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.

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

Boston Bombing Script Rewritten Yet Again

In an exclusive report by the BBC, the prime suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing are now being painted as right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists, rather then devout Muslims.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev had right-wing extremist literature

One of the brothers suspected of carrying out the Boston bombings was in possession of right-wing American literature in the run-up to the attack, BBC Panorama has learnt.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev subscribed to publications espousing white supremacy and government conspiracy theories.

He also had reading material on mass killings.

Until now the Tsarnaev brothers were widely perceived as just self-styled radical jihadists.

Panorama has spent months speaking exclusively with friends of the bombers to try to understand the roots of their radicalisation.

'Government conspiracies'

The programme discovered that Tamerlan Tsarnaev possessed articles which argued that both 9/11 and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing were government conspiracies.

Another in his possession was about "the rape of our gun rights".

Reading material he had about white supremacy commented that "Hitler had a point".

Tamerlan Tsarnaev also had literature which explored what motivated mass killings and noted how the perpetrators murdered and maimed calmly.

There was also material about US drones killing civilians, and about the plight of those still imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.

Read more from: BBC News

The article then goes on to label them as "Muslim by convenience" and essentially tries to justify the incongruous elements of this new version of the story with the one that has been spun thus far.

To anyone who has been paying attention to the facts, and lack thereof, this is a blatant piece of propaganda meant to vilify those who are not in-step with the official version of modern history. Truth-seeking conspiracy theorists and America-loving Constitutionalists are meant to be seen now as a threat, as terrorists, by those who only get their information from mainstream news sources and government handouts. 

CLICK HERE to read more about the unsettling facts surrounding the Boston Marathon Bombing. 

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

NY Cops Find Illegal Arsenal Investigating Suicide of Former Marine

Police in Putnam County, New York were investigating an apparent suicide when they uncovered a survivalist arsenal hundreds of firearms, tens-of-thousands of rounds of ammunition, hand grenades, buckets of black powder, blasting caps, and even a camouflage-painted tank in the back yard.

The tank is legal, (Camel Police Chief) Johnson said, but many of the weapons and explosives police removed from the house were not. -Poughkeepsie Journal

See more on the story at: Raw Story

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

East Coast Tsunami Info Not Reported by Main Stream Media

TSUNAMI of 13 June, 2013 (Northwestern Atlantic Ocean)

Tsunami-like waves were observed along the US east coast during the afternoon of June 13, 2013 (day 164). The source is complex and still under review, though the coincidence at several gages with strong atmospheric pressure fluctuations indicate that it is at least partly generated by meteorological causes. The event occurred in close conjunction with a weather system labeled by the National Weather Service as a low-end derecho which propagated from west to east over the New Jersey shore just before the tsunami. It is also possible that the slumping at the continental shelf east of New Jersey played a role. The tsunami was observed at over 30 tide gages and one DART buoy throughout the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean.

A first-hand description was provided by Brian Coen who observed the event at Barnegat Inlet in New Jersey:
Around 3:30pm on Thursday June 13, 2013, Brian Coen was spear fishing near the mouth of Barnegat Inlet; just south of the submerged northern breakwater. Earlier in the day around noon, thunderstorms had moved through the area. By 3:30pm the weather was overcast with a light east wind. At approximately 3:30, the outgoing tide was amplified by strong currents which carried divers over the submerged breakwater (normally 3-4 feet deep). This strong outrush continued for 1-2 minutes and eventually the rocks in the submerged breakwater were exposed. Brian backed his boat out before being sucked over as well.

At this point, Brian noticed a large wave coming in, approximately 6 feet peak-to-trough and spanning across the inlet. The upper 2 feet of the wave was breaking. This wave occurred in conjunction with a reversal of the current such that even though the tide was going out, a strong surge was entering the inlet. This surge carried the divers back over the submerged reef and into the inlet from where they were picked up. On the south jetty three people were swept off the rocks which were 5 to 6 feet above sea level at the time. At least two were injured requiring medical treatment. There was no more strong activity after about 5 minutes.

This event produced a tsunami that was recorded at tide gages monitored by the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (WCATWC). Many observatories provide data to the centers; such as the NOAA National Ocean Service, the U. of Hawaii Sea Level Center, the Chilean Navy, the Japan Meteorological Ageny and the National Tidal Facility in Australia among others. Click on the site name to see a graph of the tsunami, when available. Listed wave heights are maximum amplitude in cm (above sea level). Observed Arrival time is the actual tsunami arrival time in UTC on gages where it could be determined. The Sample Interval column shows the time between data samples.

SOURCE

Retired Investigators Come Forward to Claim TWA Flight 800 Was Shot Down

Conspiracy theorists appear to be vindicated yet again, as six original investigators of the Flight 800 disaster have come forward to claim the airliner was shot down by a missile. The official cause of the crash was reported to be an electrical short circuit in the plane's fuel tank, but there is substantial evidence which contradicts the findings of the NTSB.





Read more details on the story at: CNN, and FOX News

Read more about the so-called "missile theory" at the following links:

Wikipedia    

WhatReallyHappened.com  

 TWA800.com

Also see:

TWA Flight 800 Documentary (FULL VIDEO)

RIP James Gandolfini

Actor James Gandolfini, most famous for his role as mafia boss Tony Soprano, has died. He suffered a massive heart attack this afternoon in Italy. He was 51 years old. Mr. Gandolfini is survived by his wife and two children.

Obama Administration Declares War on Syria, Officially

"The president has made a decision about providing more support to the opposition that will involve providing direct support to the [Supreme Military Council]. That includes military support," Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes told reporters.

Read more at: CBS News

This decision is apparently being reached after concluding that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against the terrorists, despite evidence which shows that it was the infiltrators and not the Syrian government who have actually used these weapons and are suspected of using biological weapons as well.

officially 

Chem Plant Explosion Rocks Louisiana

American Manufacturing Replaced by Eating and Drinking

With socioeconomic trends such as this, it is little wonder why the American obesity epidemic shows no signs of slowing no matter what deluded programs are put in place to curb our expanding waistlines. From incessant commercial brainwashing, to denial of access to healthy products, to making you sick for profit, to a global population control program, it is little wonder why Americans are in such poor health. Not just physically, but economically as well.

In the 1950's, the heydey of American capitalism, manufacturing was the backbone of our economic vitality. These blue-collar jobs paid well, and provided the benefits that raised our quality of life to be the most superior in human history. As you can see from this chart below, those jobs have all been replaced by a service industry specifically designed to profit from obesity and drunkenness. The jobs in bars and restaurants are low-wage and usually provide no worker-benefits of any kind.

When factoring for worker productivity overall, 90% of Americans now make less than the minimum wage standard in 1950. This is at a time when American poverty has reached unprecedented proportions, and more people than ever are relying on government subsidies for the very basic necessities of life. If today's SNAP benefit (foodstamps) was measured as a bread-line like we saw during the Great Depression, there would be a line 7 miles long at every single Wal-Mart in America. Then to add insult to injury, even these low-paying obesity-industry jobs are being eliminated through technology.

This chart plots the collision course explaining why we are so physically sick at the same time our economic vitality has gone stale.

The source of this chart's information is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, but was first seen at: Zero Hedge

NSA Whistleblower Comes Forward in Bombshell Interview (VIDEO)

An unprecedented leak of information from within the United States intelligence community has revealed that the government is actively spying on virtually every last person in America. The bombshell revaluations show that the NSA and CIA are monitoring, and storing the data, for virtually all digital communications in the country through a now exposed secret program called PRISM.

The whistle-blower has now revealed his identity to the world in the following interview.


The Guardian has extensive coverage of the story at THE NSA FILES

Measure Your Ability to Use Phone While Driving With This Test

Accuracy is imperative here. This selective attention test will gauge your cognitive capability.


Now CLICK HERE to take the second part of this test.   

Please let us know your results by commenting below. You may comment anonymously, or log in through a social-media account.

Also check out this info:

Cell Phone Use as Dangerous as Drunken Driving

Drivers who talk on either handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers, according to experimental research conducted by Drs. Frank Drews, David Strayer, and Dennis L. Crouch of the University of Utah.

The study reinforced earlier research showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld cell phone.

“If legislators really want to address driver distraction, then they should consider outlawing cell phone use while driving.” says Dr. Drews.

Both handheld and hands-free cell phones impaired driving, with no significant difference in the degree of impairment. That “calls into question driving regulations that prohibited handheld cell phones and permit hands-free cell phones,” the researchers write.

Click here for details

Acquaintance of Alleged Boston Bomber Killed by FBI

Todashev

Orlando, Fla - Ibragim Todashev, 27, was shot and killed in the early morning on hours on Wednesday while being interviewed by the FBI, and Massachusetts State Police.

Authorities say that during the interview, Todashev became agitated and lunged with a knife in hand, provoking the shooting.

Khusen Taramov, a friend of the dead suspect, explains that Todashev and dead Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev were casual acquaintances through a Boston-area gym where they practiced mixed-martial-arts. He also tells reporters that both he and Todashev have been followed and repeatedly questioned by agents ever since the bombing occurred, but states emphatically that they have no ties whatsoever to the deadly event.

 "This shootout, it's impossible. I know that. It's impossible. That's the last thing he would do even if he had a gun."-Khusen Taramov

Todashev was reluctant to go meet with authorities, but Taramov cautioned him that it would look suspicious and that they would be followed even more closely if he didn't meet with them. Taramov says that Todashev did not have a knife or any weapons on whim when they arrived at a residential condo for the interview,  and emptied all of his pockets before he got out of the car, even leaving his cellphone behind. Todashev was also questioned but released, and told they would be questioning Todashev longer. When he came back later, he realized something had gone terribly wrong inside, because of all the police activity now at the location.

You can see some of Taramov's interviews just after the fatal shooting at MY FOX ORLANDO.

In a strange twist to this saga, authorities may have actually been focused on a crime other than the Boston bombing, according to the latest reports. Investigators are now saying that Todashev admitted to taking part in a 2011 triple homicide, along with alleged Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, according to ABC News 2 Orlando.

2011 Waltham Murders

On September 11, 2011 three men were murdered in Waltham, Massachusetts. Their bodies were discovered the following afternoon, in a blood-drenched apartment by the girlfriend of one of the victims. The three were believed to have been involved in drug sales, and authorities believed that the victims knew their killer or killers, but no clear motive was established. Police searched for two suspects, but the case was never solved.

Strangely enough, one of those victims was a close friend of dead Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev. While some have suspected that Tamerlan may have played a role in the murders, along with his brother Dzhokhar, it is now being reported that Ibragim Todashev was actually the second suspect. ABC's sources say that Todashev was about to sign a statement admitting his role in the grisly murders, when he lunged at an FBI agent with a knife, and was then shot and killed.

Those same sources also report that the motive for the triple-murder was so that Todashev and Tsarnaev could not be identified to police, after they ripped off the trio for their drugs. This seems to be in sharp contradiction though to the fact that 7 pounds of marijuana had been scattered over the victims' bodies, and that there was over $5000 in cash left at the scene along with many other valuables, including, coincidentally enough, a black Mercedes-Benz.




 

Man Beheaded On London Street (BREAKING NEWS)

A man reported to be a serving British soldier was hacked to death on a street in south London, UK. Two other people are seriously injured. Police also opened fire on two suspects.

VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED


See more at these links:

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

Amazing Footage Shows Oklahoma Twister Forming F4

The footage is a little shake and a bit off-frame at times, but here you can see the twister first touch down and develop into a citty-eating monster F4 category tornado.

Thoughts and prayers again today to those who have been impacted.

Teen Faces 20 Years For Facebook Rap Lyrics

This article originally presented by Station.6.Underground


18 year-old aspiring rapper Cameron D'Ambrosio, aka "Cammy Dee" is being held without bail on a felony charge of Communicating a Terrorist Threat. The charge could keep him in the slammer for the next 20 years.

According to Joe Solomon, local Chief of Police in the Boston suburb of Methuen, “He posted a threat in the form of rap where he mentioned the White House, the Boston Marathon bombing, and said ‘everybody you will see what I am going to do, kill people.”

What the teen actually said was, "Ya’ll want me to [expletive] kill somebody?” and “[expletive] a Boston bombing wait till you see the [expletive] I do. I’m a be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!" according to he Boston Globe

Asking a question is the opposite of making a statement. He never said he was going to kill people. He asked if  "y'all" wanted him to, he didn't say he would or planned to. He then warns "wait tll you see" what he is going to do, and suggests he is going to make an impression bigger than the Boston bombing, but in the very next sentence tell us he is going to "be famous rapping" along with beating some murder charges, like any rapper with so-called street-cred must do.

Art and lyrics can often be interpreted a number of ways, but rather than interpreting these lyrics as a threat of terrorism, they could actually be interpreted as just the opposite. "F*** a Boston bombing" sounds like a rejection of that sort of violence, and that he prefers to make his impression by being a famous rapper, even if he has to beat a few false charges of murder along the way.

However one chooses to interpret it though, it hardly seems reasonable to see these lyrics as anything more than teenage angst, metaphor, and more importantly, Constitutionally protected free speech. After all, the Chief of police even tells us himself...

“I do want to make clear he did not make a specific threat against the school or any particular individuals..."

...but then goes on to state his own opinion as fact, that the teen threatened "to kill a bunch of people" when he did not actually do so. Granted, it could be interpreted that way perhaps. Then again, this might be a little more direct...

How I Could Just Kill A Man - Cypress Hill

Okay, so Cammy Dee mentions the White House, and the Boston Bombing. He also says "F--- Obama and F--- the government," according to reports. The freedom of speech is there, if for no other reason, but to protect our right as citizens to express dissatisfaction with the government if they come to be servants of opression and tyranny, and to keep government acting honestly in the interest of the people who they are meant to represent.

"In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech... Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech." -Benjamin Franklin

Besides, it's hardly as if Cammy Dee is the first rapper to bash the government or a President. Check out this jam, also on YouTube:

Bin Laden Didn't Blow Up The Projects - Immortal Technique (feat. Mos Def)

Nevertheless, the mainstream media have jumped on this case to demonize the teen rapper for his free expression. One might expect that the press, even more than any group in America, would be keen to defend the freedom of speech. After all, this liberty is the very basis of their existence, in theory anyway. Corporate news sources and their subsidiaries have been quick to demonize this young man over his rap metaphors, while spinning propaganda to make freedom appear to be the work of villains.

Corporate media and propagandists have an arsenal of manipulation techniques to mold the thoughts of their viewers. The tricks are usually so subtle that the average person doesn't even notice, after all, that really is the point when it comes to brainwashing. Have a look at this one minor example.

The media printed: "(Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous"

The actual line is: "(Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous rapping"

One simple word changes the entire meaning of what you read in a headline. Another example of leaving things out to make you think a certain way, is when the media reported that many of the pictures Cammy Dee posted on Facebook were so terrible that they couldn't show them on TV. They did describe the pictures though, reporting that they included hings like a "wanted dead or alive" poster of himself, obscenity,  and satanic imagery.

Well, we are not afraid to show those pictures here. After all, this is why people choose underground media sources like this one. We the underfunded independent media broadcasting from basements, public libraries, and Barnes & Noble cafes are not afraid of controversy. We will go out on a limb here now, and show you this disturbing imagery.

"Outlaw"

And we will just pretend that media outlets like FOX didn't play images of gore, blood, mutilated and missing limbs, on a perpetual loop day after day without so much as a warning to keep children from seeing it. No warning even for adults to have a moment to prepare for what we were about to see. No, the shock value was a part of the media campaign, and within moments after the bombs went off in Boston, we were bombarded with these horrible images of the carnage. But they can't show you some kid on a photoshopped wanted poster, or a picture that looks like it was lifted from a crappy 80's heavy-metal album cover.

Another media source reported that the teen's Facebook page showed he has "unusual interest in gangs, violence and a criminal lifestyle."

"Satan Rulez"

Unusual? Maybe someone missed the last quarter-century or they just forgot that before Ice-T was a TV detective, he was the Original Gangster of free speech, that DMX got the white bitches sayin's it a black thang, and that Wu-Tang Clan Ain't Nuthin' Ta F Wit'. White kids from the suburbs have been emulating rap culture since Ice Cube was Jackin' For Beats and Cypress Hill effed up his good day.

It could be said that perhaps people should not be emulating rap-music culture. Some might argue that it has been morally destructive to the fabric of our society. But it is never popular ideas that need to be protected, and rap music has been there to remind us of that. Even if it serves no other purpose than to offend, it still cries out "we are free to say what we please."

Have we come to the point where morality can be put on trial? Let's not forget here too, that ideas like speaking against the King were once considered a crime, that it was once immoral for a black and whites to have physical relations, and that even elevator Jazz was once considered to be the devil's music.

It's also possible that this young guy might have been having a problem, and used his rap lyrics as a veiled cry for help, or at least an expression of a seething anger festering inside of him. It certainly appears as if he has reason to be angry, very angry. There are a lot of things going wrong in our society, a lot of things that are wrong with our government too. People should be angry. Angry at things like seeing a teenager facing more time in prison than he has spent on this Earth, for the "crime" of expressing himself. Rather than sending him to face a life-ruining felony, perhaps justice and morality would have been better served if a police officer put the young man in contact with a mental health counselor, rather than putting him through an ordeal like this. An ordeal that is sure to have a permanent impact on his life, and which is sure to have a strong influence in defining the old man this young man turns out to be.

This is also a defining point for America, for our society, for the liberty prescribed by the Founding Fathers of this nation. Or perhaps another defining point, would more accurately describe it, as the assaults against our Constitution seem relentless now, particularly against free speech.

Check out this article on internet censorship:

Book Burning In the Digital Age... and so it begins

And learn about a man who risked 21 years in prison to report the news:

Freedom of Speech Now A Felony In America
 
To show your support for Cameron D'Ambrosio visit:

Center for Rights