WTC Building 7 fell several hours after the Twin Towers. It collapsed onto its own footprint in near freefall speed. NIST concluded that fire brought it down.

This was my guest post on Subrosa’s blog this morning..

I was out and about on September 11th 2001 and the first inkling I had that the attacks had taken place was on seeing a picture of one of the Twin Towers on fire on a newspaper stand in the centre of Glasgow while changing buses. When I reached my friends’ house around dinner time, the telly was on and I was finally able to catch up with what had happened: the jets hitting the Towers and pulverising them, the attack on the Pentagon and the other plane that never reached its intended target but crashed in a Pennsylvanian field. Building 7 was still standing at this point (more on that later).

Naturally, I was gobsmacked with what I saw, but at the same time, I just could not believe that the authorities in the US could not have known that something this big was going to happen. I told a few people what I thought, but I pretty much kept quiet about it for the next couple of years – until I came across the “9/11 Truth Movement” and realised that millions of people had the same suspicions I had. I found out that not only did some people think that the government let it happen, but that they made it happen.

Further investigation was called for on my part.

I quickly learned that there were a great many inconsistencies and unbelievable coincidences in the official 9/11 story. For example, no steel framed skyscraper had ever completely collapsed due to fire before. Even those which had been ablaze for many hours never fell to the ground. Yet three of the World Trade Centre buildings fell completely – even the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) which was not hit by a plane.

For many, Building 7 is the biggest ‘smoking gun’ of all because it resembles a classic controlled demolition. 1,500 architects and engineers agree and want a new investigation. So many people in New York City have never seen footage of Building 7’s collapse, that a poster and TV ad campaign is underway this week.

And Building 7 wasn’t even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. But then, the chairman and vice chairman wrote in their book that the Commission was “set up to fail”.

When George W Bush gave his evidence to the Commission it was not under oath and he was chaperoned by Dick Cheney, the man responsible for making NORAD stand down, according to “conspiracy theorists”. Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified that the Vice President had ordered the plane heading for the Pentagon NOT to be shot down. This testimony was omitted from the Commission’s final report.

9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating that restrictions on information from the Presidential Daily Briefs meant that the investigation was “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States”. Another Commissioner, Timothy Roemer said, “To paraphrase Churchill, never have so few commissioners reviewed such important documents with so many restrictions. The 10 commissioners should either have access to this or not at all.”

In Cheney’s new book, which seems to have been released to coincide with the tenth anniversary, he claims that he did order that Flight 77 could be shot down when it was eighty miles out then again when it was sixty miles out, but it was allowed to hit the Pentagon. He also claims that Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania because passengers stormed the cockpit, aware of what had already happened that morning, however, the large area across which the wreckage extends suggests that the plane exploded in mid-air, and pictures from the alleged crash site leave us wondering where the actual plane is, if it crashed without being blown out of the sky first.

It is also difficult to see how a large passenger jet could have made such little initial damage to the outside of the Pentagon, before the walls collapsed.

Osama bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for 9/11 (he had actually been a CIA ‘asset’ in Bosnia) and ‘al Qaeda’ was a name made up by Western intelligence to give the impression that disparate groups of Islamic terrorists had a united front. After the end of the Cold War, a new enemy was needed to try to frighten us into giving up our rights.

And 9/11 was the excuse the US Government needed to invade Afghanistan.

Many people find it impossible to believe that there could have been any government involvement, but history provides many examples of “false flag” terrorism where state-sponsored attacks were carried out and blamed on political enemies. Operation Gladio was the name given to the clandestine NATO “stay-behind” operations in Europe after World War II to keep communism in check, and many civilian deaths can be attributed to Gladio over decades which were to discredit the likes of the Red Brigades.

And a secret US Government document from 1962 called Operation Northwoods, now declassified, actually suggests hijacking planes then blowing them out of the sky and blaming it on Cuba as a pretext to invade the now Communist island.

I cannot possibly mention all the inconsistencies in a blog post where it has taken others whole books to set out their arguments, but I join the calls for a proper investigation into 9/11 because it just doesn’t add up.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts (father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury) wrote last month, “Even if there were definite proof of government complicity, it is uncertain that Americans could accept it. Architects, engineers, and scientists live in a fact-based community, but for most people facts are no match for emotions”.

I can appreciate that this is what keeps a great many people from questioning the official story. This weekend emotions will be high as we relive those desperate events of a decade ago, but many people who lost family members on 9/11 don’t believe the government’s version of events and have become activists for truth.

They aren’t afraid to face the truth because they want justice for their loved ones.

Robbo still believes the official story. He commented on my refusal to believe the (ever changing) White House narrative, “You are totally determined to be as stupid as possible and no evidence will sway you from it. Good going, old bean!”

What is the evidence?

There is no body. No photographs of the body. The videos purporting to be of him are years old.

Do you think an insurance company would pay out on the death of someone whose alleged body was quickly dumped in the sea and whose alleged DNA doesn’t necessarily prove who it was from or when it was taken?

A decade ago, bin Laden was undergoing treatment for serious kidney disease and was on dialysis, yet no life-preserving equipment was found in the house in which he had allegedly been living for years. A house which just happens to be very close to major military installations.

And none of his neighbours claim to ever have set eyes on him.

The only “evidence” we have is the word of US politicians who are known liars.

And I am “stupid” for disbelieving the US Government? Really?

Here are 10 Facts That Prove The Bin Laden Fable Is a Contrived Hoax.

Not only is his death a hoax, but so is al Qaeda.

BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice”…

They wanted a bogeyman in the mould of Emmanuel Goldstein in Nineteen Eighty-Four to convince the American people to go along with never-ending wars and to scare them into giving up their rights. That man would be the CIA’s own Osama bin Laden,

Osama bin Laden was a well known, well paid CIA intelligence asset used over a long period by more than one US administration to fight their proxy wars. Originally he was recruited during the end of the Carter administration to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, he was subsequently used and armed to bolster the Muslim cause where it could be applied as a proxy force in civil wars, including Bosnia in the 1990′s.

I believe that the fraud is so obvious that I wonder if it has been deliberately designed that way. I just haven’t worked out why they would make it look so silly and unbelievable.

Maybe their contempt for us has reached that stage, and in a way, who can blame them when so many people will still slavishly believe whatever lies they come out with.

Channel 4 News tweeted a link to Samira Ahmed’s interview with Pastor Terry Jones last night about his invitation to speak to the English Defence League next year:

@channel4news Pastor Jones: “I’m a pastor, so we would definitely consider Islam evil” Video: http://ow.ly/3nUpQ.

From an almost nine minute piece, the most contentious quote was chosen for the tweet, even though there is no context. This is the first time I have heard this man speaking and I was surprised not to be met with the hardcore nutjob I was expecting. He actually said that moderate Muslims are welcome, just not the sort who call for the Queen to either convert to Islam or be expelled. He even says that Muslims should be free to build mosques, so he sounds more ready to accommodate them than the majority of Swiss people, as they voted to ban the construction of new minarets last year.

But nevertheless, Jones has been labelled a “preacher of hate”. Naturally, threatening to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 hasn’t helped give him a more cuddlesome image in the eyes of the mainstream media. In the end he didn’t burn them, but he had already committed the thought crime.

In this age when we are expected not to say boo to a goose in case we cause offence, thereby threatening the great multicultural experiment (which failed some time ago anyway), there is a real danger that very soon nobody will be allowed to say anything which is not on a list of government-approved beliefs.

Jacqui Smith banned Geert Wilders from entering the UK in 2009 after he was invited by Lord Pearson to show his short film Fitna in the House of Lords. Now we have the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, saying she is ”actively” considering banning Terry Jones. Smith’s decision was overturned by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in London. I hope Theresa May won’t be so foolish as to ban Jones.

But that waste of trees, The Mirror, urges her to ban him because,

He will give encouragement to every racist in Britain whilst provoking fear amongst Muslim communities.

Try as I might, I just can’t picture “Muslim communities” quaking in fear.

Actually, this highlights one of the main problems with our country today. When I was growing up, we lived in the community. This was the South Side of Glasgow and there were very, very few immigrants. I remember the first time I saw a coloured person (as we called them then, out of politeness, only to be told later that this was rude. You can’t win). I can’t recall exactly what age I was, but I was in the car with my mum and an Asian man was standing at the shops. My mum told me he was an Indian gentleman and I wondered why he didn’t have a headdress and a bow and arrow.

When I was in my early teens, I suppose, Asians started opening shops in the area. We had a local Asian grocer’s shop. Before heading out to buy sweets or pop, we would ask, “do you want anything from the Paki’s?” No hatred was implied or intended.

He lived in our community: the community, not a ghetto like Labour’s immigration policies have produced.

The Telegraph continues:

[Pastor Jones] intends to preach ”against the evils and destructiveness of Islam” at an English Defence League (EDL) rally in Luton, Bedfordshire, on February 5.

Mrs May told Sky News’ Sunday Live: ”Of course the home secretary has the right to exclude people who are not conducive to public good or on national security grounds”.

A statement on the pastor’s website said: ”During the protest, Dr Terry Jones will speak against the evils and destructiveness of Islam in support of the continued fight against the Islamification of England and Europe.”

By definition, then, his visit would be conducive to public good. Mrs May said,

Pastor Terry Jones has been on my radar for a few months now.

You can just imagine the politicians and civil servants desperately looking for non-Muslims to accuse of “hate” to appease Muslims and try to equal things up a bit, considering Muslim “preachers” tend to have the monopoly on hatred.

Anti-extremist group Hope not Hate condemned the move and launched a petition calling for Mr Jones to be banned from the UK.

This seems rather an extreme view from alleged “anti-extremists.”

Here are some of Hope Not Hate’s views on the matter:

Pastor Jones’s appearance in the UK will only give ammunition to those Muslim extremists who argue that ‘Christian’ Britain is intrinsically an enemy of all Muslims. Do we really believe that they will sit back and allow Pastor Jones speak in Luton unchallenged? Only last month the head of the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit, the police group that monitors extremism, said that the EDL had become a recruiting agent for Muslim extremist groups. Pastor Jones’s visit will only boost the very groups that the EDL claim to oppose.

Rather than pin the blame of Islamic extremism with the Islamists, it’s someone else’s fault.

Extremism breeds extremism and Pastor Jones’s intervention will only add to the polarisation within and between communities, something that could have dire consequences.

This polarisation was the point of multiculturalism. We got what the politicians ordered!

I understand people are nervous about banning people and curtailing freedom of speech, but with freedom comes responsibility and it is unacceptable for an extreme few to whip up hatred and violence against others. Just as the Home Secretary bans radical Islamist preachers so she must ban radical Christian preachers.

Except that I don’t think Jones will be calling for the death of the UK and the defeat of our troops. Those sort of people actually live here! We let them in and they stayed and they genuinely hate us.

The obvious difference is as lost on these do-gooders, as it was with another former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, who said that “hatred” laws should apply equally from far right evangelical Christians, to extremists in the Islamic faith.

The Christian Institute said at the time,

The proposal appears to be a new censorship law which allows politicians to decide what is an acceptable religious belief and what isn’t.

Their Director, Colin Hart, neatly explained,

To equate evangelicals with terrorists is an outrage. I call on the Home Secretary to retract his implied assertion that evangelicals in the UK are calling for the murder of non-Christians.

Hope Not Hate continues:

The HOPE not hate campaign strives to bring communities together around shared experiences and identities. We believe that the majority of people want to live together in peace.

I thought this was when they got really silly. Multiculturalism was never about shared experiences or identities. How could it be when we are expected to live in our own “communities”? In fact, we are expected to do the opposite of shared values and instead celebrate the “diversity” which differentiates us.

The UAF have also thrown their weight about already,

Weyman Bennett, joint national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, accused Mr Jones of coming to Britain to ”whip up Islamophobia and racism”.

He said: ”We intend on calling a mass demonstration where everyone can oppose the growth of racism and fascism in this country.”

It gets boring, doesn’t it? The name-calling, I mean, as if that’s the argument won, so shut up. Racism? Cranmer writes,

Islam is not a race and restricting freedom of expression and denying freedom of speech are manifestations of the very authoritarianism by which fascism is defined.

Despite his call for Jones to be allowed into the UK, His Grace is not at all a fan. He says,

And His Grace is fully aware that Pastor Jones holds certain hateful anti-Muslim views which rather conflict with the exhortation of the Lord to love one’s neighbour.

At the same time though, we are commanded to resist evil, and let’s not kid ourselves, raw Islam is evil. The so-called “moderate Muslims” in the West have been softened up like the rest of us. When you look at what goes on in other countries, like Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria, where millions of Muslims live cheek-by-jowl, we see a very different scene – and it’s one which will be repeated in the UK if and when the appeasers have their way.

When was the last time you read about evangelical Christians burning a mosque and murdering those inside? Yet there are too many incidents of Muslims burning churches for our mainstream media to even bother reporting one of them, or so it seems.

To avoid any doubt, I am not endorsing Terry Jones’s visit to the UK because I don’t know enough about him or what he intends to do or say, but just what is the Christian supposed to do? “Nothing” isn’t the answer and neither is violence. Hope Not Hate give me no hope and Unite Against Fascism is an oxymoron.

Some people have become so obsessive about political correctness that they perceive any negative comment about a “minority” to be a symptom of “hatred.” I don’t hate any Muslim, not even Captain Hook who lives in Belmarsh Prison and who is wanted by both the USA and Yemen on terrorist-related charges. He has a human right not to face trial for his alleged crimes and has to stay here, while Terry Jones may be barred from entering altogether, even though all he wants to do is talk.

But then, words always were more dangerous to ruling elites than bullets and bombs.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel warning to Muslim airline passengers on U.S. aircraft in response to the Transportation Safety Administration’s  “enhanced pat down” policy that went into effect in late October.

CAIR said Muslims who object to full-body scans for religious reasons should know their rights if they are required to undergo a pat-down, including asking for the procedure to be done in a private place. In addition, CAIR offered a “special recommendation” for Muslim women who wear a hijab, telling them they should tell the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck.

It also states: “Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.”

All this heightened security started straight after 9/11. You know my thoughts on that, but Islamists got the blame and that’s why airport staff are now allowed to see you and I naked on their screens and ban us from taking liquids and penknives on board, but Muslims are the ones being allowed special rights to avoid being “humiliated”.

Your crippled, asthmatic granny can be subjected to a full scan and body search while the mysterious Arab woman (or man) wearing a hijab gets waved through after “patting down” her head and neck area.

"Come on through, ladies, there's someone behind you who looks a little suspicious..."

Similar things are happening in Canada.

You couldn’t even begin to make it up! Back in the USA…

“Pat downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives,” a TSA statement issued on Oct. 28 stated. “Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others.”

And there lieth another problem for Muslims: dogs, which are considered “ritually unclean”. This blind Muslim girl in Michigan cannot have a guide dog, so takes a horse to classes.

Political correctness reached an all-time low in Dundee in 2008 when police apologised for sending out postcards advertising a new non-emergency telephone number which showed a six-month-old trainee police dog.

And you thought the Andrex Puppy was evil?

This faux-pas could so easily have been avoided,

Tayside Police have admitted they should have consulted their ‘diversity’ officers before issuing the cards…

And it’s us native Brits who get the blame for problems with “community cohesion”. Creeping Sharia continues,

“It is TSA’s policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner,” the policy reads.

As Creeping Sharia notes,

A gender-based policy, fully aligned with sharia law.

As I say to the secularists, if you ditch our Judeo-Christian heritage and values, you will get sharia law. In fact, this shows we are already partly there, as evidenced by the many state and private institutions where the only meat available on menus is halal.

And don’t expect to be able to read blogs like mine, because I will have been arrested.

So what are our “terror laws” really used for?

More than half of councils are using anti-terror laws to spy on families suspected of “bin crimes”.

Their surveillance tactics include hiding secret cameras on streets and even in neighbouring homes to catch householders putting their rubbish out on the wrong day.

Says it all, really.

New 9/11 Footage Reveals WTC 7 Explosions

Newly obtained 9/11 eyewitness footage that NIST fought tooth and nail to keep secret contains what appears to be the sound of explosions coming from the vicinity of WTC 7 after the collapse of the twin towers, offering yet more startling evidence that the building, which was not hit by a plane yet collapsed demolition style, was deliberately imploded.

The clip [first video on link] was released by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) as part of a 3 terabyte package of video and photo data in response to a lawsuit brought by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. As we highlighted in our previous report, almost every single video studied as part of the release thus far contains damning evidence of controlled demolition on both the twin towers and WTC 7.

The fact that NIST dragged their feet for so long in an attempt to block the release of these highly incriminating videos clearly indicates that they were part of an attempted cover-up. In addition, the fact that some of the videos appear to have been edited in an effort to hide evidence of controlled demolition is another smoking gun.

The latest video is from eyewitness Richard Peskin, who filmed ground zero from a high rise building that appears to be about a dozen blocks down the street from Building 7. The first portion of the footage is filmed immediately after the collapse of the second tower of the World Trade Center. At about 10 seconds into the clip, two clear explosions can be heard.

The clip then cuts to a later time and the cameraman states, “…explosion or something because there’s a lot of police activity and sirens and more smoke rising from the ground – new smoke – so there was some kind of additional explosion but I don’t know what it was….maybe it was a federal building or something like that,” as the camera pans across a shot of WTC 7.

At around 11am – around half an hour after the collapse of the north tower of the World Trade Center and an hour after the collapse of the south tower, Peskin states, “I still hear continuing explosions, I don’t know what it is,” as small explosions can be heard in the background.

At 1:49 in the clip, a louder rumbling explosion can clearly be heard coming from the direction of WTC 7 – “That’s another explosion,” says Peskin.

The clip was contained in the NIST folder named “Richard Peskin” and is a combination of footage from the files Peskin 25.avi, Peskin 28.avi, Peskin 29.avi, and Peskin 30.avi.

In another clip released as part of the same lawsuit, we can clearly see the east penthouse of WTC 7 falling seconds before the rest of the building. NIST says that fire caused the building’s collapse, so how could the penthouse have fallen first? If you have watched the WTC7 videos via the link in the first paragraph, the penthouse collapse is unclear or deliberately edited out.

The following video shows one of the classic views of the demolition – but with the penthouse collapse included.

The article on Infowars shows videos where the penthouse collapse has been edited out.

It is also worth remembering the following from that article:

The 9/11 Commission completely ignored the hundreds of survivors, professionals, first responders, firefighters and police who reported numerous secondary explosions at all levels of the twin towers and WTC 7.

If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” [thermal expansion] and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen an hour or more in advance?

There is also the controversy over WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein’s insurance claims.

The article concludes with this,

Of course, if authorities were ever forced to admit that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished it would then tarnish the credibility of the entire 9/11 official story, which is why NIST has engaged in an obvious cover-up to firstly withhold and then edit some of the footage in an attempt to hide the self-evident fact that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.

Reading all of Paul Joseph Watson’s piece (he is a native of Sheffield, not Hicksville, USA) is recommended.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a group set up by architect Richard Gage, AIA, for fellow architectural and engineering professionals to counter the official story given to the public about the collapse of the three World Trade Centre skyscrapers on 11th September 2001.

The official account of Building 7’s collapse, incidentally, has been changed by NIST several times. Was it fire? Collateral damage from the Twin Towers? NIST have even said that hypothetical blast events are being considered for their contribution to the collapse of WTC 7.

A group called “Building What?” wants to raise awareness of this major clue which helps expose the real culprits of 9/11.

More than eight years after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, New York Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner was hearing arguments in a courtroom less than a mile from Ground Zero about a ballot initiative to launch a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks. When the lawyer for the plaintiffs sponsoring the initiative explained that the 9/11 Commission report left many unanswered questions, including “Why did Building 7 come down,” the Judge replied quizzically, “Building what?”

Like Judge Lehner, millions of people do not know or remember only vaguely that a third tower called World Trade Center Building 7 also collapsed on September 11, 2001. In any other situation, the complete, free fall collapse of a 47-story skyscraper would be played over and over on the news. It would be discussed for years to come and building design codes would be completely rewritten. So, why does no one know about Building 7? And why did Building 7 come down?

The answers to these questions have far-reaching implications for our society. The goal of the “BuildingWhat?” campaign is to raise awareness of Building 7 so that together we can begin to address these questions.

Watch the TV Ad Millions of New Yorkers Will See:

The BBC reported the collapse 26 minutes early. Reporter Jane Standley was actually seen discussing the collapse on BBC World with Building 7 still standing behind her!

The studio anchorman that day was Philip Hayton. Members of We Are Change UK questioned him about the early reporting of WTC 7’s collapse during a speaking appearance.

The BBC reporting on the collapse of a building which is still standing.

Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11– at first– but then recalls the situation when it is described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who reported the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in the background.

“A lot of eyebrows were raised,” We Are Change reporters point out in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including a number of engineers. Hayton responded, pointing out that he was not aware of the situation with WTC 7. “This sounds so significant– I’m just amazed I didn’t know about this… This is completely news to me.”

“So, is there no official explanation?” Hayton further probed.

We Are Change continues to explain the delayed NIST report on WTC 7 as well as the response from a BBC editor who claimed 9/11 tapes were “lost” in a ‘cock-up.’

“I sense that you think there’s a conspiracy here– but you might be right,” Hayton concluded.

September 10, 2010

Photo: Macten.

Don’t want to hear this?

Tough. Grow up.

9/11 Commissioners:

• The 9/11 Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also said that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking

• And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

If even the 9/11 Commissioners don’t buy the official story, why do you?

Senior intelligence officers:

• Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this)

• A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”

• A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe (and see this)

• A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)

• A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job

• The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup”

If even our country’s top intelligence officers don’t buy the official story, why do you?

Congressmen:

• According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here)

• Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”

• Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”

• Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11

• Current Republican Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11

• Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11

• Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation

• Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg doesn’t believe the official version of events

• Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

If there is bipartisan questioning of the official story, why aren’t you questioning it?

Other government officials:

• U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time”

• Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

• Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence”

• The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

• Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is “the dog that doesn’t hunt”

• The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

If top government officials are skeptical, why aren’t you?

Numerous other politicians, judges, legal scholars, and attorneys also question at least some aspects of the government’s version of 9/11.

Hat-tip Infowars.

I don’t know if buses are still carrying this advert, but I came across it lately on an old leaflet from 2008 which was in my “to read” pile. I have finally read it! The leaflet was issued by Arab World Ministries whose noble mission is “Building Christ’s Church among Arab peoples.”

Before discussing the best way of bringing the truth of the Gospel to Muslims and Arabs of other faiths, I want to comment on this strange advert. Although it is not exactly topical news, I hope you will stick with me as I try to uncover what Muslims expect from the rest of us in Britain.

The first thing I noticed on the advert was the cute child. He’s harmless isn’t he? Wouldn’t hurt a fly. And he is wearing a baseball cap, which is even on back-to-front, so he is completely Westernised. One of us. Nothing to fear. Islam is Peace.

Then I wondered about this thing about being proud. Isn’t pride a great sin in Islam? In other words, the advert is just saying what the campaign people think we want to hear.

Then I thought, well wait a tick. Are they ‘proud’ to be British or just proud to be British Muslims? There is a huge difference, which we probably aren’t supposed to notice. Being British and being a Muslim are totally separate, let’s call them, conditions. I am British – and Scottish, and a Christian. I have never described myself as a British Christian. Why should I? I am these two things, plus many more (cue hilarious suggestions in the comments section).

Am I proud to be British? I try not to be proud of anything, as it is a sin, indeed it cometh before destruction. I am glad to be British and Scottish. Even if I was prone to pride (okay, I succumb like everyone else sometimes. I’m not perfect), I am certainly not proud of the laughing stock our country has become due to our politicians enslaving us with almost every EU, UN and envirofascist diktat they are presented with.

How could anyone, Muslim or otherwise, be proud of 200,000 abortions a year (apart from Diane Abbott, maybe, and her fellow bloodthirsty feministas)?

How could anyone, Muslim or otherwise, be proud of our government waging immoral wars for corporate empire?

Let’s be honest, the modern Western way of life is totally at odds with Islam. Can a true Muslim be proud of being British? Is it really possible? Maybe being a British Muslim is something they can take some comfort in as it is bound to be better than being a Muslim in most other parts of the globe.

It doesn’t mean they are willing to assimilate or give ground to the people who live in the country they are pretending to be proud of.

When we visit the Islam is Peace website, we are greeted by the cute wee boy again. He looks remarkably light-skinned on my monitor. Coincidence? They tell us that Islam is a complete way of life and the unifying belief in one God (sic) brings Muslims from all over the world together as one family.

The “family” therefore is Islam, not Britain, unless perhaps we become another Islamic nation.

On the campaign video, the first thing they tell us is, “Islam is NOT about hostility”. The campaign was begun as a response to the bombings of 7/7/05, but even so, I can’t think of any other religion who would use this as an introduction to understanding their belief system.

Imagine a video intended to give a good impression of Catholicism and starting with, “Catholicism is NOT about systematic child abuse by priests”. I wouldn’t give credence to anything which followed that statement, would you?

After another smiling child, we read, “Islam is NOT violence”. This is followed by a smiling baby. It’s probably not worth your time watching this video. To sum it up, some Muslim ladies with English accents say that they are peaceful and British and two white men – someone from the advertising company and a bus driver – say what a good idea it is to advertise peace on buses.

Another video outlines the campaign’s “5 Point Plan”. Number one is to fight Islamophobia; to monitor and fight Islamophobia wherever it occurs.

Ostensibly about peace, we can see straight away that the campaign is about much more than fighting towards this noble objective. It’s about power. Of course it is; Islam is the family.

Number Two is about creating dialogue between the Muslim Community and the rest of Britain, ensuring that [the Muslim's] voice is always in the mainstream media. To partner with business and government to ensure [Muslims'] concerns like racism and social exclusion are understood.

The rest of Britain is seen as a separate entity, which is why they can only be proud to be British Muslims and not proud to be British. To partner with business and government is, of course, code for more legislation to have our society changed to suit them. It makes sense, though. The more ground the 97% of non-Muslims give, the less agro we are likely to get in return. Except that, because Islam is the family and an admittedly separate community, there is no middle ground and concessions will be neverending once they start, and they have started.

Number Three calls on the government to make lasting peace in areas of conflict around the world, helping eliminate the injustices that foment division and nurture violence.

Peace in Britain, therefore, depends on our government’s foreign policy. I am dead against these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well, as I am sure is the majority of the UK, but I don’t threaten the lives of innocent civilians because I oppose them.

Number Four is about being creative so that Muslims have [their] finger on the pulse on the British mainstream to understand what [the Muslim 'Community'] wants the world to hear.

The BBC has already been found to be pro-Muslim and anti-Christian.

Number Five is about dialogue and friendship, to create a culture of understanding, because Mohammed said that anyone who believes in Allah, let him be good to his neighbour.

There will be peace just as soon as we become an Islamic country. Except that there won’t, because the inevitable factions will develop and we know what happens then. Even if they don’t, the rest of us (which will be far less than the current 97% after further social engineering and Cameron’s crusade to welcome Turkey to our EU family) will be living under a repressive Islamic regime.

The only conclusion I can reach after looking at this campaign – and this one is meant to reach out to all of Britain with peace and understanding – is that Islam offers no peace and no freedom.

This is what that Arab World Ministries leaflet says,

“It is not hard for us to meet and make friends with Muslim people. They are warm, friendly people waiting to meet us. Speak to the Pakistani shopkeeper. Talk to the Muslim ladies as you wait with them at the school gate. Invite your neighbour to tea. Before long you will have a friend with whom you can share all sorts of matters, including your relationship with God.”

Christians have many duties. One is to bring souls to Christ. Not by the sword nor with threats of violence. We are to love our neighbour regardless of foreign policy or media brainwashing. We are to help the poor and infirm and demand justice for the afflicted.

Our society, largely based on Judeo-Christian values, was successful because justice had a sure foundation, not one based wholly on the agenda of whatever political system was in place or on a religion that calls for severe beatings for women who have been gang-raped.

A few people were persuaded to fight our way of life due to the mind-control efforts of the early feminists and ‘gay rights’ militants. Like Islam in the UK, gentle persuasion and reason weren’t an option for them to change society due to their limited numbers, so it had to be achieved by stealth: legislation against perceived injustices and manipulation of the media (and therefore, the people) – exactly what the Islam is Peace 5 Point Plan is advocating.

After decades of this re-engineering, those of us who retain some sense of reality have become the ones subjected to abuse. We are the ones being called names. The media have managed to make patriotism seem like xenophobia: the “Little Englander” who dares to want to preserve his civilised society. Our national flag is considered by some to be racist. Taxi drivers and binmen in various parts of England were prohibited from displaying St. George flags during the World Cup.

It seems that pride, for those who want it, is only for the select few. You can be proud to be a British Muslim and proud to be gay and of course, proud to be a woman who needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

Personally, I can live without pride. I have seen how it afflicts others.

The British Humanist Association are furious that some schools want to teach about sex and relationships according to their ethos.

The BHA, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England and the Accord Coalition have condemned a new Government amendment to its own Children, Schools and Families Bill, describing it as discriminatory.

It is discriminatory, yes. Just as forcing people to accept beliefs and behaviour that are at best alien to them discriminates against them. But that’s all right, isn’t it? This is how it works. Nobody is allowed to be discriminated against except those people who don’t do as they are commanded by the state. No matter how unfair or crazy.

A great myth has grown which says that discrimination is wrong. Any discrimination. Personally, I discriminate all the time, don’t you? Some food I love and others I detest. Some people I find are wonderful and others I avoid. How many parents don’t discriminate when it comes to choosing a babysitter? Fortunately, not many.

I have looked at the members of the aforementioned Accord Coalition on their website. They include The British Humanist Association themselves, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, the Hindu Academy, The Lesbian and Gay Christian (sic) Movement, The Socialist Education Association and the admittedly feminist Women Against Fundamentalism.

In other words, this is a political/religio-political attack on faith schools to further an atheistic/secular/humanist/socialist agenda. Dress it up as children’s rights and they think they can get away with anything.

The BHA encouraged its supporters to email their MPs,

Please do this today to ensure all young people have access to accurate, balanced SRE that promotes equality and diversity, and to prevent faith schools from teaching that same sex relationships and the use of contraception are wrong.

They go on to elaborate on the importance of promoting equality, diversity and rights: three of the main pillars of political correctness.

Ian Dunt, writing for politics.co.uk, was also upset. He wants faith schools ‘banned’. As I commented under his article,

I’m not sure if this is meant to be satirical, but it sounds like it. Mr Dunt is a ‘libertarian’ (he says) who naturally hates government interference – except when it comes to parents’ choices in how their children are educated, then they should have no choice. Despite the majority of the population having a faith, the author thinks their children should be herded into secular state institutions to be conditioned not to be ‘too religious’. I wonder what he thinks about the news that faith schools are best at building social unity:

“It found that secondary schools run by faith groups scored eleven per cent higher for their promotion of community cohesion when compared with secular schools.

“The report also concluded that faith-based schools outperformed secular schools by almost nine per cent when it came to tackling inequality.”

The Dunts and Dawkins of this country need to mind their own business when it comes to how parents bring up their own children. Oh, and stop using people’s aversion to homosexuality as a reason for getting your own angry way.”

And this is another great myth, that people who are against homosexuality being approved to children do it on grounds of hatred. We get this word discrimination as usual. That’s exactly what it is – like the babysitting example I gave above, parents and schools discriminate because they see it as the right thing to do by their children. This is their right.

Then the word homophobic gets thrown around. Never religiophobic (if that’s a word), because religious people are now, by default, in the wrong. Let us not be misled; when humanists promote homosexuality as normal, they do so against the biological evidence. Theirs is also a belief system. They believe it is right and I believe it is wrong. Why do they expect their beliefs to carry more weight than mine?

To conclude, then, what is next? How much more diversity are we meant to teach children, or be accused of the next invented ‘phobia’? Some children are already being groomed to be dysfunctional through state sex education that tells them anything goes and here are your free condoms and this way to the abortion clinic – your parents won’t find out.

This increases the underclass dependent on state intervention at every turn: the single mothers on handouts, the unemployed and unemployable, the depressed, the diseased, those for whom life has no meaning because they are used to their every whim being catered for and being shielded from the real world.

This attack on freedom of conscience and parental responsibility is demonic. For what benefit?

I have been studying the evidence of the attacks of 9/11 for years, which is the reason I can say they were carried out by elements of the US Administration.  These latest photographs of the World Trade Center from the air have been released by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). We Are Change’s Manny Badillo says that you see an explosion from the inside and talks about how the twin towers turned to dust. He also mentions the even more mysterious collapse at almost freefall speed of the Salomon Brothers Building, otherwise known as WTC7. The 47-storey skyscraper fell onto its own footprint despite not having been hit by a plane.

Badillo also talks about what happened in the aftermath of the attacks. There was the invasion of Afghanistan for its natural resources, including the opium (the CIA has been importing it into the USA for years) and then the occupation of Iraq, for the oil and to build permanent military bases.

Hat-tip for the video: Infowars.com