WTC 7: Examining the Evidence of 9/11

 Examining


We are going to present a compilation here of material regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7 on September 11, 2001.



Many have argued that the World Trade Center disaster was actually the result of a controlled demolition project planned well in advance by parties unknown. Much of the focus on the disaster that day has been centered on Towers 1 and 2, which were struck by aircraft. It has also been argued by many, that the damage from the aircraft and ensuing fires would not have been sufficient to cause a symmetrical collapse at nearly free-fall speed. There is compelling evidence to support the idea that the planes could not have brought down the towers, but perhaps the most compelling is that WTC7 was never struck by a plane at all, and yet that building too also collapsed in a way that seems to defy any explanation other than a controlled demolition.

But let's start by looking at the official explanation first. Could fire be the reason that Building 7 collapsed, as we have been told by government officials? It seems rather unlikely, considering that it has never happened before, or since. Yet on 9/11, we are told that three steel buildings were brought down primarily by fire. And again, one of those buildings was not even hit by a plane loaded with fuel.

This is a picture of the fires still burning in WTC7 in the late afternoon of September 11.

Here are some examples, of burning skyscrapers from around the world, that did not collapse, despite the fact that they suffered fires that burned longer, and engulfed more square footage of the structure.

In 1975, World Trade Center Tower 1 also burned on several floors, for several hours, with no modernized fire suppression system or fire-proofing material in place, but did not collapse.


Of course, these towering infernos were not struck by aircraft and were not struck by the debris of the Twin Towers as they collapsed. So let's have a look now at what sort of damage a building can suffer and still remain standing.

This is an image of debris which struck and damaged WTC 7.

For comparison now, here is a picture of the Deutsche Bank building which suffered extensive damage on 9/11. A fire in 2007 claimed the lives of two FDNY firefighters. Nearly a decade later, a $100-million deconstruction project was completed and the building was no more.

The following two images show the damage done to WTC Building #3 on 9/11, and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City after it was bombed in 1995. Despite the devastation, what remained of the buildings still did not collapse, and had to be brought down later.

Relatively small fires, comparatively far less structural damage than others, yet WTC7 still fell, uniformly, into a nice neat pile.

Even when buildings do happen to collapse, perhaps after an earthquake, they do not implode. Here are some images of what happens when critical supports in a building fail.

Even when specialists spend months planning and spend weeks placing huge amounts of explosives all throughout a building, it is still a difficult task to bring down a building in it's own footprint. There are no guarantees, as these videos show. Demolitions gone wrong, click here, here, and here to see them.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex first explained the collapse of Building 7 saying he gave the order to "pull it." This is a term often used in demolitions, meaning to pull down the building.


Strangely, given the subsequent information you will read here in a moment which has been kown for years, Secretary of State John Kerry also explained the destruction as a controlled demolition rather than an unexpected collapse. 

There is a very serious problem with that explanation though. Fire departments are not trained or equipped for demolitions operations. Fire trucks do not carry explosives, firefighters do not knock down buildings. Even for the world's leading specialists a demolition of that scale is not something that could be done in a matter of hours in a damaged and burning skyscraper. The only explanation could be that the explosives were set, before 9/11.

Silverstein later tried to revise the meaning of his statement, saying that he meant "pull it" as in to pull the rescue effort, and to pull out the firefighters in the building. The only problem with that, is that there were no firefighters in the building according to FEMA, because there was no water available to carry out interior firefighting operations. This video clip corroborates that. That clip also alludes to previous knowledge of impending collapse.

How did anyone know the building was going to collapse before it actually did? Why wasn't it predicted that other, more badly damaged buildings were going to fall, even though they never did? What were the telltale signs that Building 7 was going to collapse?

CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."

Why did the BBC report that the building had collapsed, 20 minutes before it actually did?


In this video clip, you will hear someone declare that the building ia about to "blow up" as you hear what sounds like explosives going off in the background. Odd choice of words. Blow up. And who told them it was going to blow up?


Perhaps the sounds of bombs going off was a clue, but bombs had been going off all day. Something that was completely overlooked by the media and has never been explained.


But perhaps the most chilling account of bombs in WTC 7 comes from Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. That fateful morning he raced to the Office of Emergency Management located in WTC7, to find it eerily empty, except for New York City's corporate counsel Michael Hess. An explosion trapped the two inside the building. Keep in mind that what he talks about here in the following interview happened before either of the Twin Towers fell, and therefore before the collapses had done any damage to Building 7.


Unfortunately, Barry Jennings will never be able to testify on record about what he saw that day. He died, for unknown reasons, just days before the NIST report on 9/11 was released in 2008. One of the film makers who interviewed Jennings for the film Loose Change hired an investigator to find out more about Jennings' mysterious death. All that he found was Jennings' home empty, and up for sale. He then returned the money to the man who hired him, and told the filmmaker to never contact him again. This only added to the mystery. A commenter at a website claimed to be Jennings' son, and claimed his father had died of leukemia, but the identity of the commenter has never been verified.

Hess publicly corroborated important elements of Jennings' account.


This video examines the collapse of WTC7 and some elements of the NIST report.


If that video was a little too technical for you, don't worry. Most of us are not engineers. There are plenty of real experts out there though, thousands of them, who disagree with the government's findings. This video summarizes the details of the WTC 7 collapse in terms we can all understand.

John Kerry Admits WTC7 Was Controlled Demolition (VIDEO)

It seems clear, enough from much of the video evidence presented and testimony from people who were there, that the World Trade Center building number 7 was brought down intentionally through controlled demolitions.

Some have claimed that towers 1 & 2 were also brought down deliberately with controlled demolition, arguing that the plane strikes alone were not sufficient to bring them down in the fashion in which we all saw them collapse. Keep in mind however, that no plane struck building 7 on 9/11.

Also keep in mind that the demolition of a building takes weeks, even months of preparation and planning. This is not something that can be accomplished in a matter of a few hours, and this is not something that first-responders are trained or equipped to accomplish. The fire department doesn't have tons of explosives laying around, just in case they have to bring down an unstable skyscraper. Assuming too of course, that the building actually was unstable at all.

What John Kerry is admitting to here, is that 9/11 was planned in advance by parties unknown who had direct access to set demolitions explosives throughout WTC7.



He is not the first politician to come forward and make a statement which undermines the "official" narrative of what happened on 9/11. For years we heard all about the heroism aboard Flight 93. They even made a movie about it. Anyone who questioned how an airliner could simply disappear into a small ditch in a field in Pennsylvania was laughed off as a conspiracy nut. Even to this day, most people don't realize that Dick Cheney himself has publicly admitted that he ordered Flight 93 be shot down. Whether that was the right call to make is debatable, but the fact remains that we were lied to about what happened to Flight 93.

Flight 93 Shot Down by Dick Cheney

Is Earth Getting Bigger?

If this is true, then it must also be true that the Earth is hollow. If the Earth is hollow, is it possible that there is life on the inside?


Do a little reading on the subject at this link:

Mind Blowing Research Suggests That Earth Could Actually Be Hollow

Kerry's Speech On Syria, War Appears Imminent

Commentary courtesy of J. Marselus VanWagner


It seems clear enough that if the missiles are not already in the air, a U.S. strike on Syria is imminent. The following is Secretary Kerry's full speech from today, with editorial commentary inserted among the full transcript. 

Well, for the last several days, President Obama and his entire national security team have been reviewing the situation in Syria. And today, I want to provide an update on our efforts as we consider our response to the use of chemical weapons. What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and — despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured — it is undeniable.

We were also told that proof of yellow-cake and an Iraqi nuclear program were "undeniable." We were led to believe that Colin Powell brought some special and secret evidence to the UN behind closed doors, which the American public was not privy to. That was all a lie.

In this instance, we already have reason to doubt the veracity of the claim that chemical weapons were used because in March we were told the same thing, that Syria had used chemicals on civilians. Yet those reports proved to be unfounded.

Alleged chemical attack kills 25 in northern Syria

Kerry also starts off his speech by trying to take the moral high-ground, speaking of killing innocent civilians, while Bradley Manning rots in prison for revealing America's own moral depravity.

Collateral Murder: A Wikileaks Video of An Iraq War Atrocity

Notice too, the strategic time frame of his conviction, and his credibility among the political right destroyed by his being outed as an alleged transsexual.

And while Kerry speaks of the evils of chemical weapons, let us also not ignore the effects of American weapons systems, particularly with our use of depleted uranium munitions. Besides, at the end of the day once can hardly discern the moral righteousness of killing innocents with one weapon over another, dead is dead, and suffering is suffering.

Syrian Troops Fire On Civilians (WARNING: Graphic Video)

Syrian Rebels Behead Catholic Priest (WARNING: Graphic Video)

So while Kerry tries to make the case for America taking some moral high ground here in choosing sides, in a conflict that has indeed brought so much suffering to the people of Syria, let's also keep in mind exactly who we are going to be supporting.

Syrian Rebel Cannibalizes Corpse of Government Soldier (WARNING: Graphic Video)

The meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict in Syria itself, and that conflict has already brought so much terrible suffering. This is about the large-scale, indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all, a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else.

There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. There is a reason the international community has set a clear standard and why many countries have taken major steps to eradicate these weapons. There is a reason why President Obama has made it such a priority to stop the proliferation of these weapons and lock them down where they do exist. There is a reason why President Obama has made clear to the Assad regime that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences.

And there is a reason why, no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again.

If it happened, if chemicals weapons were actually used, then it certainly is cause for some concern. It is certainly possible, even likely that a chemical attack did take place.

But should it be of enough concern for the United States to act unilaterally against another sovereign state and embroil ourselves in yet another global conflict, acting as the world policeman, without even knowing which side is responsible? The consequences of US meddling are less justified than our other misadventures in the past, and the consequences are likely to be fare more severe this time around.

This time, Russia is unlikely to sit idly by and has made stern warnings to the US in recent days. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned that US intervention would have "extremely dangerous" consequences, and that unilateral military intervention without UN Security Council approval would be “a gross violation of international law.”

Russia has not even acknowledged that a chemical attack even took place. Russian President Putin told British Prime Minister Cameron  in a telephone call that there was no evidence a chemical attack took place, much less who might have been responsible if it did.

Russia is not the only concern though. Syria has warned that if they are attacked by the United States, they will respond with an attack on Israel, in a coalition along with Lebanon, Iran, and surprisingly enough, Iraq as well. Which is really the nail in the coffin for our utter failure in a nine year war in Iraq. Not to mention the explosive potential for the conflict to suddenly flashover into WWIII.

Last night, after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of this situation, I went back and I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us.

As a father, I can’t get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing, while chaos swirled around him, the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound, bodies contorting in spasms, human suffering that we can never ignore or forget.

Sure, tugging at the heartstrings never hurts when spinning war propaganda. Dead babies and the obligations of the parent are always excellent tools to incite knee-jerk reaction. But no one seemed very concerned when we armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons.

CIA Docs Reveal US Aided Saddam’s Chemical Attacks

Anyone who could claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass. What is before us today is real, and it is compelling.

Again, Kerry tries to take the moral high road here while ignoring America's own history of atrocities and outright lies. He shames Americans into supporting a new war, without actually providing any proof, essentially telling us that seeking facts is morally bankrupt.

The videos he talks about above which he "can't get out of his head" are not proof of anything. If they were, we should have acted back in March. Either these videos were "fabricated" as he puts it, or perhaps it was the US backed opposition who were responsible then, as it is possible they are now.

Videos Show Aftermath of Possible Syrian Chemical Attack in March

So I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience, and guided by common sense. The reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground, like Doctors Without Borders and the Syria Human Rights Commission, these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. And with our own eyes, we have all of us become witnesses.

This all may be true. It's quite possible that a chemical attack did take place. But just because Assad's government forces have the capacity to launch such an attack, it is hardly in their interests to do so. It is certainly not worth world condemnation and attack by the United States, simply to clear out a neighborhood in their own capital city. It also give the rebel an excuse to abandon calls for peace talks in Geneva.

But could the rebels launch a chemical attack?

It's quite possible. Most of the Syrian rebels are foreign-born fighters, not Syrians. So whoever has been funding and arming this invasion of mercenaries are the ones who are actually responsible for the entire civil war there. The rebel army is essentially an agent provocateur to begin with, and therefore certainly quite likely to use a false-flag attack to advance their mission.They are not freedom fighters, they are a proxy force being used to carry out a plan that has been in the works since 9/11, and even before.

General Wesley Clark Says 'War on Terror' Was Planned (VIDEO)

US-Created "Syrian Opposition" Led by Big Oil Rep

Most of the rebel Army have come from, or through Libya since our bombing campaign and proxy war there.

Ten Years After 9/11, US Supports Al-Qaeda in Libya

A U.S. weapons shipment bound for Syrian rebels was caught by officials in Lebanon back in February 2012. That might have been a major embarrassment if the news ever made it to prime time. But of course you will never see news like that on your mainstream news channel, who are more obsessed with pop culture than real news. And for those that did hear something about it, they have probably long since forgotten about it. You certainly won't hear John Kerry talking about how we have been arming this terrorist Army of Al-Qaeda affiliates and Muslim fanatics to topple the legitimate, sovereign, secular government of Syria.

It should also be mentioned here, that Americans have already been found embedded with and fighting alongside rebel forces in Syria. 

Americans Now Fighting Alongside Rebels in Syria (VIDEO)

With such support, it is certainly quite possible that the rebels got their hands on chemical weapons. Using them to attack Assad's forces directly would be a relatively ineffective "checkers" sort of move, while using such weapons in a false-flag attack would be a much more brilliant chess-move in order to draw the US into the war directly.

The attack on the CIA information station in Benghazi was likely a casualty of our proxy service in arming Syrian rebels, and perhaps even chemical weapons specifically. 

Back in January a hacker broke into the computer system of British defence contractor Britam. A document discovered in the hacked download revealed a US-plan, facilitated by Qatar to use Britam's mercenaries to carry out a false-flag chemical attack in Syria using Russian-made chemical weapons exported  from Libya. 

Now given all of this information, the possibility that opposition forces might also have chemical weapons, is very strong.

But perhaps the most compelling evidence comes from the UN. While some have questioned whether a chemical attack actually happened back in March, the UN has determined not only was the attack with sarin gas real, but that it was the rebels who carried out the attack. Not the Syrian government.

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

We have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead. Our sense of basic humanity is offended not only by this cowardly crime, but also by the cynical attempt to cover it up.

Who is covering what up, we may never know, and most likely not in time to stop us from going to war. We have been promised "that information" many times before.

At every turn, the Syrian regime has failed to cooperate with the U.N. investigation, using it only to stall and to stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in Damascus in the dead of night. And as Ban Ki-moon said last week, the U.N. investigation will not determine who used these chemical weapons, only whether such weapons were used, a judgment that is already clear to the world.

Wait, WHAT?!!!

So not only has Kerry and the Obama administration already rushed to judgement without so much as an investigation, but the investigation under way does not even try to figure out who is even actually responsible?!

No wonder Assad won't let inspectors in. What's the point? No matter what they find or don't find, the US (and mot likely Britain) are going to do as they please regardless. How is it in Assad's interest to allow inspections whether or not his government used chemicals, if the US is just going to say that he did use them? Even if chemical weapons were used by the rebels, any evidence of chemicals will only be used against the Syrian government. This is essentially like the US demanding that the UN be allowed in to put Assad's fingerprints on the murder weapon.

I spoke on Thursday with Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem, and I made it very clear to him that if the regime, as he argued, had nothing to hide, then their response should be immediate, immediate transparency, immediate access, not shelling. Their response needed to be unrestricted and immediate access. Failure to permit that, I told him, would tell its own story.

So John Kerry seriously expects to call a "time-out" in the middle of a fight to the death, as if this whole situation were child's play.

Instead, for five days, the Syrian regime refused to allow the U.N. investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them. Instead, it attacked the area further, shelling it and systemically destroying evidence. That is not the behavior of a government that has nothing to hide. That is not the action of a regime eager to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons.

It is in their interest to hide evidence that could be used against them falsely, for one thing. But as we have already established, what difference does it make what the inspectors find if they can never determine who is responsible?

In fact, the regime’s belated decision to allow access is too late, and it’s too late to be credible. Today’s reports of an attack on the U.N. investigators — together with the continued shelling of these very neighborhoods — only further weakens the regime’s credibility.

And that my friends, means that the order has already been given. War is imminent and the strikes by US Naval and air-power will commence in days, if not hours.It makes no difference what the facts are or who actually responsible. It makes no difference that America failed to act when the rebels used chemical weapons.

At President Obama’s direction, I’ve spent many hours over the last few days on the phone with foreign ministers and other leaders. The administration is actively consulting with members of Congress, and we will continue to have these conversations in the days ahead. President Obama has also been in close touch with leaders of our key allies, and the president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.

But make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.

Thank you.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC.

Just one question please Secretary Kerry. Can you spell hypocrite?

Also see:

'Mail Online' False-Flag Chemicak Attack Article Vanishes

 

US Planned Initial Phase Strike Packages Against Syria

Activists Being Framed With Child Porn

A disturbing trend is unfolding where some entity is attempting to frame prominent anti-establishment activists and alternative media organizations with child pornography.

These activists are being sent emails with malicious attachments containing images of child porn in a seeming attempt to discredit them or set them up for arrest.

Read more and see vids at: Activist Post

Supreme Court Rules Drug Companies Can't Be Sued

Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits

July 7, 2013. Washington. In case readers missed it with all the coverage of the Trayvon Martin murder trial and the Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the US Supreme Court also made a ruling on lawsuits against drug companies for fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death. From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability.

In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s ruling and award for the victim of a pharmaceutical drug’s adverse reaction. According to the victim and the state courts, the drug caused a flesh-eating side effect that left the patient permanently disfigured over most of her body. The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels. But the highest court in the land ruled that the victim had no legal grounds to sue the corporation because its drugs are exempt from lawsuits.

Read more at: Whiteout Press

Supreme Court vs. The People: 5-to-4 Does It Again

...In other words, a drug company that kills or maims us by pushing drugs on us through the corrupt health care system and is beholden to profit only, stands protected in law. Yet, these same drug companies fund medical training and "made to order" research, as well as, exert extensive influence on FDA drug approval process. They wine and dine doctors and pay them consultant fees to ghost write on their behalf and become their front-line sales force. We the people take the risks with our lives...

See the full article at: HuffPost Politics


See additional coverage at: Natural News

JP Morgan to Hire 100,000 Strong Army

Hiring Mission

JPMorgan Chase leads the charge to employ 100,000 U.S. military veterans by 2020.

By Jeanne Cotroneo Darrow

NYSE Euronext U.S. Trading News July 2013 #constantcontact http://t.co/mpEoxbF9KN about 15 hours ago Follow Us:

• Twitter
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Youtube

nyse.com

More than 1 million service members are projected to transition out of the military by 2016 — a statistic that JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) considers an opportunity. In 2011, with 10 other private sector companies, the company launched the 100,000 Jobs Mission, with a goal of hiring 100,000 veterans by 2020. In just two years, 64,628 transitioning U.S. service members and military veterans had found jobs through the program.

What began with 11 companies — JPMorgan Chase plus AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T); Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc. (NYSE: BR); Cisco Systems Inc.; Cushman & Wakefield Inc.; EMC Corp. (NYSE: EMC); Iron Mountain Inc. (NYSE: IRM); Modis; NCR Corp. (NYSE: NCR); Universal Health Services Inc. (NYSE: UHS); and Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) — has grown to 102 companies and evolved into a stable, ongoing initiative to hire veterans and share best practices. We checked in with Maureen Casey, managing director, Military and Veterans Affairs at JPMorgan Chase, about the program’s successes and why more companies should get involved.

Red more at link:

 http://nysebigstage.com/articles/jpmveterans?cid=p_outbrain

Also see:

Breadlines and Foodstamps

3 Cops Caught Talking About Killing Fellow Officers Fired Without Charges

Courtesy of Station.6.Underground

Three officers from the Pigeon Forge, Tennessee Police Department have been fired after recordings revealed they had been discussing killing fellow officers including the department's chief.

The contents of the recordings were revealed when investigators began looking into a harassment complaint.

The officers had been dispatched to check on the welfare of a visitor to the town at a local campground, and made contact with that person's girlfriend. They obtained her information and left, but a short time later she began receiving numerous text messages and Facebook friend requests. She subsequently filed a harassment complaint. During the investigation of that complaint investigators listened to the regular recordings made by equipment installed in the police cars, and heard the officers discussing killing other officers in explicit detail.

The officers were fired for misconduct, but criminal charges were not pursued by the district attorney or the U.S. attorney's office.

District Attorney General Jimmy Dunn excused the officers from criminal wrongdoing saying, "Even though they were sitting there talking about killing people... we haven't found there was any overt action taken. We have to prosecute using the law. No matter what we want it to be, or what we think it ought to be."

He went on to indicate that even though his office has considered a charge of official misconduct, he didn't believe a jury could be convinced there had been a crime.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the country, children are being treated as terrorists for far less than the overt planning of mass murder.

In one case a teenager was arrested, jailed for a month, and faced 20 years in prison for posting rap lyrics on Facebook. In another case, a teenager has been sitting in jail since February on charges of making terrorist threats stemming from a comment on a Facebook video game. The comment was admittedly violent sounding but also quite clearly meant as sarcasm. In Pennsylvania, school officials alleged that a five-year old made terror threats when she threatened to shoot classmates with a Hello Kitty bubble gun. In New York, a man's guns were confiscated and his permits revoked after his ten-year old son threatened to shoot classmates with a water pistol. Not a water pistol posing as a real gun mind you, just a water pistol. Authorities in Suffolk county have told the man he can't have his guns back until his son is 18 or moves out of the home. 

Even when their own are the target of violence, it seems that police hypocrisy knows no bounds. Time and time again we see that police officers are not held to the same standard of justice as the people, when they should actually be held to a higher standard of justice, not given special privilege in the face of gross wrongdoing.

You can read more on that case at:

WBIR.com

TriCities.com


Also see:

Are American Cops Out of Control?

Top Cop Threatens to Kill After Fellow Officer Gunned Down

Pentagon Sanitizes Involvement In bin Laden Raid, Documents Purged From Computers

In an unprecedented move to insulate themselves from the facts of the so-called "Bin Laden Raid" the Pentagon has purged documents from their computer systems related to that raid.

Because the outright destruction of those documents would have been illegal, they were all packed up and shipped off to the CIA where they are protected against Freedom of Information requests and even court orders. The legality of the transfer at all is highly questionable and was never even examined before the transfer actually took place. It seems that everyone agrees the move is highly irregular, even if not an outright crime perpetrated on the orders of the Pentagon's top Special Operations Commander.

The sanitizing of Department of Defense computers would have remained secret has it not been for a watchdog group who noted one sentence, referring to the purge of Bin Laden raid documents, in an inspector general's report. There had been an inquiry about whether President Obama may have shared sensitive material with the creators of the movie "Zero Dark Thirty." But even that sentence was purged from the final report.

The Associated Press has raised the alarm on yet another example of the government secrecy shell game in the following artcle:

Bin Laden raid files reportedly purged from Pentagon computers, sent to CIA

Here is an excerpt from that report:

The AP asked the Defense Department and CIA separately for files that included copies of the death certificate and autopsy report for bin Laden as well as the results of tests to identify the body. While the Pentagon said it could not locate the files, the CIA, with its special power to prevent the release of records, has never responded.

This unprecedented level of secrecy, bordering on criminality, begs a single question. Why?

To protect the "dignity" of the world's most sought after terrorist? Refusing to show the pictures of his remains seems hardly reason enough. The Pentagon was clearly not worried about putting American lives in danger, even as we were actively fighting a standing army, when they published images of Saddam Hussein's dead sons. Not to mention the brutal video of the deposed leader's execution.

Besides, if the Pentagon was really that fearful of reprisals from publishing pictures of a dead Bin Laden, perhaps they should have thought about that before they decided to execute the man, rather than putting him on trial and debriefing the world's most wanted terrorist for vital intelligence. The fact that they elected to kill him at all is dubious.

Just as dubious as his burial at sea, that was witnessed by no one, did not conform with Islamic tradition, and served no real purpose at all except to maintain inordinate levels of secrecy. 

Some have excused secrecy surrounding the Bin Laden raid as being necessary to protect the identities of the military operators who reportedly carried out the raid. Yet some of those specialized personnel have gone on to write books and appear in "tell all" interviews. It was also reported that most of the commandos who were on the raid were part of US Navy SEAL Team 6, which was decimated in a helicopter crash in the mountains of Afghanistan a short time after the raid.

This of course, led to rampant conspiracy theories that perhaps our very own government was the real threat to those commandos, and that they were wiped out to protect the secrets of the Bin Laden raid.

But this leads us again back to the question, why? What secret is so powerful that the Pentagon would go to such great lengths to cover up not only all of their knowledge about the raid, but also to virtually disavow their involvement at all?

After years and years of the American government trumpeting how dangerous Osama Bin Laden was, and his al-Qaeda network, suddenly the Pentagon does an about face and threatens the American public to shut up about the Bin Laden raid.

So what are they really hiding? What is the truth about 9/11, al-Qaeda, the war on terror, and the death of Osama bin Laden?

Also see:

No closure for 9/11 victims' families and survivors

Citing security risks, Pentagon asks nation to 'move on' from bin Laden

Helicopter Crash in Afghanistan Allegedly Wipes Out Commando Team

No Sailors Witnessed Bin Laden Burial At Sea

11 Years Later, We Still Don't Know Who Did 9/11

NYC Draft Riots of 1863, Race and Finance

Have our times gotten better or worse?


 On July 13, 1863, as the second day of a new military draft lottery in New York City got underway, demonstrations broke out across the city in what began as an organized opposition to the first federally mandated conscription laws in the nation’s history, but soon morphed into a violent uprising against the city’s wealthy elite; its African-American residents; and the very idea of the Civil War itself. The New York City Draft Riots, which would wreak havoc on the city for four days and remain the largest civilian insurrection in American history, exposed the deep racial, economic and social divides that threatened to tear the nation’s largest city apart in the midst of the American Civil War.

Thanks to its status as the business capital of the United States, New York City was a deeply divided city at the start of the Civil War in April 1861. Its merchants and financial institutions were loath to lose their southern business and the city’s then-mayor, Fernando Wood, had called for the city to secede from the Union. Meanwhile, to the city’s poorer citizens, the war increasingly came to be seen as benefitting only the rich, as the coffers of the city’s elites filled with the financial spoils of battle and the conflict became known as a “rich man’s war, poor man’s battle.” The passage of the nation’s first military draft act, in March 1863, only worsened the situation. Not only did it allow men (presumably only the wealthy) to buy their way out of military service by paying a commutation fee of $300 (more than $5,500 in today’s money), it also exempted blacks from the draft, as they were not yet considered American citizens. Opposition to the draft was widespread across the North, and in New York, some of the loudest critics of the bill could be found in city government, as politicians (primarily Democratic) railed against the legality of the bill and its impact on the city’s working class poor.

Read more at: History.com



The following commentary courtesy of guest author J. Marselus VanWagner

That small brief from History.com gave some keen insight into social and economic dynamics which are still of great concern to us today, both for New York City and as American people overall.

In general, the average American vastly oversimplifies the American Civil War and ignorantly believe that it was a war to end slavery. This premise is almost entirely false, and has been brought about through revisionists of history, particularly in the public school system, where most of us have had our worldview fed to us from a tin can.

Many readers may be surprised to learn certain incongruous facts about the Civil War as it pertains to race. The fact that New York City almost seceded from the Union in 1863 is one such fact shown in the article above. Another fact is that New Jersey, a Union state, still had slaves at the end of the Civil War. It was not until January 1866 that they ratified the 13th Amendment freeing the last Negroes held in bondage there.

While President Abraham Lincoln seems morally opposed to the practice of slavery, some of his own words show that the issue did not carry the same weight as true racial equality, which only became a concern for Americans a century later. Moreover, his own words betray a glamorized notion that some of our revered national heroes, like Lincoln, were any better than the hypocrites who occupy the same office in the modern era.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - 4th Lincoln/Douglas Debate, 1858

Ol' "Honest Abe" was just another politician after all.

Ultimately, the issue of slavery has nothing to do with liberty for blacks, but simply an economic weapon to use against the Confederacy of southern states opposed to an imperial Federal government. 

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..." -Abraham Lincoln, publichsed response to Horace Greeley, 1862

The Civil War was as the Confederacy said all along, a war of independence, based on the same spirit as the American Revolution which freed the colonists from the oppression of a King who was beholden to elitist financiers. The bankers.

Read more on that subject in the following article:

U.S. Federal Authority Is Martial Law

Of course, this is not to say that racial tensions were not a very real dynamic then, even as they are today. This is also not meant to diminish the abhorrent practice of slavery either, and the horrors that both black and white folk were subjected to in the centuries before the Civil War, as victims of slavery. (Yes, white people were slaves too.)

On the one hand, we must consider that slaves were not universally beaten, raped, and abused as revisionist history would lead us to believe. After all, a slave was a very expensive piece of  "property." One might compare owning a slave in those times, to owning a luxury automobile in these times. One does not intentionally go out and beat on a brand new Mercedes or BMW simply because they can. Often a slave might be treated as a prized "possession." Doing harm to a slave made about as much sense as blowing the motor in your brand new BMW. Then again, ignorant asses will do that, and ultimately, we are still talking about treating a human being as a possession, no matter how well they were treated.

But we should also consider that all slaves were not Negroes imported from Africa. Granted, by the time of the Civil War, blacks were the vast majority of slave laborers in the Continental United States. Nonetheless, the practice of slavery still persisted as a legitimate economic structure, not necessarily based on race alone. New Orleans, for example, became a hub of Creole persons. In the Caribbean, Scots, Welsh, and Irish persons made up a large population of slaves and indentured servants. To a lesser extent, whites has also served as slaves even in New England states.

One might even see the first military draft in American history as a form a slavery, or indentured servitude, forcing free men into military service in which they might very well die, even if they were paid a pittance for their efforts. This notion certainly played an important part in the psychology behind the NYC draft riots. Not only were poor white men being drafted for a war that was not at all their own cause, but the wealthy were able to buy their way out.

Then, as now, war was a rich man's game paid in poor man's blood. 

Essentially, poor whites were being forced to fight and die for the right of poor blacks to compete with them for low-wage jobs. And because blacks were not citizens, they were legally exempt form the draft in a war that was ostensibly meant to be a fight for the liberty of their own race.

Of course, there was a bigger political and economic paradigm behind the Civil War, but for the Irishman on the street, who was seen as little more than a "white nigger" by the powers that be, abolition meant unemployment and starvation for them and their families as former slaves would flood the workforce and eviscerate labor bargaining for even menial labor. Not necessarily based on race even, but sheer numbers.

The same article referenced above tells us:

A labor demonstration earlier that year had turned violent, as had a protest by the city’s white, largely immigrant dockworkers, who refused to work alongside African-American workers. The two groups, on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder, had long jostled for the city’s lowest paying jobs, and tensions had only increased as the war continued.

In other words, the elite financiers exploited racial tension to exempt themselves from paying a living wage to their laborers, and let them duke it out in the streets to fight for the scraps left over from their fortunes.

The same plan in various forms has been put into effect several times in the years since the Civil War, driving homemakers into the workforce, extending retirement age, and cultivating the influx of virtual slave labor today from Latin America. The net result has been devastating to the American labor force and leaving the minimum wage settled at a rate below the standard of the slave's living.

Oh, but you're not a slave, you get paid. Whereas in yesteryear, even a slave owner had to pay for your clothes, your housing, and even your medical care.

So what do we conclude here? What has history told us? That poor people will be divided and conquered by the power elite, along easily inflamed lines of inherent, perhaps instinctive bigotry and racism. Our instincts tell us that a man of a different color, a person of another gender, hell, a person who has a bad tattoo, is competition and therefore an enemy. All the while, we are blinded to the fact that the real enemy remains aloof, and untouchable. 

We can always find a reason why a person is "different" and therefore not as "worthy" as you. But the truth is, none of us, no matter our color or affliction is any better than another. And in our hearts, we know this.

And of the blacks in the NYC riots? They got their asses kicked that time. Poor folk. Poor folk vs poor folk in fact. What a shame. As before then, even in those racial times, NYC tried to be a bastion of racial equality, and failed under economic pressure by the same bastards that are doing it to us today.

Quote from article above:

Many of those who stayed relocated from their racially mixed neighborhoods to areas with an elevated police presence or to the relative safety of the outskirts of the city.

Also see:

John Decker

Top 5 Greatest Bar Brawls in American History

When gangs of thugs put out your fires

US Army Cyber Command Blocks Access to NSA Spy Story

The United States Army is now blocking access to portions of the Guardian news website covering leaked information about the National Security Agency's domestic spying program.

The Guardian first broke the story of the NSA's pervasive program to monitor and record virtually all digital communications within the United States including emails and social media through networks like Google, Facebook, and Verizon. The alarming news of the government agency's blatant disregard for the Constitution and liberty was brought to their attention by whistleblower Michael Snowden, a former NSA contractor who has since been charged with espionage by the U.S. government and is on the run across the globe.

The Monterey Herald reports:

Gordon Van Vleet, an Arizona-based spokesman for the Army Network Enterprise Technology Command, or NETCOM, said in an email the Army is filtering "some access to press coverage and online content about the NSA leaks."

He wrote it is routine for the Department of Defense to take preventative "network hygiene" measures to mitigate unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

 NETCOM is a subordinate of the US Army Cyber Command

This measure could be termed as a psychological operation, designed to leave American troops less informed than the general public, and ignorant of the crimes perpetrated by the same government which these troops fight and die in the name of. This is not simply a question of troop morale though, and cuts right to the heart of the core virtues of serving the government in a military capacity and leaves these troops open to allegations of complicity in crimes perpetrated by the government.

The Army has elevated the game another level, by threatening troops who access the classified information made public by the Guardian. The Presidio in San Francisco, information assurance security officer Jose Campos dispatched an email to employees warning of consequences for the troops.

He wrote that an employee who downloads classified information could face disciplinary action if found to have knowingly downloaded the material on an unclassified computer.

In other words, any soldier who downloads the publicly available information could be viewed as a spy, and charged criminally. Not only is this a serious implication for servicemembers, but the public in general, that the government still views this material as classified.

Could any one of us also be charged with espionage, even treason, for downloading the information on the NSA's program to spy on citizens? Website operators operating withing the U.S. could be particularly vulnerable to charges of espionage if they were to upload mirror images of the information. 

In the worst of ranting conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, "There's a war on for your mind."

You can read the classified documents at the following link, if you dare.


THE NSA FILES

FBI Hides Identity of Conspirators in Plot to Assassinate Protest Leaders

This report courtesy Station.6.Underground


The FBI knew of a plot to assassinate persons seen as protest "leaders" in the Occupy Wall Street movement, but failed to act and has continued to protect the identity of the would-be assassins. 

An identified [DELETED] as of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors (sic) in Houston, Texas if deemed necessary. An identified [DELETED] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [DELETED] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles. (Note: protests continued throughout the weekend with approximately 6000 persons in NYC. ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protests have spread to about half of all states in the US, over a dozen European and Asian cities, including protests in Cleveland (10/6-8/11) at Willard Park which was initially attended by hundreds of protesters.)

 This document shows that the plot remains in effect.

On 13 October 20111, writer sent via email an excerpt from the daily [DELETED] regarding FBI Houston’s [DELETED] to all IAs, SSRAs and SSA [DELETED] This [DELETED] identified the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by [LENGTHY DELETION] interested in developing a long-term plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire.

The FBI's failure to act against this clear act of domestic terrorism against American citizens practicing Constitutionally protected activities, was "explained" by the director of the FBI's media office, Paul Breeson, as follows:

The FOIA documents that you reference are redacted in several places pursuant to FOIA and privacy laws that govern the release of such information so therefore I am unable to help fill in the blanks that you are seeking.  Exemptions are cited in each place where a redaction is made.  As far as the question about the murder plot, I am unable to comment further, but rest assured if the FBI was aware of credible and specific information involving a murder plot, law enforcement would have responded with appropriate action.

Yeah right, rest assured my left butt-cheek.

Is the FBI a Terrorist Organization?

Read more about the assassination plot against OWS at: Who What Why

Snowden Just a CIA Distraction From Real Whistleblower?

I have heard people theorize that whisltblower Michael Snowden might not be all the he appears to be. Some people have said that he is actually still working for U.S. intelligence services, and that this scandal is actually nothing more than a counter-intel and/or public relations operation. To substantiate that though, we would have to see some evidence of why US intel agencies would want to create such a ruckus. Could this be it? Could the Snowden scandal all be a ruse in order to distract us from the following information that is being blacked out by all mainstream press?

SWITZERLAND, Zürich — For the very first time, the shocking evidence of Obama nuclear terror whistleblower David Chase Taylor’s case for Swiss political asylum will be entered into the official court record at the “Bezirksgericht Zürich” (District Court of Zürich) on June 25, 2013.

The 9:54 A.M. hearing will be a historic step in Taylor’s quest for political asylum. After 2 years of being denied access to a good-faith asylum hearing of any kind, Taylor will finally be able to declare under oath and on the record why he desperately needs and deserves political asylum in Switzerland.

Although it has not yet been confirmed, it does appear that the case of alleged NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is yet another elaborate scheme designed by the CIA to divert attention away from Taylor’s case in Switzerland. On June 24, 2013, exactly one day before Taylor’s appearance in a Swiss court where he will outline the evidence in his case for political asylum, Snowden has officially “gone missing” in Russia.
Taylor first applied for political asylum on March 8, 2011, after releasing a book entitled “The Nuclear Bible”—a self-proclaimed “work of love” aimed at preventing a nuclear terror attack in his home country of the United States.

Taylor’s book, released on January 28, 2011, claims to have caught the Obama administration red-handed attempting to conduct an act of nuclear terror at the National Football League’s (NFL) annual championship game entitled the Super Bowl, routinely the most watched television event in America. Why Taylor needs political asylum in Switzerland is not really up for debate; one look at the evidence surrounding Super Bowl XLV in Dallas, Texas, on February 6, 2011, and anyone would conclude that something was clearly amiss that cold Sunday night in Texas.

While there is an overwhelming amount of direct and circumstantial evidence asserting that the premise of Taylor’s book was in fact correct, a few unprecedented news headlines such as “Feds Warn of Disguised Terrorists at Super Bowl” (CBS News), “WikiLeaks: ‘Al-Qaida on Brink of Using Nuclear Bomb’” (Fox News), and “World ‘On Brink of Nuclear 9/11’ as Al Qaeda Plans Large ‘Dirty’ Bomb” (Daily Mail), give a brief glimpse into the sheer terror that Taylor’s journalistic endeavors apparently thwarted.

Interestingly, despite Super Bowl XLV being hosted in Dallas, Texas, hometown to life-long Texan and former Texas governor George W. Bush, the former U.S. President was curiously on his way to Switzerland, a country he never cared to visit in all of his 8 years as President. Once the nuclear terror plot was exposed and subsequently postponed, Bush immediately changed his plans and attended the game in Dallas. In the aftermath of the foiled Super Bowl XLV nuclear terror plot, the head of NFL security suspiciously resigned

Regardless of the growing evidence indicating that Taylor’s actions prevented a nuclear holocaust, the Swiss government appears to be succumbing to political pressure by the U.S. to deny Taylor political asylum in Switzerland. Whatever the reason, Taylor’s rights, privileges and protections under the Swiss Constitution are grossly being violated, untimely begging the following 10 questions:

Read more at: TRUTHER.ORG

Whistlelower Charged as Spy, Flees Hong Kong

Michael Snowden, the former NSA contractor who revealed a pervasive domestic spying operation by the government against the people, has been charged as a spy and has subsequently fled Hong Kong where he had first revealed the information. He has landed in Moscow, but it awaiting approval for his application for asylum in Iceland or Ecuador.


U.S. charges Snowden with espionage

Federal prosecutors have filed a criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant, according to U.S. officials.

Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.

Read more at: The Washington Post 


NSA leaker Snowden arrives in Moscow en route to 'third country' with WikiLeaks help

The plane carrying whistleblower Edward Snowden has landed at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport. The former CIA contractor, who left Hong Kong in a bid to elude US extradition on espionage charges, is on his way to a ‘third country’ via Russia.

Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino announced via twitter that Snowden had applied for asylum.
Interfax news agency is citing an unnamed source in Sheremetyevo airport management, saying that Snowden is still at the airport.

"Snowden is a transit passenger, his next flight is to Cuba, he remains in the airport complex – where he’s supposed to be, waiting for the next flight," the source said.

A source at Aeroflot Russian Airlines told the agency that the whistleblower, who is accompanied by WikiLeaks representative, Sarah Harrison, has rented a suit at the airport’s «V-Express» Capsule Hotel.

“He arrived. But he can’t leave the terminal because he doesn’t have a Russian visa,” the source said.

Read more at: RT.com

Ron Paul Cheated Out Of Nomination by 'Powers That Be' Obama Says in Leaked Tape

Also see:

Elections Are Frauds

Dead Reporter Was Going Into Hiding According to Email Just Before Crash

Despite the fact that police have ruled his death an accident, the theory that Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings was assassinated is gaining more traction as the L.A. Times reports he was being investigated by the FBI and was about to go into hiding, according to an email he sent to a friend just before his death. Hastings also wrote that he was working on a "big story."

Read more related coverage at the following sources:

KTLA 5

L.A. Times

InfoWars.com