Posts Tagged ‘WTC-7’

New Video Compilation Of 9/11 Witness Testimony To Explosives Being Used At WTC-7

February 13, 2014

New Video Compilation Of 9/11 Witness Testimony To Explosives Being Used At WTC-7

darkpolitricks.com
By Dark Politricks

These are some very good videos which sceptics and believers of the official conspiracy story on 9/11 and what brought down the Twin Towers should watch.

Why? Well the videos contain numerous clips of TV footage from the day of the attacks which are hard to find nowadays.

This TV footage from mainstream channels shows numerous witnesses and TV commentators speaking of how they heard bombs and explosives go off. What is very illuminating is how on the day of the event even the mainstream media were willing to ask questions about explosives, controlled demolitions and drones / military planes being flown into the buildings. It’s such a shame that they are all now towing the party line and keeping quiet about what they know happened that day.

From Fireman to Policeman, reporters and office workers there are numerous witnesses who on the day claim to have been in all parts of the WTC when they either saw, heard or were injured by explosions that happened BEFORE the Towers fell.

This includes the smashed up lobby which is seen on camera in which people died which the official story explains by claiming fire from the planes shot down the elevator from the impact site.

This is despite the fact that the elevators were hermetically sealed which would have prevented this from occurring. Also whilst people are seen on camera in the holes near the plane impact zones perfectly unharmed people were being killed, burned and thrown all over the place hundreds of floors away at the bottom of the towers.

There is also enough live video footage to rubbish claims that no loud bangs, explosions or cutter charge like sounds were heard on the day. Numerous clips will show you how loud the explosions were and how similar they were to demolition explosives as well as dozens of witnesses who talk about leaving the scene as “bombs are still in the building”.

The videos also explain how easy it would be for a small team of people to plant enough explosives near the cores of the Twin Towers without:

  1. Being spotted by witnesses.
  2. Taking a long time as skeptics claim.
  3. And using only a dozen or so small inconspicuous boxes containing high-grade military explosives.

By planting these high explosives on every second floor and using programmed timers it would be easy to demolish the central core of the WTC and stage what looked like a pancake collapse.

The Maths is pretty simple and the power outs in the days leading up to 9/11 would have provided these conspirators with enough time and cover to carry out their job without being spotted.

Not only were the bomb sniffing dogs pulled out of the towers before the attacks but CIA 9.11 whistleblower Susan Lindaur, who was one of the first people arrested under the PATRIOT Attack for trying to tell her story, explains how in the run up to the attacks vans and men carrying tools and equipment would visit the towers every night for days in a row between 3-5 am in the morning when no other staff were present.

The blackouts gave the cover that engineers needed to do work as well as enabling CCTV to be off at the time needed to plant the explosives. A small team could plant enough bombs to demolish both towers within 24 hours.

How they could have easily rigged the WTC Towers for demolition

The videos also show some clips I personally haven’t seen until now including a shot of WTC-7 before it fell and what looks like cutter charges going off all across the building.

You can actually see small flashes of light dot from window to window from the right to left of the building and this would have been required for WTC-7 to fall into its own footprint the way it did.

No sporadic fires could have caused such an evenly and well-timed collapse including the 2+ seconds of freefall. Even the company NIST asked to carry out experiments to try and prove how the buildings fell could not replicate a collapse scenario which means NIST had to rely on computer models and unrealistic parameters to explain how a single point of failure caused what looks like a demolition sequence in WTC-7.

Just like the video of the collapse of WTC-7 which shows the Penthouse of the building dipping before the rest of the structure the same goes for the Twin Towers. You can see the highest points of the towers, the aerials and other equipment on top of the tower’s core dip before the rest of the building starts to collapse. This all indicates that the central columns had been removed first.

For people who haven’t seen the structure of WTC and think a plane and office fires could have demolished it’s huge central core think again.

The way the building was built meant that even if the trusses and other supporting columns and beams were weakened by fire or a plane the central core would remain intact. The sides of the building may have toppled or slowly fallen off bit by bit but there is no way a fire could have caused the huge central core to be crushed and pulverized into dust as it was.

The explosive nature of the collapse was so intense that steel and other materials were melded together and fires burnt underground for ages during the clean up process.

Pictures of the WTC Twin Towers Design and Central Core

The central core of the Twin Towers
The design of the Twin Towers WTC-2
Twin Towers Central CoreThe Reinforced core of the World Trade Center

The videos also show clips of other buildings that were hit by debris from WTC, including buildings where huge steel girders were embedded into their walls after being shot out sideways from the collapse.

How a fire could have caused enough pressure to do this I don’t know but these other buildings didn’t catch fire and then have a free fall like collapse as WTC-7 did. Therefore it is very odd how WTC-7 acted in the way it did when many other buildings were hit by the falling debris from WTC.

What explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers

The numerous interviews with witnesses and bystanders from the day also talk about the military looking planes that hit the buildings.

There are multiple witnesses who saw the planes and detail how they were grey or very dark, and didn’t look anything like the red and blue American Airlines aircraft that supposedly hit the Twin Towers.

Remember that even back in the 60’s certain people in the Military and US government (Operation Northwoods) thought it was a good idea to stage a false flag attack and blame it on Cuba by automatically flying planes, sending out fake distress calls saying they had been hijacked by Cubans and then crash the planes. All this so that the US public would believe Cuba was at fault therefore legitimizing a war of aggression against the island. If the US could plan a false flag attack like that back in the 60’s then imagine what automated chaos they could instigate with modern technology.

Military Planes Used To Hit The Twin Towers

In the following video CIA whistle-blower, Susan Lindaur, gives a speech where she explains the war with Iraq wasn’t necessary and that before 9.11 Iraq was actually bending over backwards to help the USA. They even offered to provide the US Government with everything they wanted which negated any need for an armed conflict. She claims her back channel mission between the US and Iraq had provided a lucrative and unexpected bounty of gifts which has been kept secret from the US population.

This included:

  • Allowing the weapons inspectors into the country.
  • An FBI presence in the country to hunt down terrorists.
  • Llucrative oil and commercial contracts.
  • Even Saddam Hussein offering to stand down and hold free elections.

She also talks about her reasons for believing that both hijacked planes AND explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers, the planes being a cover story for the demolition job. It is well worth listening to the story of a 9.11 whistleblower who tried to tell her story to the US government and the people but was instead jailed for a year under the nefariously named PATRIOT ACT.

As I say in my article 9.11 Sceptics versus logic and reasoning, what we need is a full criminal investigation with subpoena power into the events of 9.11.

Although much of the physical evidence has been destroyed a lot hasn’t and many witnesses and conspirators are still walking around freely.

Obama never brought the change the USA required after the criminal Bush administration therefore only a real concerted push by the people can bring around REAL change.

It’s either that or you continue to stick your heads in the sand.

Know your place. Do NOT ask questions. Keep quiet and suffer in silence as the war on terror is used to justify a massive crack down on civil liberties and the building of a new high-tech police state. Be monitored 24/7 and treated like criminals at airports. Be sheep on a slow walk to the slaughter house.

Or you can stand up for what you know is wrong. Fight the lies we are constantly being fed by our Government and their bought off media whores. Ask questions and don’t accept the official line. Do something worthwhile with your life whilst you still can.

Further reading on 9.11 from Dark Politricks:

9.11 Sceptics versus logic and reasoning

9.11 Remaining Questions and no answers

The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93

The Pentagon Attack

Video shows a missile hitting the Pentagon

Is The Pentagon Attack Finally Solved

View the original article A Video Compilation Of 9/11 Witness Testimony To Explosives Being Used At WTC-7 at darkpolitricks.com

The 9/11 Pentagon Attack

June 29, 2013

The Pentagon Attack – 9.11

By Dark Politricks

If you know my thoughts on 9.11 then you know I have gone back and forth on the events many times.

Initially when the 9.11 attacks happened, like many people I started off believing the official conspiracy theory.

Then after a lot of reading up on the subject, discovering the questions over WTC-7, the Israeli spy rings following the terrorists around the USA, the repeated warnings about the attacks, The ABLE Danger Program and evidence of the stand down order provided by Norman Mineta I went the other way.

Recently I have been reading a lot more about building 7 and have been swaying back again due to the multiple computer program simulations they used to “prove” the collapse (by fire). However I am still not convinced and it still leaves a massive co-incidence theory instead of a conspiracy theory stuck right in my throat. One I am still not prepared to fully give up.

What I have always wanted is a proper, subpoena powered, proper investigation into the events of the day. Also proper logical answers to all the questions that remain, or haven’t been asked. Until that happens I am going to be raising questions and asking for answers.

When people put reputations on the line to raise questions then they should be listened to and numerous ex Government officials, intelligence officers, military men, first responders and families of the victims all have raised these questions.

Remember, this is not to say that these questions don’t have perfectly reasonable and logical answers to them, it’s just that many people including myself haven’t heard the answers, or that the provided answers don’t fit together to explain the events.

So until the point a new investigation is held I will always have a lingering doubt about the events of 9/11. This is especially due to the fact that you only have to look at the state of America now to see how the war on terror has been used to attack all our liberties and freedoms.

Whether the attack was a false flag attack or not, it certainly was taken advantage of, and used to implement what looks like a high tech police state in the once free America.

The PATRIOT ACT, NDAA, Prism, TRAPWIRE, Assassination Squads, Drones, Constant War, should I go on….

Some Questions

Just some of the “coincidences” and unanswered questions I still have are below – and God knows this is only a small subset of them!

  • 3 Steel framed buildings, the first to collapse from fire alone, all owned by the same person collapse in the same day, just after being taken over by a new owner and having massive insurance for terrorism put on them.
  • This is along with the hijackers all successfully taking over 4 planes with only rudimentary weapons. Not one of their planes being challenged in the sky, even after the first attack on New York was known about.
  • The Israeli spy rings that were following some of the hijackers about the USA. Did they tell anyone? We know Mossad has controlled al-Qaeda rings before (even setting up fake rings) – was this a controlled ring or a co-opted ring “allowed” to commit the attack. Both FOX News and German newspapers reported on this.
  • Why did so many Israeli agents get arrested in the aftermath of the attacks, held for months, then let go?
  • What did the Israeli’s caught filming the attacks across the river know about the attacks and why did they say they were sent to “document the event”? What foreknowledge did they have and why were they so happy to see the WTC burning?
  • Even if the attack was “allowed to happen” this is still a state crime as it means someone in the US Government had to order a stand down to NORAD.
  • We know the CIA / Mossad have had close links to al-Qaeda and bin-Laden, even the CIA visited him in hospital soon before the attacks. What was his real role apart from patsy in the attacks?
  • We also know the US consulate in Yemen was providing passports for jihadists to come to the US to be trained and then sent off to fight elsewhere. Why were the CIA engaged in such behaviour and what were the links to the Miami airports that were CIA “green zones”, areas that CIA planes were allowed to bring in drugs and arms. The links between the US intelligence community and our supposed enemy al-Qaeda are always murky and unclear. Who knows whether certain factions in the Government or the intelligence community knew the attacks were about to happen.
  • We know false flag attacks are a reality. We also know the PNAC document was written by the same people who were in government at the time. People who co-incidentally were involved in a massive financial scam involving the ex-USSR (see video below).
  • Dick Cheney is not exactly an angel, having talked about using false flag attacks in the Staits of Hormuz to go to war with Iran, plus his own assassination squads. If a stand down order was put out to NORAD then it was probably him who ordered it. The testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta seems to corroborate this and it is strange that this was left out of the 9.11 commission report.
  • What about the ABLE Danger program that had identified the 9.11 hijackers months before the attack occurred and the many other warnings given by foreign intelligence as well as domestic agencies about the attacks. What about the warnings given to key politicians not to fly that day?

  • What about the ISI chief who wired money to the lead hijacker who was coincidentally meeting with top US military figures on the day of the attacks.
  • What about the planes which looked unlike commercial airliners, who were expertly piloted into the WTC by non-expert pilots. Were these planes remote controlled?
  • What about the white planes who were seen in the air over the White House when all planes were supposed to be grounded, who was flying these planes?

The Israeli Connection

We know that dozens if not hundreds of people arrested after the 9.11 attacks were from Israeli origin. After many weeks in detention they were all let go without charge.

Why were they held in the first place?

Who forced their release?

As for the Israeli’s caught across the river filming the attacks, caught hi-fiving each other, before being arrested. Why were they so happy to see the carnage unfold?

This is a clip from an interview they did on Israeli TV.

How did these Israeli’s, with links to Mossad, know to “document the event”? If they didn’t have pre-knowledge of the attacks then what event were they sent to document?

The 9.11 Commission

The 9.11 commission was a farce. Not only did they leave out the reasons that the terrorists themselves claimed that they attacked the USA, which is the USA’s foreign policy and their support for Israel, but they ignored evidence and questions such as the one posed above about the Israeli connection.

They also ignored key evidence which suggested a stand down order by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta and instead used the commission to push for war with Iraq.

Even 6 of the 10 commissioners have made statements that seem to suggest they were not happy with the outcome. Some even going as far as to suggest the White House lied, the CIA covered up evidence and even blocked access to key witnesses.

Some of these statements included:

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

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

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

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest”.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.. This is not spin. This is not true.”

When no-one was even sacked or demoted due to the failings of intelligence which were supposedly the cause of the attacks and instead promoted then you must ask whether these people were doing their jobs correctly or not.

If doing your job badly, leading to the worst terrorist attack on mainland USA, leads to your promotion, then logically you have to consider that their job was to allow the event to occur.

Promoted people such as:

  • Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11.
  • Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11.
  • Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director.
  • Brigadier General Montague Winfield.
  • Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11.
  • Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney’s task force on problems of national preparedness.
  • Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit.
  • Pasquale D’Amuro, in charge of counter-terrorism in New York.

So yes I still have massive amounts of reservation before I can conclude that the official story is correct and until a proper investigation is held we will never know.

Project Hammer

This video is one I watched the other day and it gives some new context to the events of 9.11 as it infers that the attacks were co-ordinated to cover up a massive financial fraud involving the fire-sale of post USSR Russia in the 90’s.

Whether this is true or not only detailed investigation would prove but it is does a worthwhile job putting the pieces together and includes detailed links to names, aircraft bases and companies all possibly involved in the attacks.

Project Hammerview on youtube.com

The Pentagon Attack

When it comes to the attack on the Pentagon I also still have doubts about that attack even though at first I thought it was one of the least suspicous parts of the story.

Even though I know many witnesses claim to have seen the plane hit the re-inforced walls of the Pentagon there are many questions that remain unanswered. This is mainly due to there not being any photographic or video evidence of a plane actually hitting the Pentagon and the refusal of the Government to release all the CCTV and other camera footage that would have caught the planes impact and lay these questions to rest.

Whilst I used to be on the side of those who believed the Pentagon “missile” attack was a diversion from the real conspiracy in New York I still want to know what exactly happened and how.

How did a plane that big, flying so low and fast by an inexperienced pilot, making expertly executed turns at speeds far above the planes supposed fastest speed manage to punch through 3 rings of the most secure building in the world – without being caught on a single camera?

I used to believe that witness statements should be given their due. If witnesses claimed to hear bombs go off in the WTC, or hear a countdown at WTC-7, or see cutter charges go off then they shouldn’t be dismissed at the Pentagon for claiming to see Flight 77 hit the building. It was just unfair to admit some witness testimony because it backed your argument then dismiss others that went against it.

However we all know that after big events, especially traumatic ones, witness statements often don’t match and even conflict with each other.

Therefore a plane could have easily flown low across the Pentagon giving the impression that it was about to hit it before a missile or bomb went off. The plane then could have rose up through the explosions and fire. It probably wouldn’t be seen or even if it was it would soon be forgotten about due to everyone concentrating on the flames and smoke rising from the Pentagon.

The only CCTV camera evidence from one of the most photographed and surveyed areas in the world has only revealed 5 frames of nothing but a flash from one camera. It doesn’t prove that Flight 77 hit the building at all.

If the Government wanted to kill conspiracy theories around the Pentagon once and for all they would release all confiscated camera and CCTV footage that was collected by investigators in the aftermath of the attack.

By not doing so they only lend credibility to conspiracy theories. This then assumes that they either want these theories to go on or don’t care about them as they offer some form of cover.

Evidence That A Plane Didn’t Hit The Pentagon

Not only do many pilots claim that the manoeuvre that was carried out by Flight 77 was impossible. Both being too fast for the type of plane to accomplish without falling apart but also too hard for even seasoned pilots to manage, let alone an amateur, but evidence exists that suggests the plane did in fact fly over the building.

Analysis of the flight data recorder from Flight 77 which supposedly hit the Pentagon shows a so far unexplained discrepancy between the altitude of the plane and what supposedly happened. Basically it means that the lamp posts which the plane supposedly hit would have had to have been 440 feet high for the plane to have brought them down – an impossibility!

It also suggests that the plane flew over the Pentagon NOT into it.

This is data which has been released by the National Transportation Safety Board and it means that the planes altitude is in direct conflict with the only CCTV footage that has been released of the impact.

Either the data from the black box is wrong somehow (e.g it was edited before being released) or the plane didn’t actually hit the lamp posts and then crash into the Pentagon. Which data-set is correct? I don’t know but it is a question that needs answering.

Then there is the size of the impact hole which was very small. To the sides of the hole there were no signs of wing marks or the huge engines that should have hit it. Even if the wings had folded back and crumpled into the body the huge engines should have been visible on the unscratched grass of the Pentagon.

The dimensions of the hole do not seem to fit those of a Boeing 757 and there is no sign of plane parts either in the hole, as attested to by witnesses at the scene, or on the grass outside which is evident from the first film footage shot of the aftermath. This footage was not requested by the 9.11 commission as the Jesse Ventura video at the bottom attests.

What Happens When A Plane Hits Concrete?

Here is a video which shows a test to prove whether a Japanese nuclear power station could withstand an airplane hitting it.

In the test they used a rocket-propelled, 27-ton F-4 Phantom jet, attached to a sled, aimed to hit a 3.7 meter thick slab of concrete at a speed of about 475 miles per hour which is the same speed that Flight 77 reportedly hit the Pentagon.

Notice how the plane does NOT go through the wall but disintegrates into chunks on the outside of the wall.

This is unlike the Pentagon attack where we are asked to believe that not only were the huge engines of a Boeing 757 not found imprinted on the wall of the Pentagon, they were seemingly not found at all.

In fact only small parts of a plane (or missile) were found and even Boeing employees when asked claimed that these parts did not belong to the suggested plane.

Also there is the question of how a plane made out of very lightweight materials could have a nose so strong that it punched through three rings of concrete as it supposedly did at the Pentagon.

Whereas the plane in the video above crumples up on impact with the concrete wall we are asked to believe that Flight 77 managed to punch it’s way through 3 rings of concrete at the Pentagon. Something a missile would do very well but a Boeing 757 isn’t capable of due to the weakness of the planes nose.

To go with this we are expected to believe that no passenger bodies were found at the scene. Instead only bodies of people from the Pentagon were recovered. It was only later at another location that the passengers were supposedly identified. These could have easily been faked.

We also have witnesses from within the building who claim not to have seen any signs of a plane at all, even being threatened (or “corrected”) in their assertion that a bomb had gone off (as the later video shows).

At other plane crash sites, bodies are found still in their plane chairs, however none were at the Pentagon. Multiple witnesses and journalists made statements that no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon could be seen on the grass or even within the hole that many witnesses walked through on their way to safety.

Then there is the question of how a plane of that size reportedly flew 400 mph at only 30ft above the ground to hit the first floor of the building without hitting the ground first.

If experienced pilots claim this feat would have been impossible for them to accomplish, then how could an inexperienced pilot such as Hani Hanjour, someone who had been denied the usage of a small Cessna 172 because he was such a bad pilot, make such a manoeuvre.

Others believe that the the immense down-force from the plane would have prevented it from flying so close to the ground at such speeds and that it would have crashed into the ground leaving marks on the untouched Pentagon lawn way before the walls that it reportedly hit.

I have personal contact with someone who worked with aircraft all their professional life, working with Rolls Royce aircraft engines.

When asked how a plane that size could fly so fast and so low to the ground without toppling over due to the huge down-force he replied – “with difficulty and a great deal of skill”. Something which we know the pilot reportedly had none of.

Whether you think it’s a distraction or not lots of questions remain about the Pentagon.  In fact lots of questions remain around 9.11 as a whole. With the recent Prism scandal we should always remember that it was the events of 9.11 that has led to our current high tech surveillance state.

This is Jesse Ventura’s look into the Pentagon attacks.

View the original article “The Pentagon Attack – 9.11” at the main site www.darkpolitricks.com

Just a few of the things we have done wrong in the last ten years

September 22, 2012

By Dark Politicks

Things we have done wrong in the last ten years – a very short list but one I thought was important.

As I am from the UK I am going to criss cross between both countries as ours basically has it’s head halfway up the USA’s arse anyway.

1. Elected George Bush a 2nd time.

2. Elected Obama a first time.

3. Let both Presidents bankrupt the country through tax cuts for the rich, never ending wars, bailouts to the banks instead of prison sentences. Imagine all the money you would save by not having hundreds of military bases all around the world, the largest defence budget in history (one that has tripled in recent years), thousands of nuclear missiles that will probably never be used when a few would be enough for deterrent purposes (if you believe in that) and a massive army, navy and air force.

4. Letting billionaires con you into thinking that they have “your best interests at heart” by giving them MORE tax cuts and bailouts and giving you less working rights including less pay and more working hours, worse living conditions, worse health and safety, less benefits, more pollution and so on etc.

5. Letting the same people trick you into believing you are standing up to government by funding astro turf groups to promote Ayn Rand ideas – as Paul Ryan admitted at the GOP conference. Ideas that many economists say are linked to a laissez faire capitalism that has been blameed for derivatives, credit default swaps, banks lending too much and the global financial collapse of 2008 and the lack of punishment afterwards. Also Ideas that many say go against Christian beliefs. Are you really a Christian or do you just like those “I love Jesus” bumper stickers.

6. Letting the powers that be divide and conquer you through their own groups and infiltration of real grass root movements like the original Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. If you could only see that many of the same ideas cross over between the protest groups and start electing intelligent people to congress instead of dumbo’s like Michele Bachmann. People who will actually stick up for your constituency rather than do the usual walk through the steps of Congress for the first time and become a Lobbyist target, donation collecting, champagne drinking, party goer who follows their colour of the political line and not champions of the consciences of the people who elected them.

7. Going to war with Iraq. What a pointless waste of time, life and money. It was a distraction from Afghanistan, led to Abu Ghraib and tortureWikiLeaks releasing massacres caught on tape, Blackwater/Xe killing people in public streets, daily car bombs, religious infighting and the breakup of a government structure just to rebuild it from scratch BADLY. George Bush said before becoming President he would go to war with Iraq to get enough political capital to introduce all the reforms he wanted, cuts to social security, tax cuts etc – instead he ended his Presidency with a bankrupt country on the edge of financial meltdown – not something an incomer like Obama would have wanted to come into power with.

8. Labour turning the UK into the most surveilled nation in the world and destroying civil liberties, removing the right of silence without prejudice, trying to introduce national ID cards, curtailing the rights of protesters, allowing 30+ agencies and councils to enter a person home through the RIPA act and introducing the most unfair and unbalanced UK/US extradition treaty – one which we are still fighting to repeal for people like Gary McKinnon.

9. Believing both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats who said they would repeal all these disgraceful acts, especially the Liberal Democrats with their “Freedom Bill” which I supported them in the recent election for but once they brought it to parliament as the Protection of Freedoms Bill it was watered down so much it was mostly irrelevant and pointless.

10. Labour leaving the new government with so much debt and such a big deficit the coalition had to introduce plans that many Tories probably secretly wished to have a chance to do for many years such as roll back public services, destroy our social safety net, try to privatise the NHS, and again give tax cuts to the rich. All in the failed idea that trickle down economics works rather than give money directly to consumers who would spend it and let it trickle up for once! Plus they could blame it on the Lib Dems! In fact they left us in such a mess the outgoing treasury minister Liam Byrne left a message on his successors desk saying “Dear chief secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left”

11. Gordon Brown selling off 12.7 million ounces of gold at rock bottom prices and at the worst time possible. Guido Fawkes has worked out that this would have made 63.5 million gold medals for the recent London Olympics. At least we clawed a few ounces back with #TeamGB doing so well.

12. Labour introducing the Private Finance Initiatives scheme which meant private companies entered into contracts with the government over long time periods and built much needed schools and hospitals but then charged the government masses of money over time. We got our spanking new buildings quickly but pay through our noses for long periods of time in return. Maybe some of Gordon’s gold could have helped pay for these.

13. Governments across the globe thinking that huge computer systems are the solution to every problem. From the NSA’s TRAPWIRE that will track everyone everywhere to the massive waste of money that was Labour’s massive waste of money and quickly scraped £12 billion pound failure in the NHS that would have paid for 60,000 nurses for a decade.

14. Not punishing the people who got us into the financial mess of 2008. A recent report showed banks all across the world who received bail outs from their respective governments have continued to make more riskier loans when compared to those that were not bailed out. Is this because they expect (or know) that the government will step in again if they get into another mess, which many economists are expecting to happen soon? As Max Keiser often says we should have put the people who broke the law, then lobbied the government to have laws changed retrospectively or pay measly fines as recompense in jail as a lesson to others that our economic system is not a bookies shop.

15. Expecting that we can parachute democracy into the Middle East and not learning from history. History shows us that no-one from Alexander the Great to the British Empire and the USSR has ever won a war in Afghanistan. What makes the USA think they are any different. The Afghan army and police are full of Taliban infiltrators waiting for their chance to come out and cause havoc. We have basically been training them in our tactics for years and this year has seen the highest number of “Green on Blue deaths” so far at 51, it will only continue to rise.

16. Not being an honest broker in the Middle East. Especially Israel and supporting what seems like a blatantly apartheid nation with their US veto that allows it to get away with piracy on the high seas, assassinations of US citizens, illegal embargoes and the breaking of international law whenever they feel like it. This includes the building of illegal settlements on on Palestinian land, targeted assassinations or the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem through forced purchases of Arab houses.

17. Arming, funding and supporting ex-terrorists such as LIFG rebels in Libyathe Free Syrian Army who are filled with al-Qaeda terrorists and the Kosovan Liberation Army in Serbia who also had al-Qaeda links. Either we are trying to de-stabilise the region for a geo-political reason such as to cause an Islamic in-fight between the Shi’ites and the Sunnis so that we can take advantage or we are really really stupid.

18. Not holding a full and proper criminal inquiry into the events of 9.11 which included proper subpoena powers, independent witnesses statements that were not removed from the final report, allowing the White House to block it all the way and then using it to build a case for war in Iraq.

Always remember a third tower WTC-7 fell that day that wasn’t hit by any plane and had all the signs of a controlled demolition including:

  • No plane hitting it.
  • Small fires that had been almost extinguished by the time it fell in the afternoon.
  • Witnesses who heard bombs go off in the building, and admitted walking over dead bodies before the building was hit by falling debris who died before the NIST report was released.
  • Flash cutters seen by witnesses.
  • The owner of the building “admitting” it was pulled – a “misspoken” sentence that really meant “pulling out the fire-fighters” as Larry Silverstien later claimed.
  • A ten second countdown heard by people.
  • Sounds of explosives heard by people and taped.
  • All the signs of a controlled demolition, e.g free-fall for 2.4 seconds, a dip in the centre column before collapse, a symmetrical collapse meaning all corners of the building must have weakened at the same time.
  • A number of experts in demolition all publicly saying that it looked like one.
  • Pre-knowledge – later denied and covered up as an accident by the BBC.
  • A flawed NIST report that differed from it’s intermediary report by having missing building parts and relying on a computer model with loaded parameters such as only heating certain parts of the building to make it collapse. Anyone can make anything happen with a computer model if they set the parameters correctly and play with them until they get the desired result.

 

This list will be continued…..

9.11, WTC-7 and the Pentagon attacks that have led to 11 years of war

September 11, 2012

By Dark Politricks

With another anniversary of the 9.11 attacks about to pass there are plenty of questions that remain unanswered and a growing number of people who are realising that the official conspiracy theory as preached by the US government is still just that, a theory which hasn’t been proved in the eyes of millions of enquiring minds.

The number of people who are happy to accept conspiracy as a legitimate explanation for an event is growing day by day and when articles are posted online designed to attack believers in alternative views (such as the recent Demos article) the comments quickly fill up with messages attacking the articles premise. This shows that the public are perfectly aware conspiracies do occur, that false flag attacks are a tool used by intelligence agencies of all shape and form and to dismiss this reality as nothing more than crazy talk is the favoured mechanism of those who benefit from stifling such discourse.

This is not to say that all conspiracy theories are equal and whilst history proves that the rich and powerful often collude to the detriment of the public the number of ill thought out or illogical theories that litter the web have had the effect of tarnishing debate of a legitimate subject matter that is most definitely based in reality.

There have been many conspiracy theories regarding 9.11 ranging from the complex to the ridiculous however just because some theories are easily debunked does not mean that all if them can be ignored. I for one have been back and forth over this subject many times and whilst I currently believe that sections within the US intelligence agencies at some level had pre-knowledge of the attacks I do not claim to hold all the answers.

Not only has the secrecy surrounding the attacks helped breed a myriad of competing theories it has helped cast aspersions on the governments own possible collusion whatever level that may have been. When the government refuses to hold a full public enquiry into events of such magnitude, when they collude with the one investigation actually held to withhold evidence, when they refuse to release videos and other evidence which could dispel many conspiracy theories for “national security” reasons it does nothing more than increase skeptisism in an already suspicious public about their motives.

For example the US government could easily release the numerous tapes confiscated from around the Pentagon in the aftermath of that attack to dispel rumours that a missile and not a large ariliner hit the building. Numerous cameras from surrounding hotels and garages had their footage confiscated shortly after the attack and even if these tapes do not show anything regarding the approach and impact then they should be released anyway otherwise people will always claim that the government is hiding footage of whatever really hit the building.

Without publicly accessible evidence of the impact there will always be questions over the Pentagon attack which left a small hole in the building wall before it’s collapse. The dimensions of the hole do not seem to fit those of a Boeing 757 and there is the question of how a plane of that size reportedly flew 400 mph at only 30ft above the ground to hit the first floor of the building without hitting the ground first.

Experienced pilots claim this feat would have been impossible for an inexperienced pilot such as Hani Hanjour who had been denied the usage of a small Cessna 172 which he had tried to rent because he was such a bad pilot.

Others believe that the the immense down-force from the plane would have prevented it from flying so close to the ground at such speeds and that it would have crashed into the ground leaving marks on the untouched Pentagon lawn way before the walls that it reportedly hit.

An analysis of the flight data recorder from Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon shows a so far unexplained discrepancy between the altitude of the plane and what supposedly happened which meant that the lamp posts which the plane supposedly hit would have had to have been 440 feet high for the plane to have brought them down.

This data which has been released by the National Transportation Safety Board also means that the planes altitude is in direct conflict with the only CCTV footage that has been released of the impact. Either the data from the black box is wrong somehow (e.g it was edited before being released) or the plane didn’t actually hit the lamp posts and then crash into the Pentagon.

The following video is a good 3D reconstruction of what supposedly happened during the Pentagon attack. Notice that the plane flies parallel to the ground for some considerable time, knocking over the lamp posts and then hitting the Pentagon.

Another issue proponents of the missile theory claim “proves” their argument is the lack of physical evidence after the crash. There are many witnesses on record saying that there was little or no plane debris which has been picked up on as supporting the idea that no plane actually the building however the following video shows how a plane can literally disappear leaving little or no discernible body parts when it’s flown at high speed into a wall.

This test was carried out in the 80’s to see whether a Japanese nuclear power station could withstand an airplane hitting it. They used a rocket-propelled, 27-ton F-4 Phantom jet, attached to a sled, aimed to hit a 3.7 meter thick slab of concrete at a speed of about 475 miles per hour which is the same speed that Flight 77 reportedly hit the Pentagon.

As you can see from that video the plane is totally pulverised and not much remains to be identified afterwards.

So what do I make of it all? There is a clear case of contradictory evidence in that the flight data that was released to the public is either wrong somehow or it is correct and the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon meaning that something else did.

Lots of witnesses claim to have seen the plane hit the building which means that either they are all lying or a plane did hit the building. I am going with the latter as I believe that personal witness statements should be treated as the key pieces of evidence they are. Many people in the 911Truth community will claim that there were a multitude of witnesses who heard and saw explosives go off at the World Trade Center and then claim that all the witnesses who saw the Pentagon crash were plants and in on the conspiracy. They cannot have it both ways.

This does not resolve the issue of the hard to make aerial manoeuvres that inexperienced pilot Hani Hanjour had to have made to fly the plane so close to the ground and hit the building as he did. I don’t know the answer to this but one explanation would be that he wasn’t flying the plane at all and someone or something else was controlling it which might explain how it managed to fly such a complicated dive and then manage it’s fast parallel entry towards it target without crashing before hand.

Whatever actually happened it would be nice if the US government could release all the other video footage taken from cameras around the Pentagon even if they don’t show anything regarding the impact. I don’t know why they would want to keep confiscated footage if it didn’t show anything related to the event but the release of this footage would help clear up a lot of questions.

Whilst the Pentagon is an interesting and some what puzzling topic on it’s own I think the question of World Trade Center 7 is most troubling for the following reasons:

  • We have a large building that was not hit by a plane, only falling debris, that fell into it’s own footprint in a few seconds looking exactly like a controlled demolition.
  • The only investigation into this buildings collapse is a fundamentally flawed NIST report that relied purely on a computer model to explain the collapse.
  • This model, which they won’t release the data for, put the cause down to thermal expansion a totally new explanation for a buildings collapse.
  • This expansion was generated within the computer model by only heating the steel beams and not the concrete floor slabs which is totally unrealistic and a clear case of fixing the outcome by loading the parameters to create the desired outcome.
  • The NIST admits that there is a 2.4 second period during the collapse in which the building falls at freefall speed which defies the laws of physics and which meant that they had to remove their previous claim that the report was consistent with scientific principles.

This last one is a killer point that so far has not been tackled by any debunking site I have come across. In fact I have personally emailed a number of sites asking them to look at this particular point as I would love to hear a rational explanation that explains how this freefall could occur.

Believe it or not I don’t want to be labelled a conspiracy theorist and I don’t choose to believe a theory without it having some merit. On the topic of 9.11 I have a number of questions that I would like answering that at the moment are only explained by some sort of collusion.

As far as I am aware the 2.4 freefall of WTC7 is only explained by a controlled demolition of some kind and for that to have occurred there must have been foreknowledge and the pre-planting of explosives. If this question is answered some other way however I for one am perfectly willing to change my views on the matter and I would urge debunkers to please provide me with such an alternative explaination for this event.

The following video is a talk on the collapse of the Twin Towers which primarily looks at why the Pancake theory was flawed and why if the buildings had fallen naturally and not from a controlled demolition the huge central core columns that the towers were built around should have still been standing even if the surrounding building had collapsed.

And on this 11th anniversary of the events that have led to all of the following:

    • 11 Years of war.
    • Wars with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and covert wars with Pakistan and Syria.
    • The implementation of the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act.
    • Powers that allow the Preident to declare war on a whim as he did with Libya ignoring Congress and the War Powers Act.
    • The spectacle of torture, water boarding, CIA Black Sites, Extraordinary Rendition, Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.
    • An enemy that cannot be beaten because we created it in the 80’s. An enemy we have found ourselves fighting on the same side with in Kosovo, Libya and Syria.
    • An endless war on a tactic that can never end because there is no-one to sign a cessation of hostilities or declaration of victory agreement with.
    • A police state that has grown up to an all invasive wet dream of George Orwell fans in which systems like TRAPWIRE and ECHELON watch and listen to your every move.
    • A push to move the war of terror into the homeland and declare protesters as domestic extremists and the new “terrorists”.
    • Free speech zones and constant films of police brutality against anyone daring to stand up to this wall of power.

I would ask you to kindly pay your respects to the victims of the attacks, including the huge number of Fire-fighters and first responders who are now dying from extreme forms of cancer.

I would also like you to just ask yourself with all the regime changing going along in the world at the moment, whether leaders of the moral fibre such as Dick Cheney, George Bush, Tony Blair and Karl Rove etc. Whether they would never, ever, consider putting the lives of innocent people ahead of a war that could push globalist policy objectives that could benefit the west (and themselves) long term – ideas such as those laid out in the Project for a New American Century.

At the very least it 9.11 was a major screw up in which the major players were all rewarded for their screw ups. At the worst it was a covert operation planned by elements across the board using al-Qaeda patsies (as we have been doing recently in Libya and Syria to do our dirty work for us) to carry out the crime.

A crime in which certain people had fore-knowledge and pulled the strings of others letting the blame fall across the Muslim world which we are now at war with.

If you have not read this article already I suggest reading it as well as the comment debate below as it shows the sort of people we are up against when trying to get a proper criminal investigation held into the events of 9.11.

A crime that 9.11 commissioners admitted was carried out or helped out by a foreign country but won’t tell us which one.

I ask you – why should the people who are fighting these never ending wars not know the name of the country involved, it sure wasn’t Iraq and it sure wasn’t mud hut dwelling Taliban Afghans which 92% of have never even heard of 9.11 or even the Twin Towers?

Is a proper criminal investigation with subpoena power too much to ask after 11 years of war that has changed America into the beacon of the free world into a place where the President can lock you up or even have you killed on his decision alone?

A place where mega computer systems watch your every move, listen to your every call and read your every text and then store it in city sized computers for analysis.

A place where the police are indistinguishable from the military and drones fly the US skies and tanks roam the streets.

And most importantly a place in which you are all ruled still by “Emergency laws” enacted after the events of 9.11 which give the President almost dictatorial powers.

Forget the US Presidential election question of “Is your life better than 4 years ago”.

It should be “Is you life better than it was 11 years ago in terms of civil rights, freedom, privacy and security from your own government?”

What we know about 9.11 ten years on

September 10, 2011

By Dark Politricks

I like most people like to think that I am rational and behave based on logic and reason rather than pure emotion. I don’t believe an article or a video I find on the web just because someone says it is true and I try to make my own mind up about things whether or not that pleases people by fitting in with established opinion.

Therefore when I watched Charlie Veitch of the Love Police on the BBC3 documentary the other night have a change of heart about his previously held beliefs about 9.11 being a conspiracy theory I had to respect him for putting emotion aside and having the balls to be non hypocritical by using logic and reason when presented with various “experts” who showed:

-How easy it was for a person who had never previously flown a plane to fly a Cessna and land it.

-How a demolitions expert explained about the collapse of the Twin Towers. How steel didn’t need to melt only weaken to lose support and collapse into it’s own footprints.

-How a “scientist” showed the weakness of Thermite in burning through metal beams.

-How a receiver of a phone call from one of the passengers from Flight 93 told about her last moments with her son.

All very emotional stuff and for the bits that were shown a reasonable person could quite easily take on board the evidence presented and go away with a changed mind like Charlie has done.

However the documentary was more important for all those tricky questions that have still not been sufficiently answered in the decade since that horrific event that started an endless war of terror.

There was no mention of WTC-7 at all, the building not hit by a plane that fell at free-fall speed for 2.5 seconds, that witnesses claim to have heard a countdown preceding the collapse as well as the sound and flashes of cutter charges.

There was also no mention of the history of false flag attacks and how the CIA, Mossad, MI6, ISI etc have perpetrated crimes of this nature for the past 50+ years.

There was no mention of the Israeli spy ring following the hijackers around the country, living doors away and of the dancing Israelis caught following orders to “document the event” that were arrested in the hours after the attack.

There was no talk of the ABLE Danger program that had identified the 9.11 hijackers months before the attack occurred and the other warnings given by foreign intelligence as well as domestic agencies.

There was no talk about the ISI chief who had ordered the wiring of money to the lead hijacker who was meeting with top US military and intelligence figures on the day of the attack.

There was no talk about the war games that were scheduled for the same day that confused air traffic controllers who didn’t know whether the hijacked planes were part of a training exercise or real.  Who picked that day for war games that mimicked the exact same simulated attacks using multiple hijacked planes?  Was that just pure co-incidence?

There was no mention of the witnesses who have come forward to say that they heard explosions at the ground floor of WTC or who claim that they know flight 93 was shot down by US Air force or the many witnesses like Sibel Edmonds who have been gagged and prevented from telling what they know about the links between the USA and Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda.

There was certainly no mention of the odd piece of behaviour by a mastermind terrorist who had previously claimed responsibility for attacks on US assets such as the embassy bombings or the US Cole but denied all knowledge or involvement in the planning and execution of the attacks of 9.11 in an interview carried less than a month later. The biggest and most successful terrorist attack in the world and not one terrorist group actually claimed responsibility for it as they do in all other attacks that supposedly push their agenda into the public sphere.

There was certainly no mention of all the faked Bin Laden tapes and videos that have been released at key moments in the US election cycle and which have been verified by both independent experts and intelligence agencies as being fake.

There wasn’t an interview with Boeing who’s plane reportedly hit the Pentagon flying at 400mph only 30ft from the ground. A feat many aircraft engineers including some I know personally claim would be impossible due to the amount of down-force created by the plane and according to Gordon Duff he has already gained statements from Boeing denying that this feat could be accomplished by such as large plane.

There was no talk about the lack of a proper criminal investigation into the evidence at ground zero. How critical pieces of evidence no longer exist as they were carted off in private security firm vans never to be seen again. Anybody wanting to carry out a proper investigation now would be starting from a very hard position as all the physical evidence has been destroyed.

There was no talk about the actual 9.11 inquiry about how it was used to build a case for war with a country totally uninvolved with the attacks e.g Iraq and how the White House blocked certain questions from being asked, hid key witnesses and used scare tactics to prevent certain witnesses from testifying. There was certainly no mention of the 6 commissioners who have made comments suggesting at the the very least the full truth has not been revealed and that a new inquiry is needed to get to the truth.

I like Charlie and I like what he did with the Love Police and I never knew his background as a drone city boy turned soldier and potential Iraqi war victim or torturer until he discovered questions surrounding 9.11. He seems to have changed his mind back from a conspiratorial view to the official position of bad intelligence and bad communication added to a lot of luck by the terrorists.

Believe it or not I am not someone who wants there to be a conspiracy surrounding 9.11 and I am perfectly happy if a new proper independent inquiry into the events of the day that covered everything showed it to be just as the official story says.

However we have not had a proper criminal investigation or inquiry with subpoena power and we know the only inquiry held so far was a farce so until that event occurs I am going to have questions that remain unanswered and I will keep on asking them until I gain a satisfactory answer.

This does not necessarily mean that each question doesn’t have a perfectly logical and legitimate explanation behind it but until they are answered I am going to continue to want a full explanation that explains all the oddities and weird science.

National security is no excuse for hiding the truth when it comes to the events of 9.11 and as we have seen how both the UK and USA has eroded civil liberties by the bucket load, turned airports into a choice between a porno grope or a virtual strip search and we are constantly at war with an enemy that cannot logically be beaten.

This means the questions surrounding the events that have caused all this panic and fear and lined the pockets of the military industrial complex by the bucket load as well as making torture, extraordinary rendition and prison without trial a norm a question that demands a full answer and nothing less should suffice.

If you believe the official story then you should still demand a new inquiry just so these questions can be answered and the conspiracy theorists might quieten down a bit but until these important questions are answered there will always be sites like this asking them and getting up your nose.

We cannot let another 10 years pass without the war on terror coming to an end and the questions of 9.11 being put to bed once and for all.

Let me know what you think about the events by answering my poll below.

Experiments that help prove the case for a controlled demolition of WTC-7

June 8, 2011

By Dark Politricks

I have been having an interesting debate over on an article I wrote some time back called 9.11 skeptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles.

History is full of examples that prove an event like 9.11 is well within the realms of possibility.  Sociopaths and psychopaths are attracted to power and our politicians and leaders would never top any poll for moral behaviour.

Our intelligence agencies engage in nefarious and underhand activities all the time and it would come as no surprise to me to find out that 9.11 could have been ordered or allowed for some misguided reason such as the PNAC call for a New Pearl Harbour to re-build America’s defences.

However like most people who have looked into the events surrounding 9.11 I have found the collapse of WTC-7 to be the biggest thorn in the side of the official story.

Like a lot of people I find it very hard to accept the official explanation for the collapse of WTC-7 especially when I watch it side by side with videos of controlled demolitions of similar sized buildings.

The official story is that a new phenomenon came into existence on 9.11 and the WTC-7 building suffered a fire induced progressive collapse.

Having not seen any other videos of high rise buildings that have collapsed due to fire alone I have nothing to compare and contrast the videos of WTC-7 with and like most people I have been brought up to believe that if it looks like a cat, walks like a cat and purrs like one it usually is a cat.

We can quibble over the odd split second or two when it comes to “freefall descent” but when it comes to watching a building collapse evenly and uniformly into it’s own footprint at speeds indistinguishable from freefall rather than slowly and unevenly towards the point of least resistance, which should have been the weakened corner of the building, we have a right to ask questions.

Most of the evidence has now been destroyed, shipped away or buried and anyone wanting to answer the question of WTC-7 is left with two choices. Make a computer model like NIST did and which they still haven’t released the source code for and prove your theory with flashy graphics, by excluding parts of the building and loading the parameters or carry out our own experiments to prove or rule out parts of the official story.

Whilst coming up with my latest reply to a comment which was in response to a request for proof that thermite can cut through steel I came across this wonderful video.

Made by an engineer, it uses physical experiments to test the theories put forward by NIST and 9.11 investigators including:

  • Can Thermite cut through Steel – Yes it can.
  • Can the sulphuric residue found in the dust and on the piece of debris that looked like Swiss cheese be from materials found within the building rather than Thermite or Nano Thermate – Seemingly no.
  • Would super large quantities of Thermite or Themate be required to bring down a building the size of WTC-7 – No.

As the video author says at the end himself:

“isn’t it time we use physical science rather than political science to investigate 9.11”.

This video is proof that the physical science backs up the theory.

Do you have better things to think about than 9.11

March 6, 2011

By Dark Politricks

After reading an article the other day that attacked those people who indulged in 9.11 conspiracy theories as wasting massive amounts of time when there were much better things to concentrate on such as the Iraq or Afghanistan wars I found myself shaking my head in disbelief.

The whole reason for the last decade of constant war including those in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the unofficial wars in Pakistan and Yemen is down to 9.11.

The primary reason new jihadists are born every day when drones blow up their families and friends from unseen missiles fired by soldiers who treat the whole thing like an Xbox game is down to 9.11.

The massive decimation of personal privacy and the reduction on all fronts of our liberty due to anti terror laws, the Patriot Act and the high tech surveillance state that has been installed over the last decade is down to 9.11.

Without first understanding fully this momentous event and it’s effects on the world that are still being felt to this present day we are never going to resolve our current state of affairs.

When people lose loved ones in accidents or criminal events they often cannot rest until the events of their death have been revealed in every single little detail. We hold inquests when people die for just this reason as we realise that it is part of the healing process to understand fully why and how the event happened.

The whole world is currently in dire need of such a healing process and if we are to ever accomplish it we need to go back to the criminal event that started it all and have a proper inquiry that lays to rest once and for all every difficult and troubling question.

Some people claim that there is nothing to investigate, that re-stoking the memories of 9.11 would just upset the families of the victims and that there is nothing left to discover about that day that isn’t already known.

All these points are wrong on so many levels and it is exactly this false line of thinking that has caused so many conspiracies to flourish during the last decade. If people really cared about putting the memory of 9.11 to bed and stopping conspiracy theories from spreading around the globe then they would gladly welcome a full open and fully independent investigation into the events leading up to 9.11.

Not only do many 9.11 survivors families want a proper investigation but even the majority of the commissioners who were on the only 9.11 inquiry ever held have gone on record to say that the truth about the events on that day are still not fully understood and that more investigations are required to get to the whole truth out.

Most importantly from a rationalists point of view there are unresolved questions that remain that the 9.11 commission did not even attempt to answer and which NIST the organisation given the task of explaining the collapse of the World Trade Center have not managed to answer either. It is not conjecture, or wild speculation that lies behind some of the most troubling questions but hard scientific analysis by experts in their chosen fields.

The standard scientific method which has been used for hundreds of years to gather answers to some of the most important questions man has faced seems to have been overlooked during the NIST investigation into WTC-7. Scientists are supposed to observe events, make a hypothisis and then test their theory, revising it along the way.

NIST seems to have got the scientific method back to front and it seems that they had already decided their conclusion at the start and then backfitted their computer model to ensure that their desired outcome could be proven. Ruling out the possibile explainations before even starting a study should trouble any scientific minded person yet this is exactly what they did by ignoring totally the possibility that any form of controlled demolition could have caused the unnatural collapse of WTC-7 and the other towers.

When questioned about these subjects the establishment figures couldn’t care less and with a dismissive swipe of the hand they try to bat them away with a condescending jibe or snide comment as if the laws of physics, evidence of explosives, first hand testimony and all the logic and reason in the world were just inconsequential matters that only conspiracy theorists would worry about.

However the science and evidence that lies behind the collapse of WTC are not the only troubling aspects of 9.11 that the establishment wishes to ignore. It will only be once questions about:

and all the other troubling aspects of that day have been answered will people rest.

I find it hard to understand the mindset of people who cannot see the causal link between the events of 9.11 and our current mess and who just chose to brush under the carpet all those difficult questions that have never been answered fully.

Conspiracy theory or not questions remain about the day that the old post communist peace ended and the new endless war on terror began. If there are logical answers that can explain all these events then fine but by not even attempting to answer these questions it certainly raises suspicions that people have things to hide and this is why conspiracy theories flourish.

To not want to fully understand the events that has led the world to the clash of civilisations that many people predicted seems irrational and selfish at the very least. Being an Ostritch with your head in the sand does not make the truth disappear yet many people are perfectly willing to ignore troubling questions about 9.11 and brush them away as insignificant theories spread by loons, anti-semites or unpatriotic peaceniks.

None of those labels are fair or true but I ask who is the more irrational?

The person who sticks their fingers in their ears and choses not to even review the many troubling and unanswered questions about 9.11 or the person who takes the time to investigate something that has had a major effect on the current world and  then ask aloud for answers when they come across a question that deserves answering?

The trouble I often find with people who find nothing troubling about the official story is that they are perfectly willing to label apponents as conspiracy theorists, dreamers and all the rest but when asked to provide a logical explanation for the 2.5 second freefall of WTC-7 that even NIST cannot explain they either claim ignorance of the whole matter or repeat like a parrot that NIST have given their report on the buildings collapse and that is that.

It seems that troubling questions like how did the laws of physics take a day off on 9.11 only exist in the minds of people with nothing better to think about. If that is the case then the majority of those who claim to have better things to do are very worrying individuals indeed and humanity as a whole is in a very bad place.

9.11 sceptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles

October 23, 2010

By Dark Politricks

Despite directly contacting 9.11 sceptics and debunker websites and asking very very nicely I still haven’t managed to find anyone willing or knowledgeable enough to debate the evidence regarding 9/11 and the official conspiracy theory. The very few people I do find often don’t even know the official story well enough let alone all the various contentious topics surrounding the events of 9.11. Therefore I decided to conduct a little one on one imaginary discussion in the manner I would tackle a debate on the topic if required.

Why would our government do such a thing. Surely you’re not expecting me to believe that George Bush master minded an attack on his own people just to start a war. The expense both in monetary terms, lives and the reputation of the USA has been severely damaged by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What possible reason exists to commit such a crime.

Yes the wars have been expensive and I am not alleging George Bush was involved at any level as he can barely master his own mind let alone a coordinated attack on the level of 9.11. However that is not to say other members in the US government and / or intelligence community did not know the attacks were about to happen and allowed them for various reasons.  Without a full independent investigation we will not know the exact reasons and people involved.

Conspiracy theories are the playground of loons and mentalists with too much time on their hands. We know what happened on 9.11 and the only conspiracy was the one that involved 19 Al Qaeda hijackers who brought carnage to the USA.

You are right in that the events of 9.11 involved a conspiracy but there is a large body of evidence that suggests the 19 hijackers were not the only players involved. The official story is also a coincidence theory in that a number of amazing events all occurred on the same day. Events which the probability of them all happening together would have been extraordinarily high but which we are expected to accept as happening by pure chance rather than from a concerted planned effort. For example:

  • 4 planes were successfully hijacked at the same time by a few men on each plane armed only with rudimentary weapons.
  • Not one of these successful hijacked planes was met with a challenge from the US air force which was the standard practise.
  • Not one camera in the most monitored and controlled part of airspace in the US managed to catch the incoming flight 77 as it hit the Pentagon.
  • The biggest coincidence is that 3 tall steel framed skysrapers, all owned by the same person, collapsed into their own footprint after short fires. Never before had a building like this collapse from fire alone and although two buildings were hit by planes the building structures were designed to withstand such impacts and the other building wasn’t hit by a plane at all. To have one building collapse looking exactly like a controlled demolition is unlucky, to have two is careless but three is downright freaky. What are the chances that a mile and a half of combined buildings would all collapse at almost freefall speed in the manner expected from controlled collapses but not be caused by explosives at all.

This is not to say that all these coincidences couldn’t have occurred just that before 9.11 the most sophisticated coordinated Al Qaeda attack had been the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya which involved a couple of  truck bombs. Therefore the jump in the level of complexity between the usual modus operandi and the attacks of 9.11 was immense.

Just because the attacks were sophisticated it doesn’t not mean that either Al Qaeda didn’t or couldn’t carry them out. Suggesting that our government was complicit some-way in these attacks is not only unpatriotic but unproven plus we know Al Qaeda did it as Bin Laden admitted it.

A few points here. Although the CIA and other war mongers have done a good PR job Al Qaeda is not and never has been a Spectre or Smersh like organisation intent on world domination with agents hiding under every bush. Bin Laden was an ex CIA asset who was utilised during the Afghanistan war against the Soviets and according to the most gagged woman in history, Sibel Edmonds, the USA maintained close links with him up until 9.11. As Robin Cook, the ex UK minister wrote in the Guardian, Al Qaeda actually means “the database” and refers to a file of CIA recruited and trained fighters who helped repel the Red army.

As for admitting involvement in the attacks we only have a dodgy video tape and a very unconvincing translation that takes the conversation out of context for these claims. We know that subsequent Bin Laden tapes have been faked and many people believe Bin Laden died in late 2001. Whether you believe he is dead or not we do have one interview that was conducted with him just after the attacks in which he categorically denies any involvement.

As for proving whether the US government, Israel or any other state actors played a part in the attacks we shouldn’t rule that out just because a neat trail of evidence was laid to the door of Bin Laden’s cave in Tora Bora. We all know that every country engages in black ops and covert operations and a cursory knowledge of history proves that politicians, the military, intelligence agencies and other influential people are perfectly capable and willing to not only exploit events on the magnitude of 9.11 for their own benefit but actually help cause attacks of this nature either directly or indirectly for political gain. For a start we should ask ourselves the following:

1. Did certain people in the US establishment want to increase American influence and control in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Yes. It is well known that a large number of neo-conservatives wanted to assert US dominance over the Middle East and Afghanistan for a number of reasons including:

  • Control of the main source of Oil and other natural resources.
  • A buffer to emerging powers of China and a re-assertive Russia.
  • To aid their ally Israel in helping combat their enemies in that region.

You can read all about their desire for such a scenario in the infamous Project for a New American Century reports. This is the same document that asserted that such a plan would be impossible to implement without a major “New Pearl Harbour” event taking place. It can be argued that 9.11 was exactly this event as these plans were then implemented. The question is was this purely co-incidental or linked somehow.

2. Were those people in government.

Yes the co-authors and supporters of the now controversial report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century were none other than Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld.

3. Were there existing plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq before the attacks of 9.11 took place.

Yes not only were there plans to invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban that were talked about in July 2001 to be implemented before Christmas of 2001, but no sooner had George Bush taken residency in the White House plans were set in motion to topple Saddam Hussein and manage the rich oil fields that would fall under their control after any successful invasion.

So not only did certain powerful people talk and write about their desire to expand US power into the Middle East and Central Asia they also realised that these plans would be hard to achieve unless a major attack on the country took place. The fact that such an attack did take place and the exact desired plans were enacted is either a brilliant piece of luck on these war mongers behalf or lady luck was given a helping hand to bring that fateful event about.

Okay so some people may have wanted to expand US power abroad but that doesn’t mean they staged 9.11. It’s one thing to use a horrific event as an excuse to carry out plans that wouldn’t otherwise have been enacted but quite another to cause the act to happen in the first place. Conspiracy theorists always think the worst of people, our government would never be involved in carrying out such a crime against the people.

You obviously are not aware of recent history which unfortunately is littered with cases of supposedly democratic nations engaging in crimes against it’s own people for political expediency.  The USA went to war in Vietnam over an event which has now been admitted never happened, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and de-classified documents show that the US military was not afraid of discussing the use of false flag attacks. It is also widely believed that Winston Churchill allowed the US passenger ship the Lusitania to be attacked and sunk by German U-Boats to bring the USA into World War 1. Also if you want an example of a conspiracy between nations to start a war you need only look at the Suez crisis in which the UK, France and Israel colluded together to wage war against Egypt so that they could wrestle control of the Suez canal back from Nasser.

More recent examples are not hard to find either and history is littered with many examples of nations engaging in under hand state crimes against it’s own people  including:

  • Operation Gladio in which the Italian governments agents staged bombings, assassinations and assaults on it’s citizens to be blamed on the far left.
  • The Russian FSB apartment bombings in which nearly 300 people were killed in attacks blamed on Cheychen seperatists. Russian agents were filmed planting explosives in an apartment block but when questioned on the matter they claimed it was just a test to see how aware the citizens were.
  • The Lavon affair in which Israeli agents staged a number of false flag attacks in Egypt by blowing up US and British targets including a library and a theatre in the hope of the attacks being blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Unfortunately these are just three proven incidents out of many however the one thing they all have in common is the misuse of intelligence agencies. A False Flag attack is undeniably a commonly used tool that is used to blacken ones enemies and invoke sympathy for otherwise unsavoury actions.

One of the main perfecters of the false flag attack which it has used many times to get American armed forces to do it’s bidding is the Israeli Mossad. I have already mentioned the Lavon affair in which Americans were targeted by Israeli agents in an attempt to pin the blame on Muslims but other examples include:

Operation Trojan, in which a Mossad team planted a fake relay transmitter in Libyan territory and then broadcast messages containing coded orders to carry out terrorist attacks knowing that they would be picked up by US interceptors. The Americans fell for this plan and believed fake intel that pinned a German nightclub bombing which had killed a US solider on Libya. They re-acted by bombing the country and killed Gaddafi’s adopted daughter.

The USS Liberty attack in which dozens of US servicemen were murdered in a daylight attack during the 1967 war. Although Israel and it’s supporters claim this was an accident the survivors believe it was a deliberate attempt to bring the US into the war on Israels side by pinning the blame on Egypt. The evidence supports their claims including the testimony of an ex Israeli pilot who refused to attack the ship knowing it was American and workers from intercept stations that twice overheard Israeli pilots reporting that the ship was not Egyptian as was claimed but American.

Okay so intelligence agencies can get out of hand but surely our current crop of government officials are moral upstanding God believing civilised humans who would never consider such tactics.

LOL. You cannot be serious? Politicians are probably the least moral of all human kind and many politicians either enter politics for selfish notions such as power, money, ego or become corrupted along the way. This is not to say all politicians are corruptible just that it seems that way due to the many sex, drink and drugs, expenses and other scandals that plague their profession. However to give you specific examples of government officials discussing the use of false flag attacks:

Tony Blair and George Bush discussed flying a UN marked plane over Iraq in the hope it would get shot down and then be blamed on Saddam giving them an excuse to invade. This story has actually re-surfaced in a recent memoir by General Hugh Shelton in which he states that at a meeting:

“A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to retaliate and go to war.”

Dick Cheney discussed staging a false flag attack in the Straight of Hormuz by painting US boats so they looked like Republican Guard boats and then staging a shoot up with US ships which could be used as a pretext to starting a war.

We should also remember that we are dealing with the sorts of people who ran unofficial assassination squads and who sanctioned the use of torture on detainees at bases from Abu Girab to Gitmo. These are also people that knew that most of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were innocent.

Therefore we are dealing with people who have little moral fibre but who seem to believe that strong unethical action is needed to be taken sometimes to protect their country. However misguided these people are it is not inconceivable that someone honestly believed that by allowing the attacks of 9.11 to take place they were helping the USA by giving it a chance to “Sweep it all up. Things related and not” as Donald Rumsfeld famously said in the aftermath of the attacks.

Okay so false flag attacks do happen and western countries are not above carrying out dubious acts in the hope of blaming their enemies. However this does not mean that 9.11 was such an event. For one thing a conspiracy of this size and scale would involve far too many people for it to be kept quiet.

Not necessarily. There are many theories surrounding the events of 9.11 and only with a full independent investigation can we possibly ever know the truth however two of the most likely scenarios in my opinion are that either:

  • The act was a terrorist operation that was allowed to happen due to someone at a high level within the US intelligence community either deliberately “ignoring” the multiple warnings and signs that an attack was going to happen.
  • Or the event started off as a terrorist attack but was discovered by intelligence officers and then co-opted and managed by a team of intelligence officers to ensure that it went off successfully.

Unlike some of the more far fetched theories surrounding 9.11 such as the “no planes” theory which would have involved hundreds of people including many civilians in the media being in on the secreet both of these plans would only require a small number of people to be involved.

If the attack was allowed to happen on purpose at the minimum the conspiracy need only involve a few key decision makers either losing or not actioning reports that were coming in from foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia, France, Morocco and their own agents that the attacks were coming. By deliberately ignoring such intelligence it makes it easier to give the excuse that the attacks occurred due to negligence rather than any deliberate act to allow them to happen.

The co-opted terrorist attack or planned false flag would also only require a small dedicated team of intelligence officers and their handlers to be in the know. We should also note that members of intelligence agencies are sworn to keep official secrets acts and it is very unlikely that any serving member of a group involved in the attacks would blow the whistle especially if they believed they were doing it for the greater good. Like the JFK assassination we may have to wait until one of the conspirators is on their death beds before a confession is forth coming.

Hold up, did you just say someone confessed to the assassination of John F Kennedy on their death bed? Why didn’t I hear about this on the news?

Yes a confession by an ex CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, who was involved in the Bay of Pigs and the Watergate scandal gave a confession on his death bed regarding his role in the assassination of JFK. The reason you didn’t hear about it on the news is just one example of how the main  stream media controls the flow of information regarding certain events. The same can be said for the 9.11 attacks in that:

  • No sooner had the towers collapsed than Bin Laden was blamed for the attacks and the MSM were parroting the same line without any evidence or counter points viewed.
  • The collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by any plane and fell at near free-fall speed looking exactly like a controlled demolition was under reported and treated like a non event. Even today many people who still believe the official story have no idea that a third skyscraper collapsed in New York that day.
  • Reports on the day that included interviews with first responders and survivors about secondary explosions, talk of such explosions by news reporters themselves along with footage containing the sounds of said explosions were never re-broadcasted once the “official” story was released.
  • Any alternative view point regarding the events on the day are met with derision and cries of conspiracy theory or anti patriotic slurs. Hit pieces full of straw man arguments and selective evidence are constantly aired and the only place that much of the legitimate and very real evidence can be found is in the alternative media.

Okay so the Mainstream media doesn’t report on wild conspiracy theories and prefers to only report stories backed up with provable facts. One thing is for sure and that is if members of the government or intelligence community deliberately failed to act on recieved intel that showed an attack was imminent then they would have been found out and punished.

You would think so wouldn’t you however one of the strange provable facts regarding 9.11 is that the very people who failed in their responsibility to keep the country safe from terrorist attacks were not punished but rather rewarded through promotions.

In fact not one single person within those agencies that were supposed to be protecting the USA from attack was punished or sacked for failing to do their jobs properly. The following people who should have been reprimanded or sacked for failing to keep the country safe were all promoted:

  • Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11
  • Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11
  • Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director
  • Brigadier General Montague Winfield
  • Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11
  • Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney’s task force on problems of national preparedness
  • Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit
  • Pasquale D’Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York

and there are many more. In any world where blame was appropriated accordingly and people held account for failures which resulted in the deaths of 3,500+ people these high rankers would not have been promoted for their mistakes but punished. Logically there can only be a couple of reasons for this.

Either the USA rewards abject failure and incompetence and treats the biggest intelligence failure that ever occurred as a successful event rather than the murderous disaster it actually was or these people were paid off and rewarded for keeping their mouths shut or doing exactly what they were ordered to do on 9.11 e.g nothing.

Your making this out to be some kind of huge conspiracy but we know exactly what happened. An Al Qaeda terrorist cell hijacked multiple planes and flew them into multiple buildings. The 9.11 commission examined all the evidence and proved what happened.

Did it though?

6 out of the 10 commissioners have made comments regarding the failure of the commision to get to the truth of the events of that day due to a concerted cover up action by the White House.

“One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”. – Max Cleland who resigned from the 9.11 commission.

Not only did the White House delay creating the commission and then put limits on the scope of the investigation they also blocked the commission from reviewing documents and interviewing White House staff.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer has recently gone on record to discuss how the commission refused to hear his evidence regarding the Able Danger program which was a data mining operation set up to identify links between terrorist suspects. By early 2000 this program had identified a Brooklyn terror cell that included Mohammed Atta as well as three other 9.11 hijackers.

The 9.11 commission was also used as the basis by the US government to build up it’s case for war against Iraq. We all know the lies used to get us into that war and during the commission a prominent neo-con scholar called Laurie Mylroie repeated unfounded claims that Saddam Hussein had been behind every major terrorist attack against the United States since the early 90’s including the first World Trade Center attack, the Oklahoma City bombing, the African embassy bombings and 9.11.

Also the 9.11 commission wasn’t fully independent, had a narrow scope of reference and ignored key evidence that conflicted with the official story. In fact no proper criminal investigation was held into the events of 9.11 and it has been left to independent investigators, insurance companies and activists to truly investigate the events of that day.

So what actual evidence is there that conflicts with the official events of the day. From the documentaries I have seen on TV the collapse of the World Trade Center has been explained and NIST has finally released it’s report into the collapse of WTC-7 which it proved was caused by fire.

The official story says that the collapse of all buildings on 9.11 was caused by the hijacked planes and resulting fires alone. If it can be proved that one of the buildings was in fact brought down by controlled demolition then this leaves the official story on rocky ground as it means all of the following:

  • We have been lied to by our government and the owner of the building Larry Silverstein.
  • The NIST report was in fact not an honest investigation but a cover up.
  • Probability would suggest that we have been lied to about the cause of the collapse of the other buildings as well.
  • The hijackers were not acting alone but were instead part of a grander conspiracy which involved agents who were able to access the WTC and plant explosives OR the explosives were planted quickly on 9.11. Either way if the building was brought down in a controlled fashion it has been covered up and investigation into the collapse has been managed to fit the official story.

Surely you can agree with these points and that if it is proven that one of the buildings fell due to a controlled demolition that logically this infers some high level of government collusion as even if a powerful terrorist group or foreign intelligence agency had been able to plant the explosives or bring down the buildings some other way they would find it very hard to control the conclusions of subsequent investigations without government influence at a high level.

Okay I can agree with those conclusions but you still need to actually prove that one of the buildings collapsed in this manner and prove the official story wrong.

Yes I do. Lets start with an overview which has been created by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. These are professionals who have risked their professional reputations by investigating the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 and going on the record to state that they believe the buildings were not brought down by the impact of planes alone.

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers’ destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

  1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
  2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
  3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
  4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
  5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
  6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
  7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
  8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no “pancaked” floors found
  9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
  10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
  11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
  12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
  13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
  14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

WTC Building 7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

  1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
  2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building’s destruction
  3. Symmetrical “structural failure” — through the path of greatest resistance — at free-fall acceleration
  4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
  5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
  6. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
  7. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the the aftermath of WTC7’s destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendary devices was discovered:

  1. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
  2. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
  3. Chemical signature of thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

So both the Twin Towers and WTC-7 displayed all of the characteristics of controlled demolition and none of those associated with a progressive fire induced collapse.

However just to keep things simple lets concede that the Twin Towers did collapse due to the fires caused by the plane crashes. This still leaves the “smoking gun” of 9.11 which is the collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by a plane and only suffered limited fires before it collapsed at near freefall speed into its own footprint in the afternoon of 9.11. The following points explain just why the collapse of WTC-7 is so problematic for the official story of collapse by fire alone.

Evidence exists that the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein, wanted to bring the building down. Not only did he make the famous “pull it” comment in a documentary about the events of the day but a recent FOX hit piece on Jesse Ventura by ex Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reveals that during the day he was on the phone to his insurance company attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

“I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard….Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

Numerous witnesses have gone on the record to say they were told beforehand that WTC-7 was going to be brought down by a controlled demolition. These witnesses include:

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.

Emergency Medical Technician Indira Singh who was told by the fire department that Building 7 was going to be brought down deliberately due to collateral damage.

Another EMT named Mike wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.

Former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer who said that he heard demolition charges go off inside the building as it collapsed.

The non peer reviewed NIST report into the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is based on a computer model that they won’t release the source code for. This computer model has been thoroughly rubbished by many people for not bearing any resemblance to the actual collapse of the building as it occurred and it relies on some dodgy programming that seems to have loaded the parameters to create the desired outcome.

They did this by excluding important parts of the building that they themselves admitted were present in an interim report as well as assuming no thermal conductivity of steel in their model which meant that only one part of steel re-enforced concrete was heated causing the thermal expansion that supposedly caused the collapse. This video explains why the computer model was flawed.

However the major flaw in the NIST report into the collapse is that they had to admit that their report is not consistent with basic principles of physics due to a 2.25 second period during the collapse in which the building collapses at freefall speed for 100 ft. The only way this would be possible would be if all the floors beneath the top part of the building had been completed removed so that the roof had nothing to fall through apart from air!

If WTC 7 is represented by three parts A, B and C, where part A is floors 0-6, part B is floors 6-14 (24 meters tall) and part C is floors 14-47 (see picture left), free fall of part C is only possible if, e.g. part B (or more!) is suddenly and totally removed! Then part C free falls on part A.

Free fall dropping upper part C of WTC 7 (above floor 14) does not apply any loads at all on the structure below floor 14 during this time!

NIST has been asked to explain what David Ray Griffin calls a miracle but cannot do so. Their official position regarding the cause of the collapse is totally inconsistent with physical evidence and the laws of physics which is an obvious problem.

The last point to remember is that a number of scientists have analysed the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center and found evidence of high explosive materials. The following is taken from a lecture given by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently.

Evidence Refutes the Official 9/11 Investigation: The Scientific Forensic Facts pyroThe energetic material that was found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists (led by Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark)  was reported in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics. It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11.

As you can see not only did the collapse of WTC-7 look like and behave like a controlled demolition there is evidence to support this from witnesses, reporters, scientific analysis as well as the fact that the NIST version of events is total hogwash that cannot even follow the basic laws of physics.

Logic, reason and good science dictate that there is more than enough evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC-7 to warrant a proper investigation.

Remember if this building was brought down deliberately and not caused by secondary fires caused by falling debris from the Twin Towers then it means that we have been lied to on a massive scale. Not only has there been a huge cover up involving sections of the media and major government agencies but it also means that there is a lot more to the events of that day than we have been led to believe.

WTC-7 is the Ace of Spades sitting at the bottom of a house of cards that the official story is built out of. Once you take the blinkers off and look at the evidence surrounding WTC-7 objectively it becomes quite clear that the evidence points towards a controlled demolition. If we can prove that this one part of the story is based on a massive lie and cover-up then it takes a huge chunk out of the official story and opens up the whole sad event to proper scrutiny.

Surely you must agree?

NIST Admits their report is not consistent with basic principles of physics

August 1, 2010

By Dark Politricks

This snippet of David Ray Griffins essay is specifically about the 2.4 second free fall decent of WTC-7 which if one believes the official 9/11 story means that a miracle occurred when this building collapsed as it ignored the laws of physics for over 2.4 seconds.

Even if some readers question whether the two previously discussed features of the collapse of WTC 7, when understood within the framework of NIST’s fire theory, imply miracles, there can be no doubt about a third feature: the now-accepted (albeit generally unpublicized) fact that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds.

Although members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had long been pointing out that this building descended at the same rate as a free-falling object, or at least virtually so, NIST had long denied this. As late as August 2008, when NIST issued its report on WTC 7 in the form of a Draft for Public Comment, it claimed that the time it took for the upper floors – the only floors that are visible on the videos – to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”52

As this statement implied, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning basic laws of Newtonian physics. Explaining why not during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, NIST’s Shyam Sunder said:

“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”53

In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST’s theory that the building was brought down by fire, which, if it could have produced a collapse of any type, could have produced only a progressive collapse.

In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler, who was allowed to submit a question at this briefing, challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, stating that Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”54 Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone understanding elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”55 (This is, of course, free fall through the air, not through a vacuum.)

In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST – rather amazingly – admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”56 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case – except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics.

Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”57 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance (to make a considerable understatement). If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even if for only a fraction of a second, this would have been a miracle – meaning a violation of physical principles. Explaining one of the physical principles involved, Chandler said:

“Anything at an elevated height has gravitational potential energy. If it falls, and none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of that energy is converted into kinetic energy – the energy of motion, and we call it ‘free fall.’ If any of the energy is used for other purposes, there will be less kinetic energy, so the fall will be slower. In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.”58

That was what Sunder himself had explained, on NIST’s behalf, the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural components below it” to offer resistance. But NIST then in November, while still under Sunder’s leadership and still defending its fire theory of WTC 7’s collapse, agreed that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”59

Besides pointing out that the free fall descent of WTC 7 implied that the building had been professionally demolished, Chandler observed that this conclusion is reinforced by two features of the collapse mentioned above:

“[P]articularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. . . . The building went from full support to zero support, instantly. . . . One moment, the building is holding; the next moment it lets go and is in complete free fall. . . . The onset of free fall was not only sudden; it extended across the whole width of the building. . . . The fact that the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width. The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed . . . simultaneously, within a small fraction of a second.”60

For its part, NIST, knowing that it had affirmed a miracle by agreeing that WTC 7 had entered into free fall, no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics. Back in its August draft, in which it was still claiming that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had said – in a claim made three times – that its analysis was “consistent with physical principles.”61 In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase was removed. NIST thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report on WTC 7, by affirming absolute free fall while continuing to deny that either incendiaries or explosives had been employed, is not consistent with basic principles of physics.

Accordingly, now that it is established that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds, one cannot accept the official theory, according to which this building was not professionally demolished, without implying that at least one miracle happened on 9/11.

George Monbiot, as we saw, described members of this movement as “morons” who “believe that [the Bush regime] is capable of magic.” Unless Monbiot, upon becoming aware of NIST’s admission of free fall, changes his stance, he will imply that al-Qaeda is capable of magic.

Matthew Rothschild said he was “amazed” at how many people hold the “profoundly irrational and unscientific” belief that “Building 7 . . . came down by planted explosives.” Given the fact that progressive members of the 9/11 Truth Movement “so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming,” Rothschild continued, it is “more than passing strange that [they] are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.”

NIST’s report on WTC 7, however, provided the final proof that the 9/11 Truth Movement had been right all along – that those progressives who credulously accept the Bush-Cheney administration’s explanation for WTC 7’s collapse are the ones who “abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.”

View the full essay at Dark Politricks

Question – Do you deny the laws of physics?

April 4, 2010

By Dark Politricks

This article and the videos contained within should be compulsory viewing for anyone who believes that any talk of controlled demolitions in relation to the World Trade Center is the crazy talk of tin foil hat wearing loons. Its a collection of clips, news stories, talks and links that cover the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11th. The aim of the article is not to accuse anyone behind the attacks but to show that logic and science backs the view that the buildings did not fall from the hijacked planes alone.

The first video is a 10 minute condensed overview of a much longer talk held by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth that detail the many flaws in the official story as well as the evidence that points towards controlled demolition in World Trade Center 7.

This is the building which many in the 9/11 truth movement treat as the smoking gun that proves complicity in the attacks and by the end of the article you will see why. Remember this is the 47 storey skyscraper that was not hit by any plane and was the third steel beamed tall building to collapse that day, supposedly from fire alone.

Leave aside co-incidences that all 3 buildings were heavily insured and owned by the same person who “admitted” that building seven was pulled.

Also leave aside the damage to the American psyche that was obtained through the collapse of the huge potent symbols that the WTC represented to the world and leave aside all talk of NORAD stand downs, US training for the terrorists and ignored warnings as well as a desire to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq that required a pretext for doing so. Lets just look at the buildings:

Now I am not an engineer or architect but I would take their educated opinion on matters relating to how buildings are built and how they are destroyed over most other groups of people. These are all well educated people at the height of their chosen profession who have chosen to make a public stand against the official story. Given a choice between following the evidence and keeping quiet to avoid being labelled a conspiracy nut or “truther” they have bravely chosen the former and gone on the road to convince others.

Having looked at the flaws in the NIST report into the collapse of WTC-7 myself I know that the official explanation by NIST does seem to be a blatant attempt to coverup some form of collusion in the collapse of the buildings.

Questions of who and how doesn’t matter right now as it only allows for far fetched theories to propogate and detract new people from investigating the main issues revolving around the evidence that proves demolition. Remember just because there is evidence of controlled demolition it does not logically equate to George Bush being in on it or a huge conspiracy involving lots of people sworn to secrecy. To see why please read the following article of mine on the type of conspiracy involved.

The NIST report into WTC-7 came out not long back and although proponents of the offical story tried to claim it was the final nail in the coffin regarding the smoking gun it did not take long for people to see the various lies, omissions and bad science that the report was based on.

Leaving aside all the lies about their being no witnesses to the explosions at any of the towers when there were many:

Rich Banaciski — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
… and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Greg Brady — E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard — I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

Ed Cachia — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Frank Campagna — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.

Kevin Darnowski — Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.

Dominick Derubbio — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion …

Karin Deshore — Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.

Brian Dixon — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
… the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see — I could see two sides of it and the other side — it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.

and leaving aside the lie that there were no witnesses or evidence of molten steel:

and leaving aside the peer reviewed scientific study by 25 phsycists that provides evidence that explosives, namely Thermite, was used in the collapse of the World Trade Center:

“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

and leaving aside the dodgy computer model used by NIST to explain the collapse of WTC-7 in which they loaded the input parameters to create a model that didn’t fit the events on the day.

A model for which they still haven’t released the data so that it can be analysed independently.

A model in which the different parts of the building were heated differently causing unnatural thermal expansion and a model in which parts of the building that were in early NIST reports disappeared from the final report.

In all it was a model in which all computer programmers can attest proves that if you put shit data in you get shit data back out. As the non peer reviewed report didn’t even consider controlled demolition or the use of accelerants then it does seem to be an attempt to push a preconceived outcome on the public.

Leaving aside all those inconsistencies and problems I have still not been told by anyone who believes in the official story how a building as large as WTC-7 can collapse at almost free fall speed without having some form of demolition to remove the path of least resistance.

Even the NIST admit that the building falls at free fall speed for a couple of seconds! Saying in their final report that they had found a 2.25-second period in which the center roofline exhibited a “freefall drop for approximately 8 stories.”

This obviously defies all logic unless something had caused the resistance to magically disappear. However without controlled demolitions as the cause of this free fall path it leaves proponents of the official story in a very sticky place having to defend an event that defies all the known laws of physics .

As this famous YouTube video created by a high school physics teacher shows, the building fell at a speed indistinguishable from gravity for over 2 seconds.

Unless the laws of physics are updated soon to give an alternative explanation we are left with the fact that only a controlled demolition can explain this event.

And if we accept that fact then we also have to accept that 3rd parties colluded with the terrorists on that day to ensure these buildings fell.

Obviously this leaves believers in the official conspiracy with an awkward decision.

Either to accept the laws of physics or to deny them because they cannot face the alternative.

Which choice do you make?