Evidence that the World Trade Center Twin Towers were destroyed by explosive demolition has been published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal.
Interview with 2 contributors:
Evidence that the World Trade Center Twin Towers were destroyed by explosive demolition has been published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal.
Interview with 2 contributors:
Printed in The Boar 7/8/08
An emerging technology is expected to make a “pervasive impact on every aspect of civilization” in the same way the printing press, the industrial revolution, personal computers and the Internet have transformed society. That technology is RFID. If you renewed your passport in the last few years, check the back page. You’ll find a visible Radio-Frequency Identification microchip. You also use RFID technology on a daily basis with your library card, while Londoners participate in a symphony of bleeps using the technology on tubes and buses with their Oyster. But here’s the important bit. RFID chips will soon be embedded in pretty much every consumer product under the sun. And more.
I’ll get the technical bit out of the way. There are two main components to an RFID “tag”. The first is a tiny silicon computer chip that contains a unique identification number. It can be made as small as the full-stop at the end of this sentence. The second is an antenna or “transponder”, typically a flat, metallic coil affixed to a plastic surface. An RFID “reader” emits radio waves searching for tags. When in range the unique number in the chip can be captured and processed and fed back to a database that shares data via the Internet. Larger battery-powered “active” tags are also available, to be used for schemes such as “tax-as-you-drive”.
RFID is more than just a revamped barcode system. Each individual chipped item, rather than each category, is assigned a unique serial number. The idea is that numbers can be captured at the point of sale and recorded with the identity of the purchaser as gleaned from a credit card or shopper card. Also, RFID tags are remotely readable, through people’s clothes, wallets or bags. Anyone with a reader could theoretically frisk you, taking note of the specifics of anything in your possession.
But leave aside the idea of some rogue on the street waving around a wand. Big business has the stated aim of stalking you. The technology giant IBM, heavily invested in RFID, has filed patent applications such as “Identification and Tracking of Persons Using RFID-Tagged Items” in which they detail a method to collect RFID numbers at the cash register and store them in a database. Later, the “exact identity of the person” can be determined from the tags and “used to monitor the movements of the person through the store or other areas.” It goes on to describe how tags could be used to identify a person’s age, race, gender, and income bracket. IBM’s “person tracking unit” is a real-life extension of the kind of rampant target advertising we’re used to on the web. Out of a retail context, IBM stresses the application of such surveillance in “airports, train stations, bus stations, elevators, trains, airplanes, restrooms, sports arenas, libraries, theatres, museums etc.” Hey it’s all part of the “post-9/11” package.
I was first exposed to anti-RFID propaganda in the form of the book Spychips by Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre, subtitled “How major corporations and government plan to track your every move with RFID”. Already familiar with the rather predictable revelations that chipped passports can be hacked and replicated in a matter of hours, as well as the nature of Oyster cards cataloguing Londoners’ journeys for the convenience of increasingly spurious law enforcement, I flicked through the book with weary acknowledgement that the authors’ concerns were justified and their dystopian vision plausible. Later I found a tabloid-sized “RFID Briefing” paper which came free with The Times, sponsored by EPCglobal and the British government. It didn’t do much to propagate a particularly reassuring sentiment. In fact, the paper simply confirmed the claims Spychips made about how far-reaching and pervasive RFID will be, only with a positive spin.
In the foreword to “RFID Briefing”, Stephen Timms, Minister of State for Competiveness and Consumer Affairs, describes the ubiquity of RFID having been ironed into place through “global spectrum harmonisation”: “Government support has played a part, as have market developments like the wal-Mart ‘mandate’ and the US Department of Defense ‘Total Asset Visibility’ programme.” This kind of language articulates the corporatist pregnancy of the RFID project. Big business and big government have teamed up without oversight. Later they disseminate a “Briefing” telling me that full spectrum implementation of RFID is on its way now that “the genuine concerns of employees and consumers have been well articulated”. Did anyone else miss that meeting?
Timms’ reference to the US DoD’s ‘Total Asset Visibility’ recalls another DoD program established in February 2003 – “Total Information Awareness”. It was renamed “Terrorism Information Awareness” the following month, deflecting attention from the reality that all citizens would be targeted. The office was given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans. Here’s the crux of the problem with RFID. It provides our increasingly unaccountable and merged governments and corporations the perfect apparatus for “total information awareness”. The consolidation we have already seen and will continue to see - of personal identity details, health records, bank details, even DNA – will be supplemented with purchase histories and travel histories.
A few years ago I was labelled a conspiracy theorist (see my Two Penn’orth rant) for suggesting that we would soon see a cashless society, or even that interests like IBM desired such a society. Since then, the chief executive of VISA has predicted a cashless society by 2012, while IBM are running ads in which a man roams through a supermarket, stuffing items in his jacket, and walks out only to receive an automated receipt, having passed an RFID scanner. I see Maestro billboards everywhere telling me cash is “dead”. And the “RFID Briefing” I’ve referred to details how RFID “supports the cashless society”. No, I don’t think debit cards are evil. But the point of maintaining cash as an option is the freedom and anonymity guaranteed by its use.
There’s a dominant attitude in establishment circles that is both neurotic and naive: that the way to combat the unpredictable threats of terrorism and fraud is to build such a tightly controlled, surveilled and standardised system that such activity is rendered impossible. Leaving aside the reality that consolidated power structures historically and currently loot and kill more than rogue fraudsters and terrorists, the supposedly ultra-secure technological landscape of RFID is a joke. Observer journalist Henry Porter demonstrated in the program Suspect Nation that the “Verichip” RFID tag for implantation in humans, can be easily replicated. Thus a person’s identity, as it becomes more and more a subjectivity of the state, would be totally at risk even in the most extreme, supposedly inviolable RFID scenario.
A final paragraph traditionally offers solutions. The best I can do, now that the technology is being rolled out incrementally, is to recommend that we monitor RFID before it monitors us. It’s time to generate enough public debate, trickling up to parliamentary and business circles, that we can decide whether we’ve actually got a good deal here. Then we may be able to prevent the initial convenience of the system from sliding into obedience to it.
THE MIKE WALLACE INTERVIEW
Guest: Aldous Huxley
WALLACE: This is Aldous Huxley, a man haunted by a vision of hell on earth. A searing social critic, Mr. Huxley 27 years ago, wrote Brave New World, a novel that predicted that some day the entire world would live under a frightful dictatorship. Today Mr. Huxley says that his fictional world of horror is probably just around the corner for all of us. We’ll find out why, in a moment.
Ministers are considering spending up to £12 billion on a database to monitor and store the internet browsing habits, e-mail and telephone records of everyone in Britain:
Polygraph like machines to “spot terrorists” by scanning general public for anxiety
Friday, Sept 19, 2008
The Department of Homeland Security has previewed new technology that they promise will help rout out terrorists and other dangerous people in public places by covertly bio-scanning subjects as they walk past sets of cameras.
It may seem Orwellian, but on Thursday, the Homeland Security Department showed off an early version of physiological screeners that could spot terrorists, reports USA Today.
According to DHS officials, the scanners work like polygraphs but without the subjects having to be wired up to them. They measure body temperature, pulse and breathing regularity. Any sudden changes recorded could indicate “the kind of anxiety exuded by a would-be terrorist or criminal.”
According to the report, the new technology will not just be limited to use in airports:
The system would be portable and fast, said project manager Robert Burns, who envisions machines that scan people as they walk into airports, train stations or arenas. Those flagged by the machines would be interviewed in front of cameras that measure minute facial movements for signs they are lying.
Law experts have charged that the technology constitutes a government enforced “medical exam” which would violate civil rights.
There can be no doubt that this technology is part of Homeland Security’s Project Hostile Intent (PHI) program, on which we reported just over one year ago.
Scientists were tasked by the DHS to develop technology by 2010 that can scan the bodily functions of citizens, without them knowing, and uncover any possible hostile intent or deception.
The DHS revealed to The New Scientist that it wishes to develop a lie detector-type test that can be used remotely, which was described as “an advantage because it would not interfere with the flow of a crowd and it could be used without the target’s knowledge.”
Other technology to be used for PHI includes lasers, cameras, eye trackers, microphones and heart rate and breathing sensors.
The new technology complements already escalating security measures in airports and train stations such as biometric body scans, lie detector tests, behavior analysis, facial analysis and spot teams to spy on passengers.
In addition, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) started conducting random additional at-gate screening earlier this year of airline passengers who display “involuntary physical and physiological” actions indicating stress, fear or deception.
To anyone who remembers Poindexter’s gait analysis this is pretty disturbing stuff.
We are being acclimatized to these things, first within airports and stations. Technology and measures that you don’t even see used in prisons or high security facilities are being passed off as completely normal in public places.
Furthermore, from the wording in these reports, it is clear that the intention is to roll out the exact same measures throughout public places in major cities and subject the general public to intense airport style harassment on the city streets.
How long before we see checkpoint officials inspecting internal passports and consumers body scanned merely to enter a supermarket or a sports arena?
Dear Mr. Davis,
We spoke after the Observer debate “Is Liberty in Peril?” During the Q&A I asked the panel whether they would support a new international criminal investigation into the 9/11 attacks considering that;
1. The alleged lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta was wired $100,000 on the orders of General Mahmoud Ahmed, head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
2. Many alleged hijackers were hosted at institutions run by the US military:
Ahmed al-Nami, Ahmed al-Ghamdi and Saeed al-Ghamdi stayed at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. The latter also attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. Abdul Aziz Alomari attended Brookes Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. Also, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who had the most obvious ties to extreme militant Islamic groups, rented an apartment from, and lived with, an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, from September until December 2000.
When we spoke you expressed uncertainty over a new investigation into 9/11 but confirmed that you support an inquiry into the July 7th 2005 bombings in London. It will be crucial, should you campaign loudly for this cause, that you focus on the following issue:
Haroon Rashid Aswat, the man identified by US counter-terrorism officials as the mastermind of 7/7, having had regular phone contact with the alleged bombers, and having visited their home towns as well as selecting the targets in London, turns out to have been working for British intelligence. John Loftus, president of the International Intelligence Summit and a former Justice Department federal prosecutor, has noted that while British police have ostensibly been chasing after Aswat, another “wing of the British government, MI6 or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him”. Following 7/7, Aswat was arrested in Pakistan but was released within 24 hours. He then made it to Zambia, where he was deported on 7 August 2005 and arrested by British police on a US warrant. But while he has been extradited to the US on charges of setting up a terrorist training camp in Oregon in 1999 (Loftus claims that the Justice Department ordered authorities not to touch Aswat at the time this was originally discovered), the Associated Press reported that Scotland Yard “were not interested in speaking to Aswat about the London attacks”.
Mr. Davis, we must address the systematic appeasement and outright protection of known terrorists in any debate about our civil liberties in this highly manipulated “War on Terror”. We are being asked to accept unprecedented state power in the face of massive civil disempowerment when existing laws and protocols created to apprehend terrorists are systematically and quite deliberately not being enforced.
I would really appreciate a committal response to my suggestion that you twin a campaign for an inquiry into 7/7 with one for a re-examination of 9/11 and the “War on Terror” it unleashed. I hope that unlike other politicians who have been contacted about this (e.g. William Hague) you do not simply cite the 2004 9/11 Commission Report as a definitive investigation. On page 172 of the report the following statement is made:
“To date the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.”
This is unconscionable. The Times of India, the Asia Times, India Today, The Wall Street Journal, Agence France Presse, The Australian, and the Federal News Service all reported Omar Sheikh’s $100,000 donation to Mohammad Atta at the behest of the ISI’s Mahmoud Ahmed. Michael Meacher MP commented on the nature of Atta’s funding in a Guardian article mainly focussing on the issues surrounding 7/7 that I have outlined, “Britain now faces its own blowback”. He cited Dennis Lormel, the head of the FBI financial crime section, as his source.
I recommend that you contact Michael Meacher for further discussion and clarification of the reasons why the war on terrorism is “bogus”, as he boldly put it in another article in 2003. I understand that Mr. Meacher has been in contact with Yukihisa Fujita of the Democratic Party of Japan to discuss ways of raising consciousness of the need for a new investigation into 9/11 amongst politicians across the globe and across the political spectrum.
If in doubt about the legitimacy of the concerns I have raised in this letter, I recommend you consult the well-sourced work of Nafeez Ahmed (whose book on the London Bombings I gather you already possess). And talk
with Mr. Meacher. I hope that a cross-party war on error can soon be waged in Parliament.
Me attempting "Skip Divided" by Thom Yorke but messing up my dictaphone-through-guitar-pickup trick so I ended up looping horrible feedback!
Me and my friend Dom playing "Let Down" by Radiohead:
Me and my sister playing "Landlocked Blues" by Bright Eyes:
and "Clam Crab Cockle Cowry" by Joanna Newsom:
Last Sunday evening I tuned in to BBC2’s new Conspiracy Files program, “The Third Tower”. This promised to solve the “final mystery” of 9/11: World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing symmetrically, at freefall pace, into its own footprint at 5.20 pm in the exact manner of a controlled demolition. Having flipped straight over from the Wimbledon men’s final, a bewildering display of physical ability, I found that the BBC program’s intellectual dishonesty, another kind of sport, was yet another assault on the senses.
The program was comparatively more generous in airing the concerns of the 9/11 Truth Movement than the previous BBC Conspiracy Files piece on 9/11 had been (which, amongst other things, conflated 9/11 “conspiracy theorism” unsubtly with anti-Semitism), giving time to representatives from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as well as physics professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University. But like its predecessor, Sunday night’s program exhibited such extreme levels of bias, misrepresentation, omission and factual inaccuracy that a tape copy ought to be shipped to every school in the country for dissection in AS level Critical Thinking classes.
If it wasn’t already obvious from BBC’s first Conspiracy Files program about 9/11, then the Conspiracy Files website, blog posts from the producer Mike Rudin and BBC news stories confirmed the bias this new program would have against so-called “conspiracy theorists”, i.e. anyone who doesn’t agree that Building 7 is the “final mystery” of 9/11 and who thinks that this mystery has not been resolved by the government or the Popular Mechanics team who wrote 9/11 Lies (and were the principals voice of authority in both the BBC and History Channel hit pieces on 9/11 “conspiracy theories”).
One Conspiracy Files webpage presents us with a ridiculous, pseudo-scientific conspiracy test devised by psychologist Dr Patrick Leman “to see how conspiratorial you are.”
There was a particular incident between the first 9/11 program and “The Third Tower” that seems to have contributed to a worsening of relations between the BBC and “conspiracy theorists”. The discovery early last year of BBC World footage in which their reporter announces the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurs (she is even standing in front of the New York skyline with the building in view behind her) caused a defensive and muddleheaded response from the head of news, Richard Porter. Porter took to heart the minority of accusations that BBC were “part of a conspiracy” and didn’t grasp the importance of the question of what source claimed WTC7 had already collapsed. This persecution complex arising from a lack of appreciation for the relevance and gravity of the issue seems to have further galvanised the BBC into a defensive position away from “conspiracy theorists”, making it difficult to rely on them to approach legitimate questions in a balanced way.
“We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.”
At the time of these revelations Porter dismissed the idea that the BBC received press releases in advance of events happening as a wild theory. But in the program on Sunday he produces an email confirming that the news service Reuters had indeed issued a press release. The new BBC program thankfully emphasises that no steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fire and damage, let alone asymmetrical and sporadic fire and damage, but the BBC’s bias and wariness against “conspiracy theorists”, who they now see as their persecutors, caused them to simplify the issue into “these nutters accuse us of being handed scripts from the government!” In reality the premonitory Reuters report starkly demonstrates the effect of a concerted top-down generation of chatter that WTC7 would definitely be coming down. Of course, the collapse of the twin towers that morning – supposedly the first ever steel-framed buildings to have fully collapsed with no controlled demolition involved – made the imminent collapse of a third skyscraper psychologically more plausible.
What makes the BBC biased and unreliable is that rather than expressing their support of the official version of events after a rigorous, honest exploration and criticism of the relevant evidence, their method is demonstrably favourable to official theories by means of careful selection, omission and misrepresentation of facts, footage and personalities.
1. The film Loose Change: Final Cut is introduced as a big-screen blockbuster. The narrator notes slyly, “conspiracies have become big business”. Anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement will be painfully aware of how false this assessment is. I have been to one of the 10 or so screenings that there were in the UK, in a Notting Hill Picture House cinema. There were less than 10 people in attendance. The film screening shown in the program is an independently organised event, as Loose Change has not enjoyed a major distribution deal. At one stage it looked like it might be backed by billionaire, Mark Cuban, but this would have involved handing over editorial rights. The film-makers’ refusal to do this surely shows that they place the integrity of their message over money. On the 5th anniversary of 9/11 they handed out several thousand free t-shirts and free DVDs at their vigil and protest at the WTC site. They do not own mansions but live together in a trailer in rural upstate New York.
The young men who created Loose Change can be criticised on many accounts, both in terms of the content of working edits of their film and their untrained media approach (e.g. the clip of Dylan Avery swearing in Sunday night’s program). But implying that they are motivated by money is a clearly biased and unfounded swipe. Meanwhile, the program doesn’t go into the details of arguments concerning the massive amounts of money made as a direct result of 9/11. To take one example, the program mentions that Larry Silverstein insured the twin towers 2 months before the attacks (they probably should have spelt out that this is when he acquired them, and that this was the first time they had been handed over from public Port Authority property to private property) but doesn’t show how much profit he made from the insurance payouts. Silverstein Properties, who had already leased, developed and insured WTC Building 7 in 1980 (BBC cites this as a reason not to suspect Silverstein), in partnership with Westfield America, acquired a 99 year lease for WTC One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center seven weeks before 9/11. The price was $3.2 billion – Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money. Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance payouts for the destruction of the World Trade Center, having fallen short of acquiring the $7.2 billion he was pursuing. He had insisted that the two plane crashes represented two separate “occurrences”, as worded in the insurance plan, and therefore constituted grounds for claiming double the insurance payouts already offered. He escaped death on September 11th 2001 because he had a doctor’s appointment.
2. Whilst on the topic of Silverstein, the second misrepresentation to note is the tight edit of Silverstein’s “pull it” statement, taken from the PBS documentary “America Rebuilds”, aired in 2002. Many people have taken Silverstein’s comment as a forced/muddled explanation that Building 7 was brought down deliberately, but it is difficult to know exactly what the statement means, as in the original documentary we don’t hear what question is posed to Silverstein. [media]http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=5383965[/media]
“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. So they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
The BBC edited this clip so that it cuts just before “and then we watching the building collapse”. As an agnostic (among many) on the meaning and relevance of Silverstein’s comment, I ask how we can possibly come to a fair and well-considered conclusion on the issue when the BBC kills the debate by narrowing the context of “pull it”, deliberately cutting out “and then we watched the building collapse”. They also don’t make the point that “pull” is often used in demolition language – particularly in reference to the cruder method of literally pulling buildings down with external machinery rather than installing explosives – an impression that Silverstein may have wanted to give in a preliminary cover story. On top of this, when the BBC conclude that Silverstein was referring to a decision to “pull” the firemen out of the building (this is what a Silverstein representative explained in a press release a while after the PBS program), they ignore the fact that fires were not fought at all in Building 7 that afternoon, as noted by FEMA’s Building Performance Study: “Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.” Then they show no recognition of the fact that their own interview with the Fire Chief, Daniel Nigro, indicates that Silverstein’s “pull it” conversation was fabricated. “We don’t need to ask permission from the owner, no. When we’re in charge of the building, we’re in charge and that decision would be the fire chief and his alone.” Why no follow-up interview with Silverstein? He has recently refused to make a comment when prompted by activists, so why won’t the BBC use their investigative muscle?
3. The BBC repeatedly infer that a large portion of the 9/11 Truth Movement believe the New York Fire Department were complicit in a conspiracy to demolish WTC7. This is nonsense. As with the BBC and their premonitory report of WTC7’s collapse 20 minutes in advance, the firemen were compartmentalised and fed alarming as well as fuzzy information from the top-down. After the events of the morning, anxiety about a third skyscraper collapse was massaged into certainty by the information that trickled down. In the cases where firemen express knowledge that Building 7 was going to “blow up”, as I will show in the “omission” section, this does not represent complicity. The notion was presumably that WTC7 was being brought down deliberately in a makeshift demolition, not one that had been pre-arranged (this is perhaps what Silverstein originally attempted to infer with the “pull it” story). As an anchor on CBS affiliate news station WUSA 9 commented after the collapse “We don’t even know whether this was something that was engineered for safety reasons or it just happened as a consequence of the two collisions this morning.”
4. The BBC’s interview with Barry Jennings, the man who became trapped in WTC7 that morning and experienced explosions, and the way they use it, chafes against his original account given in an earlier interview conducted by the makers of Loose Change. Jennings requested that this interview be excluded from Final Cut after he was allegedly threatened with losing his job, only a couple of years away from retirement (he is presumably employed by the federal government, given that he was working at the Office for Emergency Management in WTC7 before 9/11,). Because Jennings has now given an interview to BBC, the full original Loose Change interview has been released on the internet:
In this interview Jennings states clearly that the explosions he experienced in WTC7 occurred before either of the twin towers had collapsed. Yet the BBC frames Jennings’ testimony of explosions with footage of the South and North towers collapsing. A triumphant rhetorical question is then raised by the narrator: “early evidence of explosives or just debris from a falling skyscraper?” This is a totally unacceptable misrepresentation.
Later in the program, Jennings backs away from his original testimony that he was stepping over people in the WTC7 lobby (the firefighter accompanying him warning “don’t look down), as well as backing away from his originally incredulous response to the official explanation for WTC7’s collapse. The original Loose Change interview really speaks for itself. A condensed version is here, for the impatient.
Before the program aired I knew it was guaranteed that certain issues, footage, and potential interviewees would not be included.
One piece of footage I absolutely knew wouldn’t be aired is this:
In the CNN clip we see firefighters retreating from Building 7, with one saying “It’s blowin’ boy.” ... “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” ... “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” ... “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”
I was partially wrong to predict that this wouldn’t crop up at all. In the opening montage of the program, the following segment is included: “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon”. This is almost worse because it shows that the BBC team found this clip and watched it – and decided not to include the stuff about WTC7 being expected to “blow up”.
Another is this – an interview with one of the first responders on 9/11, Kevin McPadden, taken from a new documentary “The Elephant in the Room” by Dean Puckett:
McPadden describes hearing a demolition countdown over the radio of a Red Cross representative as well as experiencing ground-shaking explosions at the onset of WTC7’s collapse. The BBC could have arranged an interview with him.
Or how about interviewing Craig Bartmer, another first responder:
Or Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT:
The BBC instead select a single fireman, Lieutenant Frank Papalia, who complains that people who talk about WTC7’s demolition were not there that day and “have no respect for all the friends I lost…it’s like a slap in their face”. By careful selection and omission of key testimony and comment, the BBC monopolise the realm of first-hand experience to suit their bias and in the process stigmatise the 9/11 Truth Movement as an enemy of those affected most immediately by the attacks. Like the first Conspiracy Files program on 9/11, there is no mention of the fact that the movement is largely driven by victims’ families. 70% of their questions were never addressed by the 9/11 Commission. Bill Doyle, the head of the largest group of victims’ families in the USA, has stated that over half of the people he represents, as well as himself, believe 9/11 was an inside job. 9/11 Truth groups under the banner of We Are Change regularly campaign and fundraise for the plight of first responders and firemen who are now dying from respiratory diseases and cancers, having breathed the aerosolised concrete, glass, asbestos etc. at the WTC site. The same government that knowingly lied about the air being safe to breathe at the time so that Wall Street could reopen is now refusing to pay for treatment for these people.
Aside from their biased selection of one person who was there on 9/11 who supports the official version of events, out of so many others, the BBC also demonstrate biased selection in their choice of demolition expert to interview: Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Incorporated. They acknowledge that one demolition expert Danny Jowenko, was presented with footage of WTC7’s collapse and concluded that it was controlled demolition (they could have mentioned that he was also shown blueprints of the building) but they do not do a follow-up interview. Instead they say that “other demolition experts don’t agree”. Notice the plural. But only Mark Loizeaux is interviewed, somebody who is not likely to give an unbiased account, considering the fact that he is financially supported by government contracts (including the one to clean up the WTC site after 9/11).
Another major omission is represented by the lack of mention of the harassment and death threats received by 9/11 Truth advocates, in view of the fact that the BBC focuses on harassment suffered by Mark Loizeaux of CDI and Jane Standley of the BBC. If they are going to include the issue of harassment in the program, which is a serious matter whomever it affects, shouldn’t they have mentioned that the wife of the architect they interviewed, Richard Gage, has left him because of the frequency and severity of death threats they suffer as a result of his vocalisation of the evidence for controlled demolition of WTC1, 2 and 7? Or that Luke Rudowski, a young activist who appears briefly near the end, received particularly gruesome death threats over the phone after he protested outside the new Building 7, where Silverstein’s security tried to set Rudowski up as a terrorist?
Inaccuracy and incompetence
1. Even with the help of misrepresentation and omission to steer their government-sympathising narrative through the factual fog of “conspiracy theories”, BBC’s “The Third Tower” stumbles all over the place. At one point they cover Steven Jones’ analysis of dust samples, some of which were preserved on the day of 9/11, one within 20 minutes of the twin towers’ collapsing, letting him explain that this showed the presence of iron micro-spheres, proving that molten iron was produced and indicating the use of thermite, an incendiary used by the military and of which explosive sol-gels can be manufactured. Next they introduce NASA thermal images taken 5 days after 9/11, showing extremely hot temperatures under each WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 site, the latter being 727°C, along with reports of molten metal in the rubble. The narrator then offers “another explanation for the iron spheres. They could have come from cutting torches used after 9/11 to clear the site.” Only a minute before this the narrator told us that many of Jones’ dust samples was taken on the day of 9/11 when obviously no cutting torches were being used. The rescuing line “or any building work before (9/11)” is farcical. What building work? When? Enough to produce such a large quantity of molten iron that droplets were infused in the WTC dust? The narrator doesn’t even bother to follow up the next line about the presence of aluminium in Jones’ analyses (matching the signature of a thermite reaction) with any counter-explanation and the film cuts to Mark Loizeaux once more, who dismisses the idea of using thermite in the demolition of buildings.
2. I could provide more examples of how the program fails to formulate reasonable arguments against the evidence for controlled demolition, particularly when it comes to the free-fall speed of WTC7’s collapse into the path of greatest resistance (requiring the simultaneous failure of all support columns, supposedly from scattered fires and asymmetrical damage). But I will finish with an amusing – if less significant – example of how the producers of this program didn’t have their best thinking caps on. In their dramatisation of Barry Jennings’ experiences in WTC7 that morning, they accompany Jennings’ testimony that he received a call from one of his higher-ups, asking him where he was, with images of the actor playing Jennings answering the landline in the office. Duh. Are these BBC people really fit for the job?
Will the “Third Tower” unintentionally help the Truth Movement?
Although the BBC program must be condemned rather than praised in view of the bias and intellectual/editorial dishonesty I have shown only some of, the fact that this program was made at all should be seen as a victory for the 9/11 Truth Movement. For an entire hour on national television Building 7 has been discussed. The glazed eyes that tend to meet the statement “three towers collapsed on 9/11” may become a thing of the past. The program did some positive things, emphasising the unprecedented nature of the WTC collapses, showing a side-by-side comparison between WTC7 and an acknowledged demolition, and mentioning that all the steel was shipped immediately overseas before it could be analysed (though it didn’t mention that this is a federal crime). Many viewers will recognise how dodgy it all is and will see through the spin. My hope is that lots of engineers and physicists tuned in and will follow it up with some of their own research.
David Edwards and Mike Sheehan
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
An Ohio Democratic lawmaker and former presidential candidate has presented articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush to Congress.
Thirty-five articles were presented by Rep. Dennis Kucinich to the House of Representatives late Monday evening, airing live on C-SPAN.
"The House is not in order," said Kucinich to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), upon which Pelosi pounded her gavel.
"Resolved," Kucinich then began, "that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate. ...
"In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power..."
The first article Kucinich presented, and many that followed, regarded the war in Iraq: "Article 1 - Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq."
On several occasions, Kucinich referenced RAW STORY and its noted investigative news chief, Larisa Alexandrovna, as source material for the articles. Two of the RAW STORY pieces Kucinich mentioned are viewable here and here.
Kucinich, a 2004 and 2008 Democratic candidate for the White House, abandoned a prior attempt to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush in January of this year.
In April of 2007, Kucinich presented impeachment articles against Vice President Dick Cheney, but the effort went nowhere. Kucinich exclaimed that "impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran."
Before leaving office in January 2007, then-Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney--currently a Green Party presidential candidate--introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush as her last act in Congress, but that effort also was fruitless.
This video is from C-SPAN, broadcast June 9, 2008.