points in turn from the second video. This response might take a while. Perhaps by Sunday I'll have a list of compiled statements and counter theories. Is this acceptable? The amount of time needed to address all these points is something I'm going to have to juggle in my off time between retraining from injury, redeployment and continuing education. If things go well I should be out of the hospital by Saturday which will give me enough time to put a proper counter-argument together.

AT:

That's fine. Whenever you get around to it is fine with me. I'm in no rush.

Gunny:

Thank you for your generosity! In case you hadn't noticed you've made my Cool Wall in my profile for your continued good natured debating, in addition to your well articulated and presented arguments.

AT:

I did notice, and thank you. I am always open to a civil debate.
___________________________________________________________

Since then, Gunny has not responded back, but it was quite nice to have a rational debate for a change(I don't get many). You can get a good conversation out of Gunny467. As long as you're civil with him, he'll be civil with you. Which, of course, is how it always should be.

Examining Loose Change Exposed

CitizenFor911Truth1
YouTube.com
October 30, 2009

Hunger Striker Returns to McCain's Office

WrightLarryJ
YouTube.com
December 14, 2008

Professor Blair Gadsby returned to Senator McCain's office with another request to meet with the senator to discuss the evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Members of Phoenix 9-11 Truth organized a street action outside the office in support of Blair's effort to reach Senator McCain.