Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it...

Even if the 'history' was only a few years ago...

My what short memories people have.


Related Info:

Another War in the Works

The U.S., Iran and Nuclear Terror

Bush Aides Continue to Defend George Bush's Legacy and Link Iraq to 9/11

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." - Source: The Downing Street Memo

"The Downing Street "Memo" is actually the minutes of a meeting, transcribed during a gathering of many of the British Prime Minister's senior ministers on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 this document was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth about how the Iraq war began." - Source: http://downingstreetmemo.com

This all just goes to further prove the point that "moving forward" without truth and justice is a bad idea!

Debunker Paint

Now I wasn't really that impressed with the new Loose Change film to be honest. The historical stuff was interesting (particularly the bit about the Coup plot against Roosevelt) and the narration and music was generally an improvement. But I thought the editing was a bit half-assed in places (Did it really cost them more than a million dollars?) and in terms of its 9/11 stuff it wasn't really anything special. I prefer the Final Cut. Probably the best piece of footage in the entire movie was this little shot of a 'paint' chip being ignited. Now I don't know what debunkers paint their houses with but let's just say I don't want any of it near my house.

Comment from John-Michael Talboo:

All that being said about LC, they didn't need to include as much info about demolition seeing as how we have found the explosives. It seems the overall goal was to make as concise a presentation as possible. As to the other info not being special, remember that as 9/11 researchers we are very over-exposed. They mentioned this in a recent interview. I have already showed it to a newbie, and now they are a newbie truther! I think we needed a new Loose Change post-Obama/nanothermite. I actually think someone should edit together the best parts of Final Cut and Coup to make Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup Final Cut!

Related Info:

More About That Exploding Paint

National Geographic vs Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

Monday, September 28, 2009

G20 - Welcome to the New World Order

Clips of the police brutality at the G20 protests in London and Pittsburgh. I was horrified watching videos of the G20 protests in Pittsburgh and had to make a video about it. I feel like I'm living in a science fiction movie. Never mind Nazi Germany, this is frickin' Star Wars! The police and Military better wake up soon. Is this the kind of world you want your children to grow up in?

This is the 'New World Order'. It is not New. And it is not order. Anyone who can still deny it now is officially deluded.

Music: A Perfect Circle - Counting Bodies Like Sheep.

Friday, September 25, 2009

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

September 23, 2009

On Monday, July 20, 2009, Baltimore GrassRoots Media followed Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, on the final day of his visit to Washington, D.C.

The final stop was the White House where Gage, with David Slesinger, laid an AE911Truth banner on the sidewalk and addressed the tourists gathered there. Gage got into a heated but cordial debate with a man who identified himself as Kevin, a "reformed truther" and the former "debunking director" on the JREF Forum.

Original YouTube post

Related Info:

Even NIST now admits that, "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse."

"Of course the diesel fuel for WTC 7's emergency generators was something that seemed to have some promise, but no. They state that, the diesel fuel "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7," and that it was "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that they were "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings." - Source: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/08/my-demolition-company.html

Remember the BBC WTC7 hitpiece? Remember when Richard Gage attempted to explain the large amount of smoke around the south side of Building 7 by saying it was negative pressure - which he has been thoroughly mocked for? Well it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Click here to see why...

NIST Debunks Itself

The Un-Debunkable Molten Metal

Analyzing Larry Silverstein's "Pull It" Comment

"Pulling" Building 7 - An Overlooked Explanation

"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it." - FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander) on 9/11

WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein 3/13/08

WeAreChange Debunks the BBC at Ground Zero 9/11/08

WeAreChange Debunks the BBC part 2: A Call to Action

I too have been accused of being an "FDNY hating scumbag" for posting this blog, scroll down and take a look at the update.

Many great comments on this video at 911blogger.com

Of course this is all besides the point since the explosives have been found!

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is Credible... and Yes... She is a Truther Too!


Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog thinks that the article "Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?" recently published in the American Conservative Magazine is a "snoozer as far as '9-11 Inside Job' goes." Here is the excerpt that leads him to that conclusion:
EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word "al-Qaeda." It was always "mujahideen," always "bin Laden" and, in fact, not "bin Laden" but "bin Ladens" plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.

There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.
Pat states, "And no kidding, as far as I can see, that's the whole tie-in to 9-11. Now I think anybody faced with the headline 'Bin Laden on CIA payroll' might some questions in mind, but when you say 'Bin Ladens on CIA payroll' there should be one obvious question: Which Bin Laden?"

As the George Washington Blog has pointed out, Edmonds saying that Osama bin Laden worked for the U.S. right up until 9/11 has much supporting evidence. This evidence includes a report from one of the most reputable French papers, Le Figaro, which claims that a CIA agent met with bin Laden two months before 9/11. The 9/11 "debunking" website 9/11myths.com tries to cast doubt on the validly of this report, while at the same time admitting possible confirmation, they state:
Author Richard Labeviere later wrote a book, where he said "a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain" confirmed the meeting, which had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia.

Confirmation? Maybe, but again we don't know the source, so there’s no way to determine its accuracy.
Hasn't this site ever heard that a good reporter never reveals their sources? In the words of John Coulter of the Irish Daily Star, "If you can't keep your gob shut about your sources, never, Never, NEVER become a journalist."

That being said, Labeviere did reveal some details about his sources, through whom he revealed very detailed information, including the name of the CIA station chief in question! A 2003 Reuters report states:
Labeviere said he learned of an encounter from a contact in the Dubai hospital, and said the event was confirmed in detail during a separate interview in New York with a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain.

The prince, who the author met in a Manhattan hotel in November 2001, appeared very well-informed about the CIA-bin Laden meeting.

Labeviere said the second contact told him the face-to-face had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Department...

Labeviere named Larry Mitchell as the CIA station chief who met bin Laden, describing him as a colorful figure well-known on the Dubai social circuit.
And as HistoryCommons.org points out:
French counterterrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising: It "is nothing extraordinary. Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989.
The evidence supporting Edmonds also includes a CIA commander stating the U.S. let bin Laden escape from Afghanistan, French soldiers stating they could have killed Bin Laden, but were not allowed by American commanders, and an Al Qaeda trainer who it turns out worked with the Green Berets, CIA, and FBI!

This is evidence that Edmonds is surely aware of and when viewed in conjunction with the information found in the American Conservative article, is anything but a "snoozer!" She is more than justified in her belief than bin Laden was an American asset up until 9/11.

But the bottom line is that bin Laden WAS a CIA asset and there ARE legitimate reasons to question when this relationship ended.

Pat Curley then goes on to claim that "Sibel lied in her letter to the 9-11 Commission." Here are the allegations in Edmond's letter as outlined by Pat:
1. Attack in the US targeting 4-5 cities.
2. Attack will involve airplanes.
3. Some of the attackers already in the US.
4. Attack coming soon.
Here is a collection of mainstream news articles on the subject from HistoryCommons.org. I'll highlight the one thing that Pat is using to try to claim that Sibel was lying about everything except the attack involving airplanes:
April 2001: FBI Translators Learn Al-Qaeda Suicide Pilots Plan to Hit Skyscrapers in US and Europe
FBI translators Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar will later claim to know of an important warning given to the FBI at this time. In their accounts, a reliable informant on the FBI’s payroll for at least ten years tells two FBI agents that sources in Afghanistan have heard of an al-Qaeda plot to attack the US and Europe in a suicide mission involving airplanes. Al-Qaeda agents, already in place inside the US, are being trained as pilots. By some accounts, the names of prominent US cities are mentioned. A report on the matter is filed with squad supervisor Thomas Frields, but it’s unclear if this warning reaches FBI headquarters or beyond. The two translators will later privately testify to the 9/11 Commission. [WorldNetDaily, 3/24/2004; Salon, 3/26/2004; WorldNetDaily, 4/6/2004; Village Voice, 4/14/2004] Sarshar’s notes of the interview indicate that the informant claimed his information came from Iran, Afghanistan, and Hamburg, Germany (the location of the primary 9/11 al-Qaeda cell). However, anonymous FBI officials will claim the warning was very vague and doubtful. [Chicago Tribune, 7/21/2004] In reference to this warning and apparently others, Edmonds will say, “President Bush said they had no specific information about September 11, and that’s accurate. However, there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand, and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should’ve alerted the people to the threat we were facing.” [Salon, 3/26/2004] She will add, “There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers.” [Independent, 4/2/2004]
I guess anonymous sources are OK if they support a so-called debunker's premise! Look at all of this information and then decide for yourself. As always, we truth seekers are confident that the facts speak for themselves, it's just a matter of having enough information at hand to actually determine what the facts are. But when considering all of this sometimes conflicting information keep in mind that Sibel is credible. How do I know? A comment on Pat's blog actually sums it up pretty well, I'll correct the falsehoods it contains below:
Re: Sibel’s Credibility -

The State’s Secret Privilege was invoked twice on Sibel. The SSP is the neutron bomb of legal gag orders. Anytime it is used it is a significant occurrence, and its application automatically lends some credibility to the person it is subjected to. That kind of legal firepower is not rolled out to gag someone, if they are fabricators or can be easily discredited.

Vanity Fair’s (a publication this website boasts of having been mentioned in) article about Sibel cited that Sibel’s story and what she knows as being backed up by several current and former FBI Agents. The magazine’s fact checking department requires something be confirmed by at least two sources; my understanding is that this was raised to 3-4 sources due to the incendiary nature of the story.

The Sunday Times of London found her allegations about nuclear proliferation to be sufficiently credible, and was able to confirm it to run a series of articles last year about it.

The man who conducted this interview and had previously written about Sibel’s case, Phil Giraldi, is a former intelligence officer who served in both the CIA and DIA, including a tour as deputy chief of base in Istanbul. A man with such a HUMINT background and in the subject matter would be easily deceived by a fabricator.

Sibel has been embraced and championed by 9/11 Truthers; there is little she can do about that, and this does not necessarily mean she endorses them or subscribes to all their theories. In fact I believe that the information she has related to 9/11 is small and probably not of huge significance. The information she has on other matters is however, is great and of huge significance.

And for the record I am no fan of Truthers either.
Sorry bud, Sibel is a truther, in the past she openly discussed the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job with radio talk show host Alex Jones. When asked if she believed "the evidence" was "leaning towards that," Edmonds stated, "I would say yes." More recently, Edmonds signed the 2009 Truth Statement at 911truth.org, she is signatory number 8 underneath the first two lists of "notable Americans and family members." Her signature reads, "Sibel Edmonds, Founder & Director-NSWBC, Formet FBI Language Specialist & Whistleblower, Publisher http://123realchange.blogspot.com"

Speaking of her blog 123RealChange, this is the post for today, "The American Conservative Article & the Credibility Question."

Related Info:

Sibel Edmonds, SNAFUs, and Freedom Fries!

And It's Not Only Sibel Edmonds Who Says So

Listening To Sibel Edmonds

HistoryCommons.org - Profile: Sibel Edmonds

Monday, September 21, 2009

9/11 Blueprint for Truth Debut on Colorado Public Television

Two new videos I put together for the Visibility911.com YouTube channel. Professor David Ray Griffin's book Debunking 9/11 Debunking gets a good plug towards the end of the first one.

Related Info:

9/11 Blueprint for Truth (2008 Edition)

KBDI Historic Airings of 9-11 Documentaries Draws Media Attention...

9-11 Blueprint for Truth to Debut on Colorado Public Television...

Media Breakthrough! 9-11 Press for Truth to Be Shown on Mainstream Television...

KBDI Press Release: 9/11 Press for Truth on Channel 12 Draws Huge Support from Colorado Public Television Viewers...

911 Truth on PBS

Internet Troll - Definition

Care2.com user Jonathan B. was kind enough to provide me with this definition of an internet troll. This one is specifically geared towards those trolls who engage in so-called 9/11 debunking...


Internet poster who takes oppositional views to any advocacy site, regardless of the actual strength of his chosen position, for the pure purpose of stirring up debates, generating anonymously, and triggering hatred.

Goal of Trolling- The feelings of superiority and laughs that come from generating hatred, bad feeling, or confusion on the target of trolling, and attention generated from getting targets to respond.

Tools of Trolling-

1. Ad hominem insults of posters mental status, looks, intellect, or typing skills.

2. Disregard of any fact that does not back the troll's advocacy position, and excessive focus of any debunker information, regardless of the motives of the debunker.

3. Endless verbosity when arguing any position, regardless of logic or reasoning or actual facts, but a lot of use of "facts" discussed generally, but never quoted or sourced. Example- Thousands of scientists say I am right.

Payoff of trolling-

1. Making other people feel bad, without the risk of getting one's face punched in, for being rude, cruel, or socially uncaring.

2. Bullying without the mess and fuss and muss of actually answering for bad behavior.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

A Clarification on Disinfo

In a recent article by Erik Larson of visibility911.com, where he revealed that Peter Dale Scott does not endorse a Pentagon flyover theory, he relates the following concerning calling people disinfo:
In his message giving me permission to post, Dr. Scott also said, "I am now aware of [CIT’s] ad hominem attacks on good people, which is a big reason why I am giving you this permission." In my email to him, I had included a link to the CIT forum thread titled "Face to the Name", where they post names and photos, and insult and attack those who question their methods, conclusions and behavior:


My name and photo are on page 4; CIT co-founder Aldo ‘Investigangsta’ Marquis claims I have made "accusations of being disinfo" against CIT. This is not correct; I have criticized CIT’s evidence, claims and behavior, but I have not accused them of ‘disinformation’, i.e. intentionally misleading the public.

Lessons from Dr. Scott’s message:

1) Labeling people or questioning their motives instead of critiquing their evidence and arguments is not persuasive to people skilled in research and debate, and may even be offensive. Facts are facts, and offensive behavior does not change the truth, but civil discussion promotes greater understanding. Personal attacks can cloud the issues and cause bad feeling and suspicion among 9/11 researchers and Truth activists. The FBI employed such techniques effectively during their COINTELPRO operation, as a means of disrupting and distracting activists. Dr. Scott wisely asks that those seeking truth "not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other."

And as 9/11 researcher Arabesque has observed:

About the issue of "disinformation" and "agents" and all of that. I think it is best to reject labels altogether and just give the information. Particularly since there are disinformation enablers who will use these kinds of characterizations and attacks to defend CIT and their endorsements of CIT. I have seen time and time again how this is used as a straw-man to deflect attention away from the bad information and behavior. Instead of addressing these issues, enablers of disinfo/misinfo will point to the "attacks" and accusations of "disinfo" and simply ignore the information.
These are all very good points, and everyone at this blog will be more careful with such terminology in the future.

That being said, we have demonstrated that CIT and their supporters use many of the "The Rules of Disinformation" as outlined by H. Michael Sweeny, but just in case we didn't drive this point home, let me expand.

Rule #5 as outlined by Sweeny is to "Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule." Keeping that in mind...

A topic on the Loose Change Forum asked the question: "Why is CIT evidence omitted frequently?," so I thought I would provide an answer...

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes 9-11 Researcher Jim Hoffman...

Aldo Marquis of CIT responds:

And? Your point? Doesn't that belong in the skeptics section?

So does someone want to inform my daughter, my mom, my family, my friends that I am a disinformation operative for the gov't? Michael Wolsey is a bumbling fool.

Speaking of bumbling fools...

Jim Hoffman is wrong on so many levels. I mean the guy fucking used Google Earth to provid POV'sfor flyover witness (using the old absence of evidence argument) and claim us driving around the highways with a video camera is deceptive. The idiot uses Google Earth flattened out then writes an article on it, then advises everyone to use Google Maps Street View which is what he should have used in the first place. Which,keep in mind, also is a camera sitting mounted a feet on the roof of a car, not a person sitting inside of a car.

The guy sites people who weren't even at the Pentagon as witnesses.

Ask him why he refused to debate or discuss his concerns with us? We called his house and left a message, no return call. Because he is a coward who would rather cobble together a weak ass argument to save face and not admit he was wrong. What a pathetic excuse for a truthseeking researcher."
First off, Michael Wolsey did not say that CIT was definitely engaged in disinformation, he actually said he could not prove such a thing, but that he can point towards behavior. I'll let Jim Hoffman's analysis speak for itself and only add that I recently had the chance to see the Pentagon while on a bus ride and my first thoughts were how ridiculous a flyover theory is! I would have seen it!

So, because of this, Marquis calls Wolsey, who hosts the longest-running podcast for 9/11 truth, a "bumbling fool." Then he calls Hoffman, arguably one of the most well respected 9/11 researchers ever, a "bumbling fool, idiot, coward", and "pathetic excuse for a truthseeking researcher." That is "name calling and ridicule" if I ever heard it!

Also, after posting the interview on the Loose Change forum, under my user name of "infowarpatriot" a CIT supporter attacked the name, stating, "'infowarpatriot'... talk about blatant disinfo. How about 'Super9-11Truther' or 'TotaleeLegitPatriot' or 'ImNotDisinfoIpromise'"

But hey, maybe CIT and their fans were victims of number #18 of the "Rules of Disinformation," maybe they were "Antagonized and Goaded" by their "opponents."

I mean how dare Wolsey and Hoffman suggest they might be disinfo, it's not like CIT dismisses hundreds of other witnesses (Disinformation Rule #19. Ignore proof presented) giving easy straw men to debunkers, (Disinformation Rule #4 Use a straw man) and accuses some witnesses of being cover-up agents, or worse, active participants.

It's not like their theory depends on an absurd amount of fakery, including: wreckage and the flight data and cockpit voice recorders found at the Pentagon, human remains and DNA indentification, the aforementioned witnesses, and sleight of hand type illusion that would make Criss Angel look like a dime-store magician (Disinformation Rule #15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions). Oh wait, yes it is, but again, insinuating disinfo is a bit beyond the pale, CIT's fans may do that, but they never would, right?

On May 9, 2008 "Reprehensor" of 911blogger.com posted the following:
Posting these critical resources for 911blogger users to examine, when evaluating the Pentagon Fly-over theory and eyewitness evidence as presented by the CIT team... Users should be aware of this criticism:

John Farmer's blog:

Caustic Logic:


I have no further comment on these blogs other than to say that they exist.
Aldo Marquis of CIT responds, "You are now guilty of promoting disinformation."

And it seems that if Jim Hoffman is a coward for not debating, then so is Craig Ranke of CIT. The resident 9/11 truther at the Screw Loose Change blog, Brian Good, had this to say, "Craig Ranke demanded that I debate him. After we had some back-and-forth in an email group he ran away and never came back."

In summation: CIT critics have insinuated they were, or outright called them disinfo (including members of this blog). However, CIT is guilty of the same to a larger degree and with less solid ground to walk on. That being said, I concede that we need to be more careful with such terminolgy in the future due to only having circumstantial evidence, just like their entire theory! Direct evidence would be witnesses actually seeing a flyover!

Related Info:

The CIT Deception - Mock Trailer!

Monday, September 14, 2009

Some Ham with Your Kraut? (If He Can Get Schoolyard-Personal, So Can We)

Gregg Roberts

Letters to the Editor
Washington Post

Dear Editor,

Charles Krauthammer's September 11 column "The Van Jones Matter" falls below even the continuously falling intellectual standards of most neo-conservatives. His fallacy-infused diatribe comes right out of the same playbook as the recently amped-up psychologizing of dissent exemplified by John Gartner of Psychology Today, commented on at InfoWars.com. Instead of looking where "Truthers" are pointing, he bites their finger. His column is a vitriolic, demonizing rant of which the great Nazi propagandist Goebbels would be proud.

What are the "Truthers" pointing at?

- Freefall of World Trade Center Building 7
- Visible and audible explosions during the destruction of the Twin Towers.
- Liquefication of iron and steel during the destruction, which requires temperatures far in excess of what the hottest hydrocarbon fire can produce.
- High-tech unexploded nano-thermite particles in the WTC dust -- developed not in a cave in Afghanistan, but in US national laboratories in the 1990s -- by some of the same government engineers who as NIST forensic experts professed to see no evidence of explosives in the WTC's destruction, and refused to test for them.
- Numerous opportunities to plant explosives in the World Trade Center during various renovations.
- Failure to intercept a single one of the four hijacked airliners.
- No pilot followed standard operating procedure by entering a simple four-digit hijack code, indicating either that the planes' electrical communications were commandeered by sophisticated electronics or the crew was knocked out by gas. Both possibilities are far beyond the hijackers' capabilities.
- Standard investigative procedures were not followed in any of the four official inquiries, including deep conflicts of interest among members of the 9/11 commission and NIST managers and contractors.

Who is it again, Mr. Krauthammer, that is hallucinating? Those who believe in the official fairy tale, or the patriotic members of the 9/11 truth movement, who have been trying to draw attention to these undisputed facts and their clear meaning ever since the day? Who is it again that is desecrating the memory of 9/11 victims? Those who are trying to get an official acknowledgment of the truth and justice for the victims, or those who provide rhetorical cover for the terrorists in our own government and defense industry who viciously attacked nearly 3000 defenseless men, women, and children to manipulate the rest of us into misdirected fear and rage, and took us into two completely unnecessary and illegal wars?

Gregg Roberts

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reply: Richard Gage Explains the Lack of Explosive Sounds

The video below is from James B. of the Screw Loose Change blog; the reply follows:

Gage's speculation seems to be partly based on the erroneous talking point shown in this video, that demolition would be audible as distinct events.

As the website 911review.com has pointed out:
The towers' destruction cannot be accurately described without the word 'explosion.' Huge clouds billowed out from the towers, starting around the crash zones, and grew rapidly as they consumed each tower, converting them to fine powder and fragments of steel, and depositing the bulk of the remains outside of each tower's footprint in a radial pattern.

Incredibly, this stark reality has and continues to be so consistently and widely denied in government, media, industry, and academia, that few Americans have even entertained the idea that the towers were intentionally demolished. One of the key underpinnings of that denial is the fact that the explosions were continuous, extending for the entire 15-second duration of each tower's collapse. Although witnesses describe loud pops at their onsets, the extended duration and loud roar of the explosions apparently prevented most people from thinking of them as explosions.
Here is a video I put together that further demonstrates Hoffman's point. It also raises other points that demolish "debunker" assertions regarding audible explosions. Click here for factual back-up, sources, and further research materials pertaining to it.

Obviously Gage wasn't saying that videos don't show this loud explosive roar!


The other reason I think Gage might be speculating about the videos is due to the audio in this clip:

"Debunkers" will point out that the audio of the Towers exploding in the above video, which comes from the Discovery Channel's "Inside the Twin Towers" documentary, is not the correct soundtrack. There has been dispute about this, but I have it on good authority that one of the people involved in the capturing of the video did say the audio on the Discovery Channel piece was not correct. A "debunker" victory? Not so much, because this person also stated, "Both myself and the senior fire officers who were with me at the time mentioned in our written statements to the NYPD that we thought their had been an explosion before the tower collapsed."

All this being said, there were distinct explosive sounds recorded at ground zero. One major explosion was recorded at WTC 7. And guess what? HBO took it out of a documentary they aired.

Did the men in black have a talk with the producers of the HBO program? You might think that if you're a paranoid nutter. Most likely it just stems from cognitive dissonance though. I mean, we wouldn't want those crazy conspiracy theorists to hear an explosion that sounds exactly like a shaped charge. That might lead their tin foil wrapped melons to conclude that the explosion was actually caused by exactly what it sounds like!

Here is a video compilation showing other distinct explosions recorded at ground zero. How many times have we seen these repeated on TV since?

But this is all besides the point since the peer-reviewed paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" actually demonstrates how scientists found nano-engineered explosives in dust from the WTC.

The authors mention that in April 2001 the American Chemical Society held a symposium on the defense applications of nanomaterials in which they stated:

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.

The authors then go on to point out that, "The feature of 'impulse management' may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.

In other words these materials, in any form that they are used, are perfect for covert demolition in which one would want to reduce the loud pops of conventional demolitions.

Related Info:

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Friday, September 11, 2009

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials:

Eminem - Beautiful (Instrumental without Hook)
Eminem - Beautiful
Loose Change 2nd Editon Recut p1
Constructive Criticism of the Films Loose Change 2nd Edition and 9/11 Mysteries
Sibel Edmonds drops bombshell
Former FBI Translator: Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11
Sibel Edmonds Deposition: Deep Corruption Beneath the Surface
Sibel Edmonds Speaks, But No One Is Listening
FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is Credible... and Yes... She is a Truther Too!
Coast to Coast AM: Thermite & 9-11 part 1/12
Coast to Coast AM: Thermite & 9-11 part 9/12
coasttocoastam.com: Thermite & 9-11
NIST on Practicality of Thermite Controlled Demolition
Linda Moulton Howe, born January 20, 1942, is an American investigative journalist and documentary producer-writer-director-editor who is currently based in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Howe has devoted her documentary film, television, radio, writing and reporting career to productions concerning science, medicine and the environment. Ms. Howe has received local, national and international awards, including three regional Emmys, a national Emmy nomination and a Station Peabody award for medical programming. While Linda was Director of Special Projects at KMGH-TV, Channel 7, Denver, Colorado from 1978 to 1983, her documentaries included Poison in the Wind and A Sun Kissed Poison which compared smog pollution in Los Angeles and Denver; Fire In The Water about hydrogen as an alternative energy source to fossil fuels; A Radioactive Water about uranium contamination of public drinking water in a Denver suburb; and A Strange Harvest and Strange Harvests 1993, which explored animal mutilation mystery. Another film, A Prairie Dawn, focused on astronaut training in Denver. She has also produced documentaries in Ethiopia and Mexico for UNICEF about child survival efforts and for Turner Broadcasting in Atlanta about environmental challenges in the TV series Earthbeat.
In addition to television, Linda produces, reports and edits the award-winning science, environment and earth mysteries news website, http://www.earthfiles.com/. Linda also reports monthly science, environment and earth mysteries news for Premiere Radio Networks Coast to Coast AM with George Noory and weekly news updates for Dreamland Radio at Unknowncountry.com." - Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Moulton_Howe
You've Got Mail (1998) TRAILER
911 Mysteries Part 6
9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark
Steven Jones analyzes WTC dust samples
What in the World is High-Tech Explosive Material Doing in the Dust from 9/11?
9/11 - The Loaded Gun - Red/Grey Nanothermite Chips
Los Alamos National Laboratory website: Enhanced Explosive Materials Using Nano-Particulate Metal Fuels
RussiaToday: Nano-thermite took down the WTC?
General Richard Myers Asked About Nanothermite Explosives Found in WTC Dust
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Receives a Copy of the Nanothermite Paper
Joe Biden Confronted With Nanothermite Evidence
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Supports New 9/11 Investigation
NYC Coalition for Accountability Now - NYC CAN is non-partisan organization comprised of 9/11 Families, First Responders, Survivors and proud, concerned citizens committed to bringing about an independent, impartial investigation into the events of September 11.
The primary mission of the FealGood Foundation, a non-profit organization, is to spread awareness and educate the public about the catastrophic health effects on 9/11 first responders, as well as to provide assistance to relieve these great heroes of the financial burdens placed on them over the last five years. A secondary goal of our Foundation is to create a network of advocacy on 9/11 healthcare issues. We not only advocate for Ground Zero workers, but show others how they can advocate for themselves and help others through grassroots activism.
Obama Warns not to challenge Official 9/11 Story
Mr President the Whole World knows 9/11 was a Lie
More Important Developments in the 9/11 Truth Movement From the Past Year:

41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11
Former President Jimmy Carter Supports Call For New 9/11 Investigation
Madsen: 'Whistle blown on secret 9/11 unit'
Project Censored Covers Active Thermitic Material, WTC7 and AE911Truth
Anniversary News Stories (9/9/09)
800 Professional Architects and Engineers Are Asking For a New Investigation
29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11
Two Seconds That Will Live in Infamy (June 2009 Update)
FBI Helps Fight Cynicism Regarding a New 9/11 Investigation
Richard Gage on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA
Media Breakthrough! 9-11 Press for Truth to Be Shown on Mainstream Television
KBDI Press Release: ‘9/11 Press for Truth’ on Channel 12 Draws Huge Support from Colorado Public Television Viewers
9-11 Blueprint for Truth to Debut on Colorado Public Television
Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review
Thermite Denial - A Year in Review
Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review
9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review
The Sounds of Loud and Clear
Reply: Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!

Thursday, September 10, 2009

But if 9/11 was a "conspiracy", people would have talked---A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers

A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers

March 5, 2010
The Corbett Report

When losing a discussion on the facts of 9/11, a so-called 9/11 "debunker" will often rely on an old canard to "prove" that 9/11 could not have been an inside job: "So many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn't squelch the squealers from spilling the beans," write self-satisfied defenders of the government story. According to the logic of this argument, if there are no 9/11 whistleblowers then 9/11 was not an inside job.

So what if there are 9/11 whistleblowers? What if these whistleblowers come from every level of government and private industry, individuals who have even had their cases vindicated by internal government reports? As you are about to see, there are numerous such whistleblowers and each one is a thorn in the side of those who want to pretend that the 9/11 Commission represents the sum total of knowledge on the 9/11 attacks. Click here to read the entire article.

But if 9/11 was a "conspiracy", people would have talked!

September 10, 2009

Whistleblowers are numerous, whether they be Bush administration officials, military officers, or FBI agents. The argument that people would have spoken out if 9/11 was an inside job, is fair - but ignores the fact that people have spoken out. And risked a lot in the process.

Comprehensive list of 9/11 whistleblowers

It should be noted that the term 'conspiracy theory' accurately describes both the official account and any alternative explanations, since all describe a covert, illegal action between multiple people, which is all 'conspiracy' means. Hate to ruin good propaganda with facts, but it doesn't mean 'woo woooo' crazy owl noises...

9/11 Documents Claim Intelligence on Bin Laden, Targets Withheld From Congress

Uploaded by TheRealNews on Sep 7, 2011

Jeffrey Kaye: In a Truthout report, a whistle blower reveals senior military commanders prior to 9/11 blocked intelligence that located Bin Laden and predicted WTC and Pentagon were likely targets


9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets

November 05, 2007

9/11 family member and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza has just revealed that whistleblowers told her that -- before 9/11 -- the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets.

Why is this important? Because, previously, some of the best-known whistleblowers have been willing to give only vague information about the government's foreknowledge. For example, they said only that the government knew of the general timeframe for the attacks, or that the government had a list of potential targets, on which the World Trade Center was one of many potential targets (of course, other whistleblowers have been more specific)...

Casazza further stated that these whistleblowers saw how Sibel Edmonds was being harrassed and gagged, and were fearful that the same thing would happen to them. So they approached the Jersey Girls to ask them to demand the 9/11 Commission subpoena the whistleblowers. The Jersey Girls tried to bring the whistleblowers before the 9/11 Commission, and the Commissioners agreed, but then never let the whistleblowers testify, let alone subpoena them.

Why is this important? Because defenders of the official government story have argued that 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job or else whistleblowers would have come forward. Ms. Cassaza confirms what many have said: there are a lot of 9/11 whistleblowers who are afraid to come forward -- especially without a supboena -- for fear of being attacked and harassed.

A video of Ms. Cassaza's statement has just been released:

Ms. Cassaza's statements were made at the 9/11: Families, First Responders & Experts Speak conference.

Many whistleblowers have, in fact, already come forward. See for example this video. And for a more comprehensive refutation of the argument about a lack of whistleblowers, see this.

Thanks to Jon Gold for his key participation in the conference, and for the tip.

As pointed out to me by Fran Shure at colorado911visibility.org this supports an earlier account:
David Schippers the former Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former president Bill Clinton. Schippers stated that at the behest of several FBI agents he had attempted multiple times to warn US Attorney John Ashcroft, along with other federal officials, of the impending attacks weeks before they occurred, only to be stalled and rebuffed in each attempt.
As summarized in the books The War on Freedom and The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, who personally corresponded with Schippers, "According to Schippers, these agents knew, months before the 11th September attacks, the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of their funding, along with other information."

Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration's order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O'Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.) - Source: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/08/top-40-reasons-official-911-story-is.html

How is it that none of the conspirators have changed their minds and come forward?

Operatives would be carefully screened to assure their loyalty to the attack's planners and to each other. Given the magnitude of the crime, admission of involvement would expose a conspirator to swift silencing by co-conspirators, vigilante justice by an outraged public, or harsh judgment by a court of law. It is also possible that many of the operatives could have been killed before or during the attack. - Source http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/conspiracy.html#whistleblowers ___________________________________________________________

Operation Gladio was a false-flag terror program set up by the CIA and NATO. Although Gladio was eventually exposed, it was not just a single event, but an ongoing operation that remained secret for decades, in which hundreds of innocent people were killed and injured in terrorist attacks that were blamed on other groups.

FKN Newz Exclusive Interview With the Sheeple

FKN Newz
September 10, 2009

Related Info...

Just the song - long version http://deekjackson.com//audio/3/911 - 911 The musical won't be in the shops for Christmas says Woolworths.

NWO Conspiracy Bullshit

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

A Ranke Perspective

So it appears I jumped the gun a little in my previous post when I said CIT haven't really put forward evidence supporting the alleged staging of Lloyd England's accident scene. I just came across a post on the PentaCon site posted back in August of 2007. It's probably been debunked already but I'll give my own unique take on it. Using a number of photographs taken by Jason Ingersoll, CIT claim to have proven that the scene was staged somewhere between 09:40 and 10:00 AM. Below are eight pictures from the post.

Full Sized Images:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

They argue that since the light pole cannot be seen in pictures 1 and 2 but can be seen in pictures 3 onwards, it must have been planted on the road somewhere in between 09:49 and 09:52.

Now I don't really know what they are hypothesizing here. Maybe they think some truck carrying a forty foot light pole, was able to get through all the traffic, plant it and vanish without a trace within three or four minutes without anyone noticing. Or maybe they think the SUV and the white car had something to do with it. It doesn't matter anyway. Just because you can't clearly see the light pole in pictures [1] or [2], doesn't mean it isn't there. Those two pictures were clearly taken from a different perspective (from the Navy Annex Car park, as you can see from this image) and there are obstructions in the way. The difference in perspective is obvious when one looks at the cab. In pictures 1 and 2, the front side of the cab is visible to the left of the bush, but in pictures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, it is completely concealed by the bush. From the perspective of pictures 1 and 2, the lightpole would be hidden by the metal box. In picture [6], the light pole is once again almost complete hidden by the railing due to the perspective.

Furthermore, the pole is visible in the first two images. It's just not very clear. When compared to a clearer image taken from a similar perspective, after the the collapse of the outer wall, by Sgt. Gary Coppage, you can see that the whitish grey blurs in Ingersoll's images correspond perfectly with what are clearly parts of the pole in Coppage's image.

So what sinister plot do Ingersoll's photos document? By the looks of it, just a few people taking control and directing the traffic!

Since Lloyd's cab is visible in the photo taken at 09:48, this proves that if the scene was staged it would have had to have been set up either before the attack, or in the 10 minutes prior to the attack. Either way it's pretty implausible if you ask me.

Related Info:

A Really Rank Response

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

THE INFOWARRIOR with Jason Bermas: Jason Debunks National Geographic & No Planes BS!

September 07, 2009

Jason Rips into National Geographic's 9/11 hit piece & also takes on the no planes BS, that is trying to make the real 9/11 Truth movement look like fools. Jason goes step by step, and totally exposes National Geographic for what they really are. http://infowarrior.infowars.com/

Related Info:

Dear friends who've just viewed the National Geographic Conspiracy Theory on 9/11

Exchange of emails (March 2009) with Robert Erickson, producer of the National Geographic special on 9/11

National Geographic Does 9/11: Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie - Like Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies Straw Man, only dumber?

Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel

National Geographic Channel on 9/11: Manipulation vs. Objectivity

National Geographic vs Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

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

Debunking National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy

National Geographic: "Science" and "Psychology"

National Geographic Should Stick to Documentaries About Girls Who Cry Blood

Sander Hicks: "National Geographic Pseudo-Science?"

National Geographic hitpiece will prove 9/11 fire collapse theory to be impossible.

National Geographic to Air New 911 "Documentary".

Monday, September 7, 2009

Was the scene with Lloyd England's taxi staged?

The Citizen Investigation Team have interviewed 13 witnesses to the Pentagon attack on 9/11 who are adamant the plane approached from the north side of the Citgo gas station. Because this flight path is inconsistent with the damage path there are three implied conclusions to their alleged findings:

  1. The plane did not hit the building.
  2. The plane flew over the building.
  3. The light poles were planted and the scene with Lloyd England's taxi was staged.

9/11 researchers such as Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley and jimd3100 have critiqued the first and second of their implied conclusions, as well as CIT's method, this post however will focus on the third conclusion.

At 9:37 AM on 9/11, Lloyd England was driving his taxi down Route 27, heading south. When Flight 77 flew over, it knocked down five light poles. The first one of these speared itself through Lloyd's windshield, almost killing him. The below diagram was drawn by Lloyd himself.

Lloyd claims an unnamed stranger helped him remove the pole without saying a word. His account is a critical pillar supporting the official story of what happened at the Pentagon. If his story is true, it proves the plane hit. If false, it proves the Pentagon must have been damaged some other way.

It is not surprising therefore that many 9/11 researchers are attracted to Lloyd's story. His account has been questioned for a number of reasons. Ignoring CIT's north of Citgo witnesses, perhaps the main reason is the apparent physical impossibility of a 40 foot light pole sticking out of a car, with the heaviest end on the outside, while causing no damage to the hood of the car.

To that I would like to say that I have never seen a light pole be knocked over by a 500mph plane into the windshield of a taxi going the opposite direction, so I have no idea what's going to happen, no one does. Do I think it's strange? Yes. But from studying things like plane crashes, building collapses and explosions, I've learnt that strange things can happen. And I've seen enough air cannon experiments in tornado documentaries and things to have a rough idea what will happen. If someone were to actually launched a metal pole into a car windscreen and document their findings I may take an interest. But simply saying "that doesn't look right so it must be staged" isn't very scientific.

After CIT "proved" that the plane approached from the north side, they deduced that Lloyd's scene must have been staged. Much like their flyover hypothesis, there is no direct evidence to support this, it is rather an implied conclusion based on questionable circumstantial evidence. However that didn't stop CIT from publicly accusing him as "the first known accomplice".

The biggest problem I have with this is the same problem I have with the flyover theory. I'm a pretty imaginative guy and I can come up with all kinds of imaginative theories for how they rigged the towers up and flew the planes into the buildings in a compartmentalized fashion, theories ranging from simultaneous video games that are actually controlling a real plane to explosive fireproofing! But even I have a hard time thinking of a way they could stage a phony road accident in broad daylight.

CIT argue that the other four light poles could have been planted during the night and hidden from view. But Lloyd's scene would have to have been staged either shortly before the impact or after. Considering the amount of traffic that was on Route 27 when the Pentagon was hit it is unlikely that it could have been staged in advance. The following picture was taken by Steve Riskus (who, by the way, saw the plane hit the building) less than 1 minute after the impact.

Note how many cars are on the road. Imagine you are one of these motorists. You're driving up Route 27, heading north. As you approach the bridge, you see a taxi on the other side of the road with a smashed light pole next to it. You would assume there's been some kind of road accident. Then the plane flies over and appears to crash into the Pentagon. You then go home or to work to watch TV and you see this taxi driver talking about how his cab was hit by a pole that was struck by the plane. You're gonna think to yourself "Wait a minute, I was there, the plane didn't do that, it was already there!"

No witness has come forward saying they saw the damaged cab before the plane hit. It is therefore unlikely that it was staged in advance. So CIT argue that it was probably staged AFTER the attack, when agents had control of the scene. This theory is perhaps even more absurd and is contradicted by the account of Don Fortunato, who arrived shortly after the attack. In his account he describes stopping next to the cab. But I guess CIT will argue that he's just another mass murdering operative.

Loyd's scene was staged. The idea that the officials would even attempt such a thing in broad daylight is about as absurd as the idea that they would attempt a flyover in broad daylight. Maybe at night on a quiet road, but not in the early morning on an open highway during rush hour.

On the 7th of July 2005, another suspected black-op was carried out on three trains and a bus. One of the survivors, Daniel Obachike, describes seeing police officers, agents and a bandaged actor at the scene within seconds of the blast. If his account is true then that is pretty damning evidence that the attack was a classic false flag operation. However that does not change the fact that the bus was blown up! They did not just cart in some pre-damaged bus and take pictures of it. That would be a crazy thing to do in broad daylight. The bus did explode, there were passengers on board, many were injured and 13 were killed.

On August 30th/31st 1997, Princess Diana was killed in a car crash. Many people now suspect the crash was not an accident. While there is debate as to what actually caused the car to crash, one thing is certain ... The car did crash! And she was inside it when it did! They did not just shoot her and then plant some wrecked car in the Alma tunnel and say she died in a car crash. Could they have done that. Possibly. It was late at night after all. But it would have been a waste of time, effort and an unnecessary risk to the entire operation. Why go through all the trouble of making it look like there was a car crash, when you could just crash a car?

The above picture is of the man Daniel Obachike claims to have seen in Tavistock Square on 7/7. This guy was probably an actor taking part in a simultaneous terror drill. He was not interviewed by the news and to this day no one knows his name. In black-ops, the operatives generally don't give out their names. Lloyd England gave out his name and he willingly let Craig and Aldo into his home and took them to see his cab, even after they accused him of being an accomplice. He does not fit the MO of an operative. He's just a regular guy who reads David Icke books and questions 9/11 as we all do. He's one of us! The guy is a patriot simply trying to help and CIT crucified him. It's the sort of thing I would expect from Glenn Beck. Publicly accusing ordinary citizens of being accomplices without evidence crosses a line and will no doubt come back to bite the truth movement in the ass later.

In Lloyd's recollection of the event, he puts himself in a different place to where he obviously was. CIT of course tries to twist this and claim it as proof he was an operative, but the only thing it really proves is that memories can be vague after several years - which is exactly what we are saying. If Lloyd honestly believes he was in a different place to where he was, how can we be sure CIT's 13 other witnesses aren't equally mistaken?

Related Info:

The CIT Deception - Mock Trailer!

A Ranke Perspective