Het Grootste Geheim - Forum

[noZz]

[Starglider]

OK, hier zijn even enkele dingen om nog eens goed naar te kijken in de "demolition" video en "In plane Site"

I.v.m. de "pod": vergelijk met name de video beelden van CNN en ABC, vanuit 2 verschillende hoeken. Er is op beide versies duidelijk te zien dat er een vreemd uitstulpsel is, rechts aan de onderkant van het vliegtuig. Het beste is dit te zien op de extra footage in een clip die "4 angle comparison" heet, en ook op de clip die "North and South Tower anomalies" heet, en die op de DVD schijnen te staan (en mij eens op een compilatie DVD aangeleverd zijn ).

In de "Director's Cut", te vinden op http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722&q=%22In+plane+site%22&hl=en zijn de beelden te vinden op 36:50, om precieser te zijn op 39:26 (CNN beelden) en 43:37 (ABC beelden, genoemd "4th angle").

Zie ook de leger vliegtuigen op 42:00 en 42:20 voor voorbeelden van hoe dergelijke "pods" feitelijk heel gebruikelijk zijn...

Op de "Director's Cut" versie zijn de ABC beelden behoorlijk vaag (met name in de Google versie), maar op de DVD versie "4 angle comparison" clip is de pod behoorlijk duidelijk gemaakt dmv extra contrast/scherpte instellingen (en een betere video resolutie).

Dan de controlled demolition beelden.

Zie daarvoor met name http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&q=911+mysteries+demolition , de beelden vanaf

19:40
24:03
24:32
24:52 = te snel instorten (south tower)

I.v.m. de squibs die toch wel erg verdacht zijn, zie http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376&q=911+mysteries+demolition, op 05:50

Een ander belangrijk punt zijn de kelder explosies, zie 11:20 (van dat 2e video deel)

Belangrijk argument is o.a. dat precies zoals men in een controlled demolition zou doen, men het gebouw in de kelder heeft doen storten, zodat het puin niet weg zou kunnen glijden naar de directe omgeving. Dit is precies wat men voor elkaar gekregen heeft.

Als de verdiepingen eenvoudigweg op elkaar zouden zijn gestort, dan zouden we achteraf op z'n minst enkele verdiepingen op elkaar hebben moeten zien liggen. Maar niets daarvan...

De enige "onregelmatigheid" die ik op kan merken in de argumenten is dat aan het begin van het instorten van de south tower (de 1e toren die instortte), in één keer een aantal etages enigzins schuin afbreken. Dat zou je niet verwachten als alles zo netjes gecontroleerd zou zijn opgeblazen. Aan de andere kant betekent het echter ook dat die verdiepingen DUS nooit het gewenste gewicht op de rest van de constructie kan hebben gegeven, om het zo snel in te doen storten als het geval is geweest. De onregelmatigheid geldt dus in 2 richtingen...

In ieder geval zijn de rest van de south tower, en de gehele north tower ingestort op een wijze die onwaarschijnlijk regelmatig en snel is, alsook dat e.e.a. netjes in de kelder werd geparkeerd. Simply too much om een normale instorting te zijn...

Grtn,
SG

[Starglider]

Vanwege m'n problemen met internet verbinding en m'n PC, was ik nog niet toegekomen aan het posten van links naar nieuwe beelden van een v.d. security cameras die rond het Pentagon stonden. De media hebben er vrijwel geen aandacht aangegeven, en dat is niet echt verwonderlijk, gezien hoe ook deze beelden vooral aantonen dat er geen groot vliegtuig is gecrashed...

De hoek waarin de camera het Pentagon filmde is een beetje bedriegelijk. Niet alleen stond de camera aan de andere kant van het Pentagon, er is ook een snelweg, waardoor je eerst van enkele autos denkt dat het 't object is dat in het Pentagon is gecrashed.

Als je eenmaal begrijpt waar je naar kijkt, dan vind ik dat het erop lijkt dat wat in het Pentagon is gecrashed niet veel groter dan 2 à 3 lengtes van een gemiddelde auto kan zijn geweest. Dat is ongeveer de maat van een Global Hawk...

Zie de video op http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_P2d4NaHpQ (met zoom)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bapUohJn1E8 (nieuws ABC)
http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2006/041206Doubletree.htm (artikel)

De volgende korte video kwam ik ook tegen, en vond ik ook wel aardig om hier te vermelden:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUIcyp1JTF4&NR
"Pilot for 911 truth phone call", http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

SG

[Starglider]

Nice article about "Loose Change" (see video links at the end of this post).


==================================

Source: guardian.co.uk
= + pict


'They're all forced to listen to us'

It began as a tiny internet film attacking the 'lies' surrounding 9/11. Now, millions of people have heard its message. Like it or loathe it, you can't ignore Loose Change, says Ed Pilkington

Friday January 26, 2007
The Guardian

Loose Change

-pict-
Conspiracy theorists... Loose Change's Korey Rowe (left) and Jason Berman with the laptop they used to make the film. Photograph: Ed Pilkington


Four hours' drive north of Manhattan in the Catskill Mountains, Oneonta is as close to redneck country as you can find in the state of New York. As the road winds upward, the terrain thins out into wooded hills dotted with bungalows, with rusting Cadillacs parked outside. At this time of year, the area should be buzzing with skiers from the city, but El Niño and global warming have put paid to that. In the absence of snow, this famously beautiful part of America looks depressed and down-at-heel.

At the end of the journey is a white clapboard cabin surrounded by muddy fields and a couple of dilapidated sheds. Inside, the house is sparsely furnished with plastic chairs and a worn brown carpet. Three young men in their early 20s are sitting around on a futon in the back bedroom watching Family Guy, the animated TV show, on a large plasma screen and playing with a puppy. On the desk in front of them are three computer screens showing, incongruously, the skyline of Manhattan in segments, like a 21st-century triptych.

At first glance, this seems an unlikely setting for what can reasonably be called a revolution in film distribution. There is nothing Beverly Hills about this room, or the twentysomethings sitting around in it. But when you stop to reflect, it is the perfect setting for the command-post of a phenomenon that has turned normal movie logistics on their head, challenged assumptions about documentary film-making and journalism, and created an army of hundreds of thousands of devoted "info warriors".

This is the bedroom of Dylan Avery, the director and creator of Loose Change, the most successful movie to emerge from what followers call the 9/11 Truth Movement. More commonly, they are referred to as conspiracy theorists. They believe - or rather, they insist they can prove - that the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11 2001 were not the work of Osama bin Laden, but of elements within the US government itself. They reject the term "conspiracy theorists", arguing that if you accept the official line on 9/11 you have in any case signed up to a theory about a conspiracy - an al-Qaida conspiracy.

Many people find the world of such anti-establishment sceptics, to use polite terminology, deeply suspect and verging on the offensive. A few of the families of the victims of 9/11 have said as much to the Loose Change crew, although Avery says many more have offered support. But push aside any instinctive distrust there might be about what they are saying - we'll come back to that later - and consider for a moment its impact.

The movement of 9/11 sceptics has had an astonishing success in sowing doubt across the US. Recent polls suggest more than a third of Americans believe that either the official version of events never happened, or that US officials knew the attacks were imminent, but did nothing to stop them.

That's an impressive statistic in itself. Now look at the success Loose Change has had. Google Video acts as a portal for the movie, where you can also see the running tally of the number of times it has been viewed since last August. As I write, it stands at 4,048,990. By the time you read this, it will have risen considerably higher. On top of that, the movie was shown on television to up to 50 million people in 12 countries on September 11 last year; 100,000 DVDs have been sold and 50,000 more given away free. Then there are many more who have watched the film but are never counted, as a result of the active encouragement the film-makers give their supporters to burn the movie and distribute it to their friends. Avery says 100 million people - "easy" - have seen it. That may be an exaggeration, but it's fair to say that something extraordinary is going on.

The Loose Change story begins in May 2002 on the opening night of a Mediterranean restaurant in Oneonta where Avery, then aged 19, is working as a dishwasher. A friend of the owner, James Gandolfini (aka Tony Soprano), is a guest at the party and Avery gets chatting with him. "We started talking about movies and shit," Avery recalls. "Gandolfini told me, if you want to do something that matters, you have to talk to the entire world. You have to have something to say."

Avery had just finished high school. He'd long been a film buff, a fan of Tarantino, Fight Club and The Matrix. He was inspired to begin writing a novel/film-script. He began toying with the idea of a fictional work that would explore the fantasy that 9/11 hadn't been carried out by 19 Arabs with box-cutters, but by the American government as an attack on the minds of its own people. At that point, he was writing pure fiction. But as he began researching September 11 for background to the story, he began to come across evidence that made him change direction. All the footage and the eyewitness accounts he gathered, he says, "just didn't add up".

The second of the three twentysomethings enters the scene. He is Korey Rowe, now aged 23 and Dylan's best friend from Oneonta. Five years ago, Rowe joined the army because he had nothing better to do and he'd heard the golf was good at training camp. Then 9/11 happened and "everything went crazy". He was posted to Afghanistan for six months and later for a year to Iraq. Rowe extracted himself from the military in 2005 and joined Avery full-time in making Loose Change. By now, it was taking shape as a part fiction, part reality movie, but eventually they decided they had enough material to go all-out as a documentary.

The first edition of Loose Change, running at 30 minutes and produced on a battered Compaq Presario laptop (price $1,500), was finished in April that year. The second, longer, edition - the one currently available on the internet - came out in September 2005 with the help of a third partner and fellow Oneonta resident, Jason Bermas, aged 27.

Entirely self-taught, and without a single journalistic qualification between them beyond a couple of media courses Jason sat at college, the three men have sought to take on the combined might of the Bush administration, the FBI, the CIA and the mainstream media. If viewer statistics are a measure of success, they have to no small degree prevailed.

One can speculate as to the reasons for their success. September 11 was such an overwhelming event that many people have been open to the wilder accounts of what lay behind it. The reaction of the Bush administration - Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantánamo, terror clampdowns within America - have generated profound fears about the president's intentions. And this openness to - even need for - alternative explanations has come at just the moment when the internet has made it possible for such theories to be disseminated rapidly and widely.

The power of the film is that it lays down layer upon layer of seemingly rational analysis to end up with a conclusion many would find incredible. It is compiled from original footage from numerous news sources, narrated in Dylan's mild, almost monotone voice, and backed by an soundtrack from DJ Skooly and others that induces a sense of the ominous.

And so to the message. The Twin Towers in New York didn't fall as a direct result of the planes hitting them and the fire that ensued; they were brought them down in a series of controlled explosions. George Bush's brother, Marvin, sat on the board of a company that insured the towers.

"I think what happened to the World Trade Centre was simple enough," Avery says in the film. "It was brought down in a carefully planned controlled demolition. It was a psychological attack on the American people and it was pulled off with military precision."

Flight 77, which supposedly flew into the Pentagon, could not have flown at that speed without going into a tailspin. There is no sign of any parts of an aeroplane in footage of the crash site, and the building looked as though it had been hit by a missile. Meanwhile, Donald Rumsfeld was safe on the other side of the Pentagon.

Flight 93, said to have come down in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, never did crash there. Instead it landed in Cleveland airport shortly after the airport had been evacuated. The emotive phone calls by the so-called passengers to their relatives before they "died" were staged.

There are several flaws in the argument. The list of those who would have to have been party to the plot is implausibly long for it to have remained secret, from Bush himself to Rumsfeld and Cheney and the FBI and Pentagon ... and on and on. Much of the supporting evidence in the film was taken in the first minutes and hours after the attacks, when confusion reigned. And George Bush may be a disastrous and dishonest president, but would he be capable of such a monstrous act?

The three men have instant answers to any objections you can throw at them. There may have been a lot of people involved - they think about 100 - but only a handful of those would have known the full plot. As for Bush acting heinously, haven't leaders the world over proven themselves capable of monstrous acts?

There's a futility to arguing with them that even they recognise. "You can't stop this, you can't hold us back," Jason says. "Many outlets have tried to ignore us, but in the end they are all forced to listen to us because their viewers are demanding it." He is right. The exponential growth of Loose Change is gradually forcing the film on the mainstream media. Though it began as an internet phenomenon, its biggest spikes have come, significantly, after the film gained airplay on old media platforms such as Air America and Pacifica radio stations, local Fox TV outlets and on stations around the world, including state outlets in Belgium, Ireland and Portugal. So far though, no British channel has been rash - or as the film-makers would see it, brave - enough to bite.

"This is unlike anything I have worked on," says Tim Sparke of MercuryMedia, which handles international distribution for the film. "It has forced millions of people to question whether they can trust big media, and by bypassing the broadcasters through internet distribution it has altered the media power balance profoundly. With a little money and passion, anyone can make an important film."

The final test for Avery and co is yet to come. They are putting together Loose Change: the Final Cut using an upgraded Power Mac G5 (price $5,000). They have filmed original interviews with Washington players, employed lawyers to iron out copyright issues with borrowed footage, commissioned 3D graphics from Germany, and recruited a theology professor to act as fact-checker and consultant. The end result, they hope, will be seen at Cannes and have a cinema release in America and across the world on the sixth anniversary of 9/11.

If that happens, they will have squared the circle. The underground film-makers will have come up for air, exposing millions more people to their argument - and themselves to intense scrutiny. Stand back and enjoy the fireworks.


Watch the film yourself
Loose Change on the web
http://www.loosechange911.com/

=====================

Also see:

Video: "Loose Change", 2nd edition
Free Google version

Video: "Loose Change", 1st edition
Also has various other 911 videos

Video: "SEPTEMBER 11: Evidence to the Contrary"
A compilation of various videos, including "Loose Change".

[Anahata]

meer foto's=

http://www.urnotfree.com/pages/news.htm

[Starglider]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4196580169348087802
http://www.thepentacon.com/

"The PentaCon: Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed" (Smoking Gun Version)

Citizen Investigation Team presents this explosive documentary regarding the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon revealing quadruple corroborated testimony proving the plane flew on the north side of the CITGO station making it impossible to have toppled the light poles and damage the building as outlined in the ASCE report. Visit www.ThePentaCon.com for more details.

> Very interesting presentation of witnesses, and a very interesting explanation of what may actually have happened at the Pentacon... For more details about the lightpoles issue, see the analysis of Jack White mentioned earlier in this topic (and/or do a Google).

[Starglider]

BBC & CNN Found To Have Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed Long Before It Fell

A remarkable breakthrough is developping, proving how the media are accomplices in covering up the truth of 9-11.

The big issue is this: the (present) official version is that WTC 7 "collapsed" due to fires weakening its structure, completely by surprise, without it being in any way a controlled demolition.

But now, video-recordings made by private individuals are appearing of the reports broadcasted by CNN and the BBC on 9-11, and these prove that both news agencies were clearly informed of WTC 7 collapsing.... far before it actually occurred.

See links and article below. Especially "enjoy" the BBC's particularly lame response to Alex Jones' collaborator Paul Joseph Watson...

SG


==========================================

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm
BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell
= with all clips of the BBC footage

When viewing the BBC footage, notice how both the presentor and the reporter make an unbelievable blunder by saying that WTC7 has collapsed, and then go on as if they didn't say anything of that sort...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
CNN footage of reporting the collapse of WTC 7... too soon.


==========================================

Source: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm


BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost

Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy

by Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.

BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response. (see link)

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein - I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?

[Starglider]

also see: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/280207timestamp.htm
Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance



======================

Source: http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/280207BBC.htm


BBC Has Lost Tapes Of 21st Century's Defining Moment 9/11 coverage gone due to "cock up". Why is this not a world news headline?

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, February 28, 2007

It has come to light this week that the most pre-eminent broadcasting company in the world has lost the original recordings of its output for the entire day on September 11th 2001, just over five years on, yet no major news agency has even bothered to report the fact.

Despite being currently the biggest story on the internet and in the alternative media, the only place in the mainstream the story has appeared is on a small German news website.

This highlights the fact that the mainstream media is not free to report events. The information it disseminates is strictly controlled and regulated.

The BBC was forced into claiming that the recordings covering the 9/11 attacks have mysteriously vanished in response to fierce criticism over the fact that on the day the news agency reported that World Trade Center Building 7 had collapsed almost 30 minutes before it actually came down.

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, surely the fact that the BBC has made this announcement should be reported.

A cogent precedent can be found in the relatively recent furor over the loss of the moon landing tapes by NASA. This was reported in every major newspaper and on every major news website in the world for over a week when it came to light last August. The story then hit world headlines again when the tapes were found.

In the eyes of the mainstream media the September 11th attacks in 2001, it seems, are not as important an event as the moon landing, which happened last century, 38 years ago to be precise.

Therefore it is purely as a result of the persistence of the alternative media, and its audience, that regular BBC employees are now being deluged by e mails and calls asking them to divulge what their source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 a full 26 minutes before it happened.

The BBC editor's blog is currently carrying the following statement from Richard Porter, editor of BBC news:

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another."

The BBC is claiming that it cannot verify that it reported building 7 had collapsed too early because it no longer has its own tapes. Mr Porter then says he would love to get hold of a copy. Yet it is blatantly clear that he is writing about the copy of the BBC's output that kick started the entire controversy! So there he already has a copy, why can't he watch that?

Even more incredibly he then goes on to declare that the News 24 footage, which the BBC DOES still have, fails to clear up the issue. This is patently false as we have today proven. Footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse. You can view the footage here.

Remember that both the official FEMA and the NIST reports on building 7 concluded that the building collapsed unexpectedly.

So why is the BBC continually lying to us and attempting to cloud this controversy instead of explaining it?

Even more remarkable is the fact that if the BBC maintains that its footage is indeed lost, this means that at least THREE copies have been lost from DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.

The BBC's policy on retaining recordings of all television and radio broadcast outputs, last reviewed: 18/02/03 - which you can view online at the BBC's own website, clearly states:

The following components to be retained:-
· Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
· One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
· All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use
· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes
· Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media

Furthermore:

"A retention schedule for each set of records kept /archived must be created as defined in the Core Records Policy. Retention periods are set according to the status and value of the record."

This means that the safe retention of archived recordings is checked at regular intervals, and the more valuable they are deemed to be, the more frequently they are checked.

And yet more:

"All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use."

This means that if the footage was "lost" prior to September 11th 2006 then the BBC has broken British broadcasting law.

So all in all we have a situation here whereby the BBC is either lying when it says all records of its World output on 9/11 are gone, or the BBC has categorically failed to uphold its own policy, and UK law, and is dismissing this as merely a "cock up".

This is not some two bit cable TV station, the BBC is paid for by every person in the UK and thus has a strict legal responsibility to uphold its written policies. If this was ever to be challenged legally would the editors of the BBC maintain as their defence that they "cocked it up"? That is simply not good enough. People that "cock up" at that level should no longer be in a job and should be explaining themselves in a court of law.

We know for a fact that the BBC are very concerned about how this whole fiasco has impacted upon their reputation. Corporation chiefs are also worried that head of BBC World Richard Porter's brief response to the matter has only made them look worse.

At this time Mr Porter is still ludicrously feigning ignorance and stupidity by suggesting that the BBC has been "accused of being in on the conspiracy".

Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions.

As a citizen of the UK and a BBC license payer I demand an explanation as to what has happened to at least three copies of BBC news footage of a moment in time that will define history. I want to know PRECISE DETAILS of when the tapes were last checked, how they could have simply vanished and who is ultimately responsible and so should all other UK residents.

You can put these requests to the BBC here. My advice is to be succinct, to the point and polite. No more than two sentences are required.

Furthermore, everyone who reads this article, whether British or American, should immediately contact their local and national media outlets and demand to know why they consider this huge story not to be newsworthy.

Paul Joseph Watson Contributed to this report.

[Starglider]

It looks like the imfamous video tape certified by the CIA as showing Bin Laden admitting to planning the 911 strikes is NOT fake!!

Remember this comparative photo?



A very convincing article about it and about what caused the mistaken perception the individual shown on the video could not have been Ben Laden, has just been published. See "Fat osama tape not fake".

It presents photographic analysis and reconstitutions like the following:





If this analysis is indeed correct, and it certainly looks like it, then we have to acknowledge the fact that Ben Laden was definitely actively involved in the 9-11 events, and not just passively drawn into a plot that was planned and carried out by others.

Nevertheless, it still looks like this was an operation that was facilitated and helped by the governments and secret services of several countries, including the US and Israel.

Quite a complicated plot, indeed. The last word has not been said about it...

SG

[Starglider]

source: http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html
= +picts of documents

Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report.

Mineta says Vice President Cheney was "absolutely" already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58-- after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff.

Mineta is on video testifying before the 9/11 Commission, though it was omitted in their final report. He told Lee Hamilton:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?

Mineta confirmed his statements with reporters, saying "When I overheard something about 'the orders still stand' and so, what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down."

Norman Mineta made it clear to reporters-- who verified his quotes in written text alongside him-- that Mineta was indeed talking about a stand down order not to shoot down hijacked aircraft headed for the Pentagon.

After no shoot down took place, it became clear that Cheney intended to keep NORAD fighter jets from responding-- evidence that Cheney is guilty of treason, not negligence for allowing the Pentagon to be hit.

- picts -
(Click each document for a larger image)

The idea that "the order still stands" matches up with a change in NORAD and Pentagon orders-- issued on June 1, 2001, only months before 9/11. The document revoked the default standing orders to shoot down errant or hijacked aircraft and instructed them instead to stand down until they were given orders by the President, Vice President or Secretary of Defense.

[Starglider]

source: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6806


New witness confirms Scholars previous findings
James Fetzer – OpEdNews.com July 2, 2007

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) appears to be moving in the direction of a "conspiracy theory" about the destruction of WTC-7 on 9/11 just as a new witness has emerged reporting extensive destruction inside the building many hours before it would be demolished. According to James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, these turns of events provide further confirmation for the conclusion that WTC-7 was brought down by a controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET. "Anyone who googles WTC-7 will see an event that looks exactly like a controlled demolition, just as Peter Jennings and Dan Rather reported at the time. That is why this event makes NIST so uncomfortable."

WTC-7, a 47-story building also known as the Soloman Brothers Building, collapsed about 7 hours after the Twin Towers were demolished. It was hit by no jet aircraft and had no jet-fuel based fires. "It did have a few modest fires, which could have been easily controlled but were allowed to burn," Fetzer said. "Remarkably, the fire alarm system in WTC-7 was turned off at 6:47 AM/ET and placed on 'TEST' status for a period of eight hours." In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is "considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7's) structural failure."

A new eyewitness inside WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11, heard explosions before either of the Twin Towers collapsed. He was summoned to the Office of Emergency Management Operating Center (OEMOC), also known as "Rudy's Bunker," on the 23rd floor of the building. The center had been especially prepared for the Mayor and other officials to gather in case of a terrorist attack or other emergency. Some have wondered why Giuliani did not go to the OEMOC but instead remained some distance from the World Trade Center. This witness, who testified at official hearings and whose identity will be revealed in the general-theater-release version of "Loose Change," has information that sheds light on this and other questions about WTC-7.

Rolf Lindgren, former Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin and independent scholar of the events of 9/11, transcribed the testimony and edited it for clarity of English. The complete transcript is below. The witness went to WTC-7 after the first plane struck the North Tower and before the second hit the South Tower. When he arrived at the 23rd floor, he found half-eaten sandwiches and still-steaming coffee. He made some phone calls and was told to leave "right away." Someone ran into the Center and led him to a stairwell. "When we reached the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way; there was an explosion and the landing gave way." He had to climb back up to the 8th floor to find a way out. When he got to the lobby, "the lobby was totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong had come through and stepped on it.. And it was so destroyed I didn't know where I was . . . (and) they had to take me out through a hole in the wall, . . . a hole that I believe the fire department made to get me out."

WTC-7 has been widely regarded within the 9/11 research community as the most blatant of all "smoking guns" that disprove the official account. According to David Ray Griffin, a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and the movement's leading representative, the building showed all the characteristics of a controlled demolition: an abrupt, complete, and total collapse at freefall speed, which was perfectly symmetrical and into its own foundation, as he has explained in his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking (2007). "The 'blast events' this witness is describing are not 'hypothetical," Fetzer observed, "but actual. Only actual events can bring about effects. So it's a bit labored for NIST to say it's considering whether 'hypothetical' blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. They could not. That requires real blast events."

The witness, who was interviewed by Dylan Avery (with audio clips played on Alex Jones' and on Dylan's shows), has expressed his puzzlement over the destruction of the building. "Well, I'm just confused about one thing and one thing only," he said, "why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place? I'm very confused about that. I know what I heard; I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel oil tank. I'm an old boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one side of the building." But the collapse was symmetrical. "There was a large tank of diesel in the building," Fetzer said, "but diesel burns at a low temperature and diesel is not explosive. It cannot have brought about this collapse."

Anyone who has watched the building come down appreciates that it has all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition. Even James Glanz, a reporter for The New York Times, admitted in an early story (29 November 2001) that the collapse of WTC-7 is even more perplexing than is the destruction of the Twin Towers, because no reinforced, steel structure high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire in the history of structural engineering. "Indeed, no steel structure high-rise collapsed due to fire before 9/11 nor after 9/11 – nor, if our research is correct, on 9/11," Fetzer said. "None of these fires burned long enough or hot enough to cause steel to weaken, much less melt. It must be embarrassing for the scientists at the NIST to defend these ridiculous theories."

Lindgren, who has extensive experience with press releases, added, "Friday afternoon is the best time of the week for the government to bury unpleasant news. Since NIST insists it has found 'no evidence' of a controlled demolition, it must not consider the videos of WCT-7's collapse as 'evidence,' because they leave no room for doubt. The fires in Building 7 provide a good cover story to hide the fact that powerful explosives brought it down." He is also not impressed with Giuliani's excuse for not going to his command center, which is that another plane could have been headed for it. "But if another plane was headed toward the World Trade Center, then he should have directed that the firemen be removed from all the buildings, which he did not do." (See here).

There were other oddities related to WTC-7, including Larry Silverstein reporting (during a PBS interview) that he had suggested to the fire commander that the best thing to do might be to "pull it" (where, he said, "They made the decision to pull, and we watched the building come down") and the BBC broadcast of a report of the collapse of "the Solomon Brothers Building" at least 23 minutes before the event would actually occur. "This was stunning," Fetzer said, "because you could see WTC-7 in the background over her left shoulder as she reported its collapse. It is hard to imagine a more revealing demonstration of the entanglement of the intelligence agencies, the administration, and the mass media. And a 'terrorism drill' was scheduled for the next day." The PBS interview and the BBC report are archived on the Scholars site at 911scholars.org.

"If Rosie O'Donnell had talked about 'blast events initiating the collapse of WTC-7", Fetzer said, "she would have been labeled a 'conspiracy theorist.' But then the official government account of 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial airlines, outfoxing the most sophisticated air defense system in the world to perpetrate these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan is only the most 'outrageous' conspiracy theory of them all. I guess we should be grateful that NIST is moving inch by inch toward a more adequate explanation of what actually happened on 9/11, which bears no relationship at all to what we have been told. Given the cumulative evidence, we are not 'conspiracy theorists' but 'conspiracy realists.'"

WTC 7 Eyewitness Testimony Transcribed by Rolf Lindgren (edited for clarity with notes): Go to http://911scholars.org and click on "Press Releases" at the top.
www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_fe_070701_nist_exploring_9_2f11_.htm

[Starglider]

bron: http://www.grenswetenschap.nl/permalink.asp?grens=874


Scheuren in 11 september

We wisten in 1912 binnen 14 dagen meer over wat zich bij de ramp met de Titanic afspeelde dan we na een jaar weten van de omstandigheden waaronder bijna 3.000 mensen op klaarlichte dag in hartje Manhattan de dood vonden. Zo verzuchtte The New York Times op 11 september 2002.

Sindsdien is er weinig veranderd. Alhoewel, nu is er "WIST U DAT…Scheuren in de officiële 11 september-verklaring" scheurkalender van Niels Rood. We laten Niels aan het woord:

Scheuren in 911
Scheuren in 911-kalender

"De scheurkalender Wist u dat... Scheuren in het officiële 11 september-verklaring is een opsomming van 365 feiten en citaten die de officiële lezing terugbrengen tot een zielig hoopje snippers.

Veel stof voor die kalender komt uit het boek van David Ray Griffin 'Een onderzoek naar de feiten'. Het idee voor de kalender werd geboren in een brainstorm met de uitgever, waar de ene helft van het gezelschap wat later was door de files, en de andere helft wat eerder weg moest, wat de nodige druk zette op de conversatie. Daarna was er tijdsdruk, want om een scheurkalender in april uit te brengen, schiet niet echt op natuurlijk.

Maar ondanks al die druk ligt het resultaat nu in de winkels. Mooi cadeau voor onder de kerstboom toch? En voor wie liever een samenhangend verhaal in één keer uitleest dan een feit per dag tot zich neemt, is er altijd het boek van Davis Ray Griffin nog. Dat groeit intussen uit tot een bestseller.

De scheurkalender is ook te downloaden. Het gaat mij en uitgever lemniscaat om de brede verspreiding van de feitenkennis, die uiteindelijk moet leiden tot nieuw onderzoek en dit keer wel onafhankelijk; en/of meer serieuze media die zich gaan afvragen of het verhaaltje waar ze nog steeds aan vasthouden nog steeds klopt." Aldus Niels Rood.

Enkele calender dagen:

maandag 1 januari
Wist u dat... op de ochtend van 11 september om 8:44 Donald Rumsfeld in het Pentagon met afgevaardigde Cox over terrorisme zat te praten en zei: ‘Laat me je verzekeren. Ik draai nu al een poosje mee. Er staat nog iets te gebeuren!’?

Twee minuten later sloeg het eerste toestel in de noordelijke WTC-toren.

1.938 dagen na 11 september (en zijn we al wakker geworden?)

vrijdag 5 januari
Wist u dat... Osama bin Laden niet door de FBI wordt verdacht van de 11 septemberaanslagen, bij gebrek aan bewijs?

1.942 dagen na 11 september (en zijn we al wakker geworden?)

zondag 15 april
Wist u dat... de passagierslijsten van de gekaapte toestellen geen Arabische namen bevatten? Hiervan wordt in het 9-11 Commissionrapport geen melding gemaakt.

2.042 dagen na 11 september (en zijn we al wakker geworden?)

De scheurkalender is ook via Bol.com te bestellen. Overige gegevens van het hebbeding zijn:
Auteur: Niels Rood
Titel: WIST U DAT… Scheuren in de officiële 11 september-verklaring. Scheurkalender 2007
Uitgever: Lemniscaat, Rotterdam
Prijs: € 12,50
ISBN: 11 386 0405 4

© Bert Vanslagmulders

[Starglider]

"But WTC 7 had structural damage, that is why it collapsed!"
Comparing the damage to WTC 7 with the damage done to the building of the Oklahoma bombing...


Loose Change Producer Korey Rowe Arrested


Rowe Arrested Despite Honorable Discharge Papers

[Starglider]

911 links with more jewish networks and... the MKO?

Here are some very significant new findings! (and you'll also find some important new videos below)

There is something wrong and very strange with one of the most famous videos shot of the 2nd plane crashing into the WTC. Someone went out to try and reproduce the camera angle of the video, and it appears the camera angle can not be reproduced in a normal way!!

To shoot the video the way it is, the camera had to be located on a higher level than is possible when standing at the side of the river, in the park (the Battery Park) where the video was allegedly made. When you compare the angle of the video with what can be filmed when standing in the park, you get the impression the video was rather shot from a helicopter or such, which must be excluded though, when considering other aspects of the video.

The person who found this out also checked to see if the video could have been shot from a boat, but the angle doesn't fit with that of a camera being on a boat that is moving along the river.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure it will probably fit with the angle of a camera being located high on the upper deck of a big ship that is moored (lying) right at the side of the Battery Park. It could be a big military ship, such as can be seen in at many other places on the same river along the shores of New York, or perhaps a big ferry. But this would nevertheless be an exceptional situation...

Now it has also been found out that the video was shot by a certain Michael Hezarkhani, a diamond dealer from New York. When contacted, he completely refused to talk about the video, claiming he was not allowed to talk about it due to the rights of the video having been "passed" to CNN.

The name of this man may possibly point to a connection with Manuchehr Hezarkhani, who could be a relative (although this is not yet confirmed!) and who is a top-figure of the MKO, which is the acronym of the "Mujahideen-e-Khalq" (also called PMOI), which is considered an international terrorist organization, and which was involved with the overthrow of the Iranian Shah (in which the CIA was also involved) as well as the American hostage crisis at the US ambassy in Iran, in 1979-1980.

We know about that hostage crisis that it was manipulated by the Reagon-Bush team, in order to make Carter loose the presidential elections. They managed to negotiate with the Iranians, so that they would hold the hostages until after the elections were over, forcing Carter to fail at any attempt to free the hostages. Indeed, the hostages were "miraculously" freed only minutes after Ronald Reagan was officially sworn in, in january 1981.

Today, the MKO is known as being active against the present Iranian government. So that definitely tells us where they fit in the overall picture...

Michael Hezarkhani, who made the 911 footage, could be an Iranian Jew, or have an Iranian-Armenian background (which would also tie him into the jewish community, as a part of the Khazarian jews, and Ashkenazim jews as such, have Armenian origins). This has to be verified, but I strongly suspect this, seeing Hezarkhani's first name is "Michael", which is a judaic-biblical name, and definitely not muslim or arab. Also, he's in the diamond business, which is well-known to be dominated by jews...

It's just about certain that it was not a mere coincidence that Michael Hezarkhani was present near the WTC, just as was the case for the 5 "dancing Israelis". The strange camera angle and the fact that the camera is focused on the WTC from the beginning of the video (not catching the 2nd plane while approaching, which seems the logical thing to do) supports these suspicions...

The story of this 9-11 video shows we're looking at an elaborate network of international manipulation through "false-flag" operations, connecting Americans with Israeli and US-jews, connected with Iranians, and all in turn connected with the Russians...

There are many twists and complicated connections within all this, so many new findings will probably pop-up.

One thing is sure though, it's a genuine snake pit...

SG


Find this new great video research at the following links:

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOeNUax-gaw
Filmer of accused fake WTC video won't disclose shot locaton

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpyBtOT1l2k&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ekilltown%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F
Iran (MKO) Link to 9-11 and WTC Video Plane Crash

* Related websites:
http://www.killtown.blogspot.com/
http://www.pumpitout.com/

* Unrelated, but about the videos:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=84735&sid=83fad54c0337c27f33a7e7304be3639c


* Another interesting observation, from http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/easiest-way-to-tell-this-video-is-fake.html

[Starglider]

The video named in the previous post, exposing the discrepancies concerning the camera angle of the 911 footage, and the strange reaction of Hezarkhani, is made by someone who apparently firmly believes that the entire footage is fake, and that there were in fact no planes at all that crashed in the WTC.

This view has already been advanced long ago, as can be found in some of the first posts of this thread.

But the whole "no-plane at the WTC" idea is rather far-fetched, and quite impossible to maintain seeing the many different footage of planes and witnesses who saw the planes.

This issue is virulently debated at several forums, such as at:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8678&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc

Note that the NPT ("no plane theory") is rightly debunked there. But I believe the claim any of the picts has been faked is false, and that all oddities in picts and footage are the result of the particular way perspective laws work (wich can result in odd effects such as skyscrapers looking to be lower when compared to another rooftop, when standing closer to it, and similar effects).

One main point should be taken from all this: there is an oddity with the camera angle of the 911 footage, as demonstrated on this pict:



This oddity seems to have been caused by the camera being at an exceptionally high level, such as on the deck of a ship. This may indicate the person who made the footage had the camera set-up in this exceptional way due to advance knowledge of the events to come.

SG