Wednesday, August 23, 2006

New Photos of the Smoking Gun: Building 7

On new photos of WTC building 7 and 5 (among other photos) show startling images. These photos support the argument that the destruction of the WTC was accomplished by controlled demolition. Building 7 was not hit by a plane and was further away than building 5, yet it fell (on its footprint) at free fall speed to the ground. Additionally, WTC building 5 was a raging inferno and some how held up, while 7 had only small fires. In case my readers are unaware, Larry Silverstein (leaseholder of the WTC) actually admitted that building 7 was "pulled" (a term used to denote controlled demolition). Though there were buildings closer to Towers 1 and 2, it was WTC building 7 that fell. Interesting isn't it? Perhaps the reason that buildings sitting closer to the Towers didn't fall was because Silverstein didn't own those buildings. Check out this excellent article about the ownership of the WTC and the huge profits that Silverstein received from their destruction.

I am working on putting together an article on building 7 to appear very soon. Until then, read the fine articles written by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and the ones I have added to my "download" section. I am sorry to say (to strictly visual learners), but if you want to understand what happened on 9/11 then you have to read.
Digg this

Sunday, August 20, 2006

World Net Daily, at it again.

Last week I posted a piece about World Net Daily's (WND) hit piece in their September issue of "Whistle Blower." In addition to this hit piece, on August 16th WND published a shameful hit piece by Jonathon Moseley ridiculing the truth movement. Among many assertions, Moseley claimed that Dr. Steven Jones advocated violence on C-SPAN in June. He also called Dr. James Fetzer (of Scholars for 9/11 Truth) an anti-Semite while using fuzzy logic and straw-man arguments in vain to debunk alternate theories on 9/11. In fact, Moseley called those who didn't support the official government-sponsored 9/11 story as simply Bush bashers (the title of his article). Once again, another misunderstanding about the argument put forward by the truth movement. The truth movement is not about politics, but about truth and exposing cover-up (lies). Until conservatives as Moseley can realize that fact there will be only anger and contempt for those who don't fall in line with the official government story. WND, a conservative website, only fuels greater political division by publishing terrible articles as these, and (as a result) ends up blinding people from the truth. Fortunately, Alex Jones and Dr. James Fetzer raised flags over this article and WND issued a retraction.

Moseley was brave enough to appear on Jones' radio show with Fetzer (though I can't say it turned out well for him) [listen here]. Be sure to listen when Moseley denies that Operation Northwoods exists (check out my download section to view this document).

Read about the backlash WND has received from Fetzer and others [click here for article 1] [click here for article 2].

Read Moseley's original article here. Unfortunately, WND did not take out this article even when it was shown to contain false information.

Click Here
Digg this

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Silencing the Dead: 911 phone calls

Yesterday, media outlets published many headlines saying things as "NYC releases New 9/11 Tapes". CBS even posted tapes for your listening pleasure [click here to view]. This so-called release of 9/11 tapes is misleading. In fact, there has yet to be full disclosure by NYC as to what was going on in the WTC through 911 calls, dispatcher calls, and interviews of firefighters . The latter has been somewhat disclosed after the August 12, 2005 ruling of the Court of Appeals (the film "Loose Change" uses some of these interviews and dispatcher calls with firefighters.Click here to view source material). The New York Times has posted the oral histories, or interviews, of firefighters on their website. If you click on any of the recently alleged disclosed 911 tapes you will hear a series of intermittent beeps. Those beeps are to block the words of the victims in the WTC. And as you listen you will realize that in fact nothing has been released. It's all a lie, a half-truth. Why mislead? Because it is important for those supporting the official conspiracy theory (the government) that the public believes the government is fully disclosing 9/11 evidence and it has nothing to hide. For example, MSNBC does not mention anything about the obvious edits till page two. They spend more time discussing the tapes as though there is material to discuss. Listening to these edited tapes is like listening to a one-sided conversation. Why the edits? Why did these tapes take about four years to be disclosed?

Four months after 9/11, Jim Dwyer, a New York Times journalist, requested disclosure of 911 calls, dispatcher calls, and oral histories (audio and written) from EMT and firefighters. FDNY denied his request. In a 2005 article the New York Times said that they "sought copies under the freedom of information law in early 2002, but Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's administration refused, leading to litigation." In 2004, the case went through the NY Supreme Court and then to an Appellate Division where both decided in favor of FDNY and New York City (ruling for partial disclosure). FDNY argued that the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) was limited by certain exceptions in Police Law. Both courts agreed and allowed material to be edited or blocked. The families that sued could have full disclosure of 911 calls, but other 911 calls were not disclosed out of an alleged privacy exception the court dreamed up to conceal the tapes. The case was then appealed to the District Court of Appeals in Matter of New York Times Co. v City of N.Y. Fire Dept., 3 AD3d 340. They affirmed the lower courts decisions and added that the interviews should be disclosed (because they were public records).

What is interesting is that the Court of Appeals, Judge Smith writing for the majority, argued that 911 calls were not public records (while calling the interviews public). Perhaps I should say that they avoided that issue altogether. Smith ended up siding with the FDNY by allowing the privacy exception in the Public Officers Law § 89. What is fascinating is that Smith failed to see that 911 calls are public records. When you make a 911 call you are being recorded by a public entity and it is generally acknowledged by the caller that what they say goes into the public record. Courts have upheld full disclosure of 911 calls as public records. Private phone calls, on the other hand, cannot be recorded because it invades a private conversation between individuals. In addition to the public issue, Smith assumed the side of families (because there weren't any in the case) who wouldn't want disclosure and ignored the families of the WTC tragedy that had only shown support for full disclosure. Smith ignored this fact and advocated for those families not in the legal suit (who voiced no opinion). Also, he expanded the idea of privacy rights by extending it to dead people. Specifically, he allowed relatives of dead people to hold, as a kind of trust, the privacy rights of the deceased. In that way their rights essentially never go away because someone can always claim the deceased's privacy right. Again, Smith fails to do several things: (1) he ignores the historical, and public significance of 9/11; (2) he goes against precedent and placed 911 calls in a protected realm of privacy; and (3) he ignores the families demanding full disclosure and personally advocates for families seeking non-disclosure. Smith presumptuously said, "The grieving family of such a caller—or the caller, if he or she survived—might reasonably be deeply offended at the idea that these words could be heard on television or read in the New York Times." Smith seems to know more about wishes of the families of the victims than they do. Again, this is a clear bias against the plaintiffs (specifically the families in the suit with the Times) and a gross deference to outside parties (not involved in the case). The dissent in Matter of New York Times Co. v City of N.Y. Fire Dept., (3 AD3d 340) by Judge Rosenblatt analyzes these problems better than I can:

"I disagree with the majority only with respect to the 911 calls. The Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requires more disclosure. The public is well aware of the function of the 911 system and the sort of information it is designed to relay. Ordinarily, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a call to 911, and the full contents are generally subject to disclosure under FOIL.

Here, because of the unique nature of the attack, the Court has ordered disclosure of words spoken by the operators, while deleting the words of the callers. There is, of course, a need to balance the competing public and private interests. On the side of full disclosure lies thepublics interest in a complete and coherent account of what happened on September 11, 2001. FOIL's goal of making information public is inhibited when only half the conversation is divulged. The value of a response is compromised when the words that prompt the response are deleted. In some instances, the thrust of an incomplete communication can be inferred or constructed; in others it will be incoherent or even misleading...

Notably, the City has not provided any affidavits from survivors or victims' family members suggesting that disclosure of 911 tapes, or any other material sought, would violate their privacy. The record contains only the opposite: affidavits from nine intervenors, family members who want full disclosure. [1]."

After the Appellate Division of New York ruled to affirm the NY Supreme Court's decision, "family members complained that New York City officials cited the privacy of victims' families as a reason to keep the records sealed. Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband in the World Trade Center and wants the documents released, called that "ludicrous and outrageous. I have not gotten one call to ask if I want the information released," she said." The questions are inevitably raised in our minds: What is all the fuss? What is the FDNY hiding? Why spend a so much in legal fees and three years to block tapes about an event we are supposed to know all about? Even President Bush, shortly after 9/11, told the American people that we didn't need an investigation [2001 CBS article]. If that is the case then why the secrecy?

The 2005 case shows poor legal reasoning and willful ignorance of precedent. Judge Smith never cites any precedent for allowing editing of 911 calls. However, Judge Rosenblatt does. Check out this powerful footnote in his dissent:

"Other courts considering the availability of 911 calls under FOIL have uniformly required their disclosure, and the majority appears to be in agreement in the ordinary case ( see maj op at 6). In Cincinnati Enquirer v Hamilton County (75 Ohio St3d 374, 377-378 [1996]), the Ohio Supreme Court held that there was no expectation of privacy in a 911 call and, accordingly, ordered the release of 911 tapes under that state's version of FOIL. It further held that the tapes became public records at the moment they were made and that their content was irrelevant ( see id. at 378). In accord are Meredith Corp. v City of Flint (256 Mich App 703, 708-709 [2003]); Asbury Park Press v Lakewood Township Police Dept. (354 NJ Super 146, 161 [Ocean County 2002]); Brazas v Ramsey (291 Ill App3d 104, 106-107 [2d Dist 1987], app denied, 174 Ill.2d 555 [1987])."

The chief legal question is whether the interests of the public for full disclosure under FOIL (designed for the public good) outweigh other interests: as those of victims, FDNY, and law enforcement agencies. It is clear that the events of 9/11 have an enormous public interest, and interest for the world and history. Though victim's families have voiced a desire for disclosure the Court turns a deaf ear. "'To this day, I have no information whatsoever about what happened to my son,' Sally Regenhard, whose son was a firefighter, told reporters. 'We need to know the truth [2]." I'm afraid the those in control won't allow that Sally.
Digg this

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

World Net Daily joins CBS, ABC and Popular Mechanics in 9/11 brainwashing

WND Whistle Blower September Issue
Originally uploaded by Lee.
September is approaching and the lies regarding 9/11 are coming into full swing. The neo-conservative website World Net Daily (WND) joins the 9/11 propaganda matrix in their September issue of Whistle Blower. It is interesting that the media has become so afraid of something they deride as merely a "conspiracy theory" that they feel the need to devote so much time to shamefully debunk it. Conservatives are under the impression that to question 9/11 is to be anti-American or pals with DNC chair Howard Dean. WND certainly appears to follow the same reasoning. It is unfortunate that WND cannot think outside the box and their political ideology. 9/11 is not a political issue, it is a matter of truth. Though I have not read this issue of Whistle Blower, WND gives an overview about the magazine's contents. From that it is safe to say that WND is merely parroting Popular Mechanics (PM), as though they were the Bible, in their critique. In addition, PM has released a book dedicated to debunking so-called 9/11 myths. A representative of PM also appeared on Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor" deriding the 9/11 truth movement as a myth. Finally, ABC (click here) and CBS (click here) plan to air programs designed to brainwash the masses with the official story to suppress the 9/11 truth movement.
CBS has aired something like this before, while ABC is airing for the first time a six-hour series. These are mainstream channels, widely viewable for non-cable subscribers, which will result in further entrenchment of the government's official lie regarding 9/11.
Digg this

Monday, August 14, 2006

Homeland Security chief says warrants are a 20th century relic

That's right, Michael Chertoff, friend of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations [see photo], told ABC and Fox News on Sunday that we need to give the government more powers (SEE ARTICLE). Chertoff has used the so-called terror plot in England to drum up support for making Big Brother even bigger. He implied that warrants are a thing of the past that can hinder the War on Terror. What the US needs, he said, is a government modeled closer to the British system of mass surveillance. No longer is it necessary to have trials, evidence, due process, all you need is an accusation that someone is a terrorist to arrest. After all, only a more expansive government can stop terror plots like the British one. If we have learned anything from 9/11 it's that after any alleged terror act, plot, arrest, ect., there is always coupled with it a call for more expansive governmental authority. See Chertoff's lecture at the Council on Foreign Relations where he calls for such a government.

One last bit of info on Chertoff, his cousin, Ben Chertoff, is a researcher/journalist for Popular Mechanics magazine who just happen to pen a hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement in 2005 (and now a book coming out August 27). This magazine has been on the frontlines spreading lies and half-truths to attempt to affirm the official 9/11 story by the government.
Digg this

Friday, August 11, 2006

9/11 Revisited film

This short film exhibits excellent evidence for the controlled demolition argument. It features an MIT engineer and other academics that refute the official government-backed conspiracy theory. I highly recommend this film.
Digg this

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Conservative voices in the crowd

I recently viewed a blog by "911wasaninsidejob" offering a good picture of conservatives who have raised questions regarding 9/11. Besides Ray McGovern, the most notable conservative voice, you have Pual Craig Robert, David Ray Griffen, and Morgan Reynolds backing 9/11 truth. I recommend checking out the link below.

911WasAnInsideJob Blog

Click Here
Digg this

Check out the popular "Loose Change" film

Here is a very popular 9/11 film by Dylan Avery. Though some parts are weak and have been rightly criticised it is an overall good introduction into 9/11 truth. I personally recommend watching "9/11 Revisted" as an introduction into 9/11 truth (see Video links). There are many other fine 9/11 films out there as
  • "Improbable Collapse"
  • that ought to receive attention, and hopefully will in the near future. Look for more films posted here soon.

    Digg this

    Wednesday, August 09, 2006

    Debunking the 9/11 Truth Movement

    Recently, due to the Scripps-Howard/Ohio State Poll (stating that 36 percent of Americans believe of government involvement or foreknowledge of 9/11), the release of NORAD tape, C-SPAN exposure of 9/11 truth movement, and our government's desire to invade Iran, media giants as Fox have been desperately attempting to debunk the idea that the US government could be implicated in the crimes of 9/11. The starring cast of this drama include Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, John Kasich, Sean Hannity and many more! What all have in common is a flare for name-calling. Disagreement and argument should shy away from personal attacks (I think most would agree). However, when it comes to mentioning 9/11 all bets are off. Who cares if one is right or wrong on the facts, if you call them a few names then you don't even have to bother with their claims and you don't have to defend yours. Just call someone you disagree with a nutball, wearing tinfoil on their heads, and you can successfully alleviate your responsibility as a decent human being to refute them on a evidential basis. Thumb through these articles and videos and count how many personal attacks you can find.

    Additionally, besides personal attacks, another tactic to use is discrediting by association--which means, all you have to do is associate their argument with another argument that is known to be mostly theory or incredulous. Also, use the term "theory" to denote all conspiracies that you don't particularly like; this will also make it possible to shirk your responsibility to engage in reasonable argument. After all it's only "theory" and not fact.

    See a good analysis of John Gibson's and Hannity's rant here
    Jones Report article

    View Kasich's rant against James Fetzer of Scholars for 9/11 Truth

    Visit the O'Reilly Factor for several hit pieces
    The Factor

    For an editorial criticizing the ridiculous comments by other news journalists check out
    911 Hit Pieces on Infowars

    There has been plenty in print deriding the 9/11 truth movement.

    Click Here
    Digg this

    Tuesday, August 08, 2006

    The importance of September 11

    Since the disaster on September 11, 2001 the world has changed. The events that took place that day have altered history. This being the case, it is imperetive that we know what happened that day. Unfortunately, there has been a trend in the mainstream media giants to deride those that simply want to understand and know the truth. Those that ask questions of our government are often labelled as anti-Americans and are judged through the vague lens of political ideology. Despite this prejudice, we must investigate, ask questions, and seek the truth.

    Check out

    Click Here
    Digg this