Wednesday, 30 December 2015

Why I Don't Believe James Foley was Beheaded in ISIS Video

Motive: Factions of the US government and the Foreign Relations Council wanted a reason to begin airstrikes in Syria because of the money to be made in Arms sales, plundered Syrian resources and geo-strategical reasons.  I'm not saying ISIS doesn't exists but they weren't posing enough of a direct threat to the US for the US public to support an expensive military operation with the inevitable deaths of innocent Syrian civilians. Public support could only be afforded by an outrage of a brutal murder of a US citizen and a high profile, emotional media campaign to go with it.

I have watched the Foley beheading video on youtube. Believe me, I would not have if I doubted it was fake. I am a squeamish and emotional person. If you saw any of the photos coming from Syria and Gaza the last year, they had me sobbing and unable to sleep properly at night.
Sure enough, the video produced no emotional reaction in me whatsoever. You would have thought that a man, even if resigned to the fact of his own death, would show some physical tension and distress moments before a brutal decapitation of this nature; some resistance, a few beads of sweat on his forehead perhaps. You would have thought, after the knife had cut into his throat he would have released some cry even if involuntarily. Other youtubers said in comments they had seen videos of real beheadings uploaded from the Middle East (Wtf? Grim, I know I could never)  and a hideous, gutteral sound is produced by the victim as the knife slices through the flesh and hits the trachea, esophagus and vocal fold within.
The knife goes across his neck six times before the video fades out. There was not a drop of blood, no cry, no heaving or twisting of the body. The victim seemed completely calm and unphased.
Even the Telegraph reported that the video was probably faked and that Foley was probably shot off camera and the video made for propaganda purposes.

I have to ask why the most brutal and bloody thirsty regime of modern times would decide to shoot Foley instead and release such a pathetically unconvincing video? So as not to offend a Western audience? Please.

Now here is the next thing. The USA amended the Schmit- Mundt Act of 1932 to make it legal to produce completely false news for domestic and foreign audiences. Also a recent report in The Examiner describes how Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch owns an Oil company poised to drill in Syria.

And here is the next thing. Does this woman look like someone who has just lost her sibling or someone who has just been paid a lot of money for her role in this? Perhaps enough to last the rest of her life?

So where is James Foley if he is not dead you may ask. I don't know. Maybe he has been giving a new identity and is living in Israel or Saudi Arabia or an army base until people forget what he looks like. Maybe he didn't exist in the first place. Far fetched as it may seem, I find it easier to believe than  the video of his execution or his sibling's supposed grief.  Considering the amount of resources and money in arms sales at stake for the West's elite and the evidence above, I think it the more likely of scenarios than a mass-murdering ISIS executioner getting a bit squeamish about getting blood on his nice new boots.   

Paris November 13th Footage

1. Raw phone footage from outside the Bataclan. 2.58 The fear, distress and injury seems very genuine in this footage and has me doubting the staged drill theory. I found it quite harrowing. Yet why does the photographer stay so close to film what's going on? Who is the shooter that comes out of the building. ISIS or French? There appears to be someone on other side of the door. Pay attention to the railings.

2. Shoot out outside Bataclan 1.00
The railings on the right here, are they permanent pavement fixtures or the same as the ones outside the Bataclan, which you assume are for queue control but could they have been to close the street off for a foreseen drill/exercise? Why does the French special forces man have no helmet? I thought the shooters stayed inside the venue. Why are they shooting down the street?

3.Daniel Psenny footage Bataclan 2.46
The pregnant woman hanging out the window. takes one hand away and leans back to look below her. Perhaps she was worried the gunmen were below her but even if her feet were supported by bars,  it seems an unusual action for someone who is clinging on for dear life. At the moment she is lifted back into the building, Daniel Psenny moves his camera off her. As a journalist, you would think this is a moment he'd want to capture, why does he point the camera back at the bodies on the ground?

4.Outside Le Bonne Biere (near Casa Nostra)

This is meant to be seconds after the attack yet their are already men with nightsticks on the scene and no sirens or flashing emergency vehicles. The man trying to stop the photographer from filming is in plain clothes- jeans and a jacket.

5. General report about ISIS video threats and with footage from Hebdo attacks too but a few seconds looks very much like Canal St Martin (green bit in the middle/bare trees in November ) near Casa Nostra where November 13th shootings took place. At 0.38 secs a young woman appears laughing and smiling as loading a friend onto ambulance.  But then why is it daylight when the Nov 13th Attack took place between 9pm and 10pm?  It does not get light until 7 or 8 am so it cannot have taken all night? Unless this footage is from the drill earlier in the day?

Google earth image

Stills from video copy and paste to youtube for full video.

6. CCTV footage from Casa Nostra

Youtubers Peekay and HowISeeit have claimed that the woman who runs through the door and dives behind the counter is an 'Operative' and throws a firecracker through the window before entering. Peekay even says their is no glass in the window. However, it looks more like to me that the window is not shattered before the shot and then it is. So are you telling me that a firecracker can make a bullet-like hole in the window? I've no experience with guns - do bullets hitting a surface can sure make a puff of smoke, or dust/plaster also? Is it possible the flick of the woman's wrist is her trying to open the door but withdrawing her hand as another bullet hits the window and a splinter of glass hits her wrist. She grabs the pole to go downstairs to the cellar but is it possible the injury is not that painful after the initial impact and physical boundaries can be stretched and pain forgotten when adrenaline is pumping through the body? Saying this the gun jam incident does look odd. It is possible the shattered glass photoshopped? Also when the terrorist runs off he does not run in the direction of the terrorist's car to the left of him, he seems to disappear into thin air! Is it possible it has been digitally manipulated?

Before shot through window

After shot through window 

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Duping DelISIS

I don’t have a lot of time to exhaustively research a subject before passing comment anymore but
I know that as another war is waged in the middle east by Western powers, it certainly has little to do with protecting human life and liberty and everything to do with geo-political strategy; control of the region and its resources, the arms trade and further heightening the fear of terrorism at home to justify increasing infringement of our rights and privacy.

A friend sent me this video made by award-winning poet, actor, playwright, Heathcote Williams. 

I approve of the scathing biography of David Cameron and appreciate the poetic delivery.The narration could do with sounding less like a Grimm’s fairytale dripping with relish at severed heads on spikes but that’s down to my personal taste. There is something vitally important I query about the facts: Many commentators and dissenting voices, such as Williams', are saying that ISIS, or IS (Islamic State) is the inevitable spawn of anger towards the West and its military campaigns, atrocities and war crimes. Although this may be partly true because Al-queada and IS (that has being been called an offshoot of Al-queada by some media outlets) have taken on a life of their own in an ongoing cycle of provocation, it is omitting the likely probability that they are the desired outcome of the original creations by Western 'intelligence agencies (CIA, MOSSAD, MI6). I want to have a quick look at the evidence for this.

IS has certainly received much of it’s wealth through Western allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia. This has been documented in the mainstream media. Now the Arab allies are helping USA to defeat them?
There are also reports that they were trained by the USA. That they were trained to fight Assad and not intended to become part of an extremist group like ISIS, one report says. I ask, why all the money then?

Let’s look at our previous enemy, Al-qaida, and what Robin Cook had to say about them. Al-qaida supposedly flew hijacked planes into The World Trade Centre in New York on 11 September, 2001. Look at previous posts to see why the official version of what happened on 9/11 could not be true. Cook died on a mountain top in 2005, whether it was a natural death or not, it was convenient to the wars' champions and profiteers that he was silenced.

The mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction were the justification for the next war in Iraq which began in 2003. Let’s remember what happened to Dr Richard Kelly who suggested that the infamous WMD dossier was ‘sexed up’ to provide grounds for Blair’s war in Iraq. Again, whether or not you believe he was murdered or committed suicide, it was convenient for the war's profiteers that he was silenced.

Today,  IS is the justification for war and the media has been feeding us the ‘proof’ of their barbarity and the need for intervention by reporting the beheadings of US journalist James Foley and British aid worker, David Haines.
I have watched the "beheadings" and I don't believe them to be real (otherwise I could not have begun to view the videos. The idea of watching a real one is abhorrent to me.) The knife ‘cuts’ across their neck at least six times and in both cases, there is not a drop of blood. There would be a lot of blood even from a shallow incision on the jugular, especially with an accelerated heartbeat. There are just so many things about the videos, including the calm recital of the script given to them by ISIS, the lack of any physical flinching from the victim, and the families' reactions which are very unconvincing. You can find endless youtube videos of analysis. Later the Telegraph reported the James Foley video was 'possibly staged' but that an execution took place at some point.

How is this not relevant? I mean, leaping lizards, how is that not of interest?
Certainly, horrible executions have taken place all over; in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, in Saudi Arabia at the hands of their government. But for some reason ISIS chooses to release videos of fake ones? Why? Where are the brutal nutty jihadists when you need them  to make a video to provoke the USA and Britian into bombing them? The executions of an American and a Briton by IS provide the reaction for less resistance to a war with Syria. Whose hands does that play into?

Let’s also have a look at James Foley’s family’s reaction. It is interesting. As one facebook user commented: "I have never seen a woman so radiant and refreshed." Compare Foley's sister with this chilling expression of Dianne Downs on this TED talk about how to spot a liar. Dianne Downs shot her children and then drove them to the hospital claiming a 'straggly haired stranger' burst into her home. We see a calm recollection of events followed by a 'leaking' of ‘duping delight’' -the urge to smile because you are fooling someone, like when a kid tells a fib and cannot suppress a grin..but obviously much more evil in this case.

James Foley's sister has almost an identical expression to Diane Downs and both siblings have ill-disguised 'duping delight' throughout. Also note the brother's vigorous rubbing of his eyelid to try get some moisture into the brother's dry eye and the picture falling off the wall as though the set had just been rigged up in five minutes! I mean, do you think this is how your family members would react if you died. Even if you did a high risk job where they felt your death was a matter of time? Do you imagine your siblings would be grinning after your 'gruesome beheading' went viral on the internet?

US air strikes hit grain silos and killed civilians, including 16 children last night. The words of Zbigniew Brzezinski will ring in my ears as I pray for peace tonight. 

"The idea was to create a few stirred up Muslims."

Zbigniew Brzezinski is on the Council of Foreign Relations and an adviser to Obama. For those who know a little more about shadow government, he is also David Rockefella's partner on the Trilateral commission.  Recalling a longer quote from his book, 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives,' (basically an instruction manual to invasion of the Middle East and what we have witnessed over the last thirty years:)

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being." 

I don’t have a lot of time. I like reading Thomas the Tank Engine and blowing raspberries on my kid's tummy. But I'm not a fucking moron and I don't support the ongoing terrorism and duping delight of our governments.

Saturday, 10 September 2011

For Argument's Sake (or why the BBC has earned another nickname for that acronym.)

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." --- George W. Bush.

There were so many things wrong with BBC's 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip on Thursday night; it's hard to know where to start. Should it be with the flimsiness of the debunking? Or with the pseudo-science? Or with the choice of participants and experts? Or the content and editing aimed at manipulating the audience? All these aspects seemed so obvious. During and after the programme, comments flowed thick and fast online. One facebook user just writes, Lego? A youtube user, Building 7? So I don't know if it is necessary to say any more. For the sake of good argument, something which the BBC seems incapable of, I will. 

Irish comedian, Andrew Maxwell took five young Brits who thought some of the information supporting the fact there was a non-al-Qaida conspiracy behind 9/11 was true, on a coach trip with the intention of changing their minds. You notice, I use the word ‘fact’. Well, if I’m following Andrew’s example, I can present what I think as fact, whether I have enough reliable evidence to back it up or not.

Andrew Maxwell

He takes them to visit Ground Zero and other sites of significance whilst meeting various 'experts', officials and a 9/11 victim's mother, all the time trying to 'crack' them. (His own choice of language.)

The appointed 'voice of good reason,' talks about his five companions like they are psychiatric patients, often ridiculing or sympathising with their 'condition.' Maxwell's own views about 9/11 are not open to change, which is hypocritical since his whole mission is to convert and indoctrinate these discerning, young people to his own infallible way of thinking. We get the impression this whole reality TV ordeal is a drag for him and he just wishes they’d all shut up about this '9/11 crap' which he compares to believing in Santa Claus.

Andrew thinks that if he takes them to ground zero and introduces the idea of real suffering to them, it might give them a ‘reality check.’ Since when has looking for the truth about how a lot of people died been independent from sympathising with real suffering? That's a cheap shot aimed at guilt-tripping viewers to side with him. Surely it’s because there was so much suffering that so many people think 9/11 needs to be explained properly. Maxwell can't understand how ‘his guys’ could believe the American government could ever allow 9/11 to happen its own citizens.

Has he done any research into the history of the CIA or false flag attacks? Ever heard of Operation Northwoods or the PNAC document? Us Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin? No? Then please stop the endless flow of patronising vomit-turds leaving your lips. Thanks.

I understand where he’s coming from; I have faith in humanity too. I’m surrounded by many good and wonderful people most of the time but I am not gullible enough to project theirs and my own values onto a long line and organised cabal of unscrupulous psychopaths who laugh at the weakness of compassion and the very fact you attribute such a noble quality to them.

"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushs have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." George Bush Sr. 1992."  

Sometimes, when I look George W. Bush's silly face during those moments in the Florida primary school, I want to believe he's just like any other man trying to do the right thing ..but then I remember everything else I know.

Funnily enough, on Wednesday night, another BBC documentary, 'Are You Good or Evil?' told us in no uncertain terms that 'Corporate culture today is ideal for the psychopath,' and, 'In high business you are four times more likely to find a psychopath than in the common crowd.' Logically, high business would include politicians with huge stakes in the oil business and the arms trade who have fraudulently muscled their way into government.

But why would Andrew have done any research himself? He's a comedian, not an investigative journalist. Why bother researching when you can lounge in front of BBC 24 all day and draw upon the official news for your jokes?

I've digressed a little so let's get back to the programme. Five 'conspiracy theorists,' and a bunch of 'conspiracy theories' for the BBC to debunk. I have given the five silly names; this is not how I see them but how I think they have been portrayed by the programme's editors.  

From left to right: Shazin smiley-less-cynical Nurse, Emily sensitive-unsure-student Church, Andrew reasonable-inoffensive-nice-chap Maxwell, Charlie confused-puppy Veitch, Charlotte baader-meinhof-nanny Scott-Hayes, 
and Rodney 'you'd-think-a science-graduate-would-be-more- rational' Chavrimootoo.

The terrorist pilots.

Charlotte says the amateur pilots could not have flown into the buildings with so little practice. Shazin is then taken in a two seater plane for a cruise around Manhattan. She is shown how to control and land the plane. She admits it was quite easy to fly. So, Conspiracy One debunked then. No one mentioned that the most complicated thing about the 9/11 flights wasn't flying headlong into a skyscraper, it was performing a stunt turn in a passenger plane (not a two-seater) and then flying into the Pentagon at ground level at over 500mph. The accused terrorist's flight school teachers even said they did not believe them capable of this in interviews included in the Loose Change films. Also:

‎"The government story they handed us about 9-11 is total bullshit, plain and simple. To expect this alleged airplane to run these manoeuvres with a total amateur at the controls is simply ridiculous."

Captain Russ Wittemberg, US Air Force, Pan Am and United Airlines pilot for 30 years.

Prior warning of a terrorist attack.

Emily's main bone of contention: why, if George W. Bush was given warning on August 6th 2011 (she's referring to the Presidential Daily Brief prepared by the CIA and given to Bush on that day entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US) was there not maximum security implemented in US airports. Andrew takes them to meet a United Airways pilot called Buck Rogers. Buck says; 'Before 9/11, many airports didn't have metal detectors, and way before 9/11 sometimes people didn't have to walk through the metal detectors to get on the plane.' The metal detectors that weren't there, right? The inconsistency of this statement could be overlooked, for fear of sounding too pedantic but Buck also says that it was common to fly with the cockpit door open before 9/11. Of course, the BBC wouldn't want to mention Pilots for 9/11 Truth in their hit-piece; they are an organization founded in 2006 consisting of a growing number of aviation professionals who have analysed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Centre attack. The data does not support the government story. The Pentagon and the NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. This entry on the Pilot's for 9/11 Truth website is of particular interest:


"according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?"

It might be easy to scold Emily for not being as informed as she perhaps could and should have been for representing the third of Britain who identify with the 9/11 Truth Movement. However, remember the power of editing; Emily has since voiced her grievances about the editing and cut-outs from the show.

"Firstly, I must tip my hat to them, they did a wonderful editing job..Throughout my time on the show I asked question after question, I asked every single person we met whether they believed the official story to be true and the vast majority of them said no. Ask yourselves this question, why has the footage of us meeting Tom Owen, a voice analyst who worked on the Osama Bin Laden 'confession' tapes, been cut completely? There is a simple answer, because he told us not to believe the official report. Why? Because we aren't in the 'need-to-know' category, his words, not mine. Throughout our entire meeting with Tom Owen it was pretty much clear that the director of the show wasn't happy with his take, like most of our meetings with 'experts' she would try and steer the conversation in a direction that would better fit her hit piece."  

Emily Church on Facebook.

Controlled demolition of the twin towers.

Andrew admits Charlie has a strong case. Well, the towers did collapse at almost free-fall speed into their own footprints. Andrew tells Charlie; ‘This isn't a youtube video, now you're actually going to meet someone.’

The demolition expert, Brent Blanchard explains the process of installing explosives into a building's columns for a controlled demolition and it certainly seems like a lengthy one. Andrew concludes that such rigging could not have happened under the noses of so many workers. Of course, the BBC would not mention the testimony of Scott Forbes, employee of the Fiduciary Trust, which in 2001 occupied floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower and lost 87 employees plus many contractors on 9/11.

"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough[t] back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work ..." Scott Forbes.

Blanchard then shows the group two stacks of Lego representing the towers. Charlie wants to know why the section of tower under the plane impact collapsed, instead of the upper section falling away after it began tilting to one side, apparently. Using the Lego, the expert describes how, as soon as the upper section began to tilt, the unstable weight would have compressed the floors beneath, thus causing the collapse. Charlotte raises the issue of the burning temperature of jet fuel; it's not hot enough to melt the steel core columns. 'Oh, it wouldn't need to,' says Blanchard. This is a remarkably strange response since the official explanation of how the towers collapsed is the pancake theory, in which the heat from the burning jet fuel weakened the steel causing trusses to snap and the floors to fall on top of one another. Astonishingly, Blanchard has just categorically stated that the heat from the burning jet fuel had nothing to do with the collapse of the twin towers. Other structural engineers have said that if a pancake collapse had occurred there would have been a pile up of floors at the bottom, not a fountain of phenomenal energy, jettisoning out steel beams and a cloud of pulverised concrete.

'Pancake' Collapse.

World Trade Centre Collapse

Building 7 was completely ignored throughout this section and the whole show; the building that collapsed at almost free-fall speed, into its own footprint when no plane hit it! Their next stop should be the families of the 9/11 victims involved in the BuildingWhat? campaign. Maybe then, Andrew could see that appreciating real suffering goes hand in hand with seeking the truth about how a lot of people died and why foriegn countries were invaded.

Charlie however, did not have such thoughts. His were: 'Now I've spoken to a guy who's explained why it happened and it all makes sense.' Incredible. A lot has been said about Charlie Veitch since the programme was filmed and there are many theories now circulating about him. I'll just say at best, he's highly suggestible, parroting whatever he last heard. Despite studying philosophy, he has the least aptitude for critical thinking out of the five. That's if he's genuine. 

Thermite in the towers.

However, Rodney and Charlotte are not convinced by this demonstration. Rodney says there have been scientific papers published about the presence of thermite at ground zero and that this powerful substance was used to bring the towers down. He and Charlotte speak to another 'expert' about this. He shows them pictures of such material in said scientific papers. The expert also says: 'There's no way to structurally explain the free-fall than some form of controlled demolition device. Why weren't those questions asked?' But then it quickly cuts away to the thermite demonstration supervised by a 'thermite expert' from the University of California. A loose pile of thermite is placed on a steel beam and ignited. It burns brightly and hotly but has little effect on the steel. I’m no expert but I’ve seen plenty of demonstrations on video of thermite cutting through steel. Many from BBC's own Brainiac: Science Abuse programme for kids. If thermite burns at above 2000c and doesn't affect the steel here, how would jet fuel which burns at 1000c, have affected the steel beams in the towers, which had a melting point of 1500c. But of course, that theory no longer applies anyway, as Blanchard demonstrated with his Lego towers. I’m not saying I think the towers were necessarily brought down by thermite/thermate, I just hate shoddy argument.

Thermite cutting through a steel safe and blowing it open. Brainiacs.

The experiment has still not 'cracked' Rodney or Charlotte. We now see an awkward moment between Charlie and Rodney, who is clearly not impressed by Charlie's sudden turnaround. Charlie begins a spiel about the NYPD and 'what was in it for the establishment actually?' (Although, earlier he was orating about the money being made in the wars, the arms trade and contracts etc.) Rodney walks away as Charlie holds the camera’s attention in a very thespian fashion, which comes across as unnatural. But later we learn that Rodney is evil because he leaves Andrew Maxwell's gig right in the middle of his orang-utan joke to take a call from his Mum who doesn't even know he's in the USA. Gasp! Rodney is dishonest! We cannot trust him!

Pentagon: Missile or Plane?

Next up is the proposal that a missile hit the Pentagon, not Flight 77. We see the replay of the footage released by the FBI which doesn’t make anything clearer, apparently. By this point, I’m really bored of Andrew Maxwell’s relentless narration, saying he’s trying to get their heads around the fact that 'this is nuts.' I want to hear more from the group.

Footage from CCTV camera released by FBI. (See something at 1.25)

They meet Alan Kilscheimer, a Structural Engineer for the Pentagon who has framed letters from Rumsfeld and Bush all over his office walls. We’re told he was one of the first on the scene when the Pentagon was struck. Andrew: ‘He should be able to tell us whether the Pentagon was hit by a plane or not.’
Kilscheimer says he saw parts of the plane in the building, and parts of stewardesses. In a while, when they go to Pennsylvania, we will be told by another expert that human beings explode like water balloons when hitting the ground, and that’s why there were no bodies at Shanksville. Kilscheimer shows us an animation of a passenger airplane going through the Pentagon. He explains how whilst travelling through three wings of the Pentagon, the plane disintegrated, (leaving body parts in recognisable stewardess attire.) The small hole in the other side of the building can easily be explained, says Andrew, because it’s where the tail remnants of the plane came out. Hmm, Kilscheimer just said ‘you’ve got to understand how explosions work’ to understand why the hole is small and round. So was the hole made by an explosion or the tail section of the disintegrating plane that was left inside? Never mind gut feeling; show me some science that makes sense.

Pentagon 'remnants' hole.

‎"With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased, rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon."

Col. George Nelson - Aircraft accident investigator, US Air Force.

The above extract from a report by Pilots for 9/11 Truth also supports that Flight 77 was not hijacked.

Air Traffic Control and Military not intercepting planes. 

Next, they meet Ben Sliney, Head of Air Traffic Control who basically says the attacks could have been prevented but they were all a little tardy and not really talking to each other that day. The USA spends more money on its military and air space surveillance programs than any other country. The BBC is making those programs sound as significant as milk tokens for mothers or horticultural therapy in prison. Oh, those government cuts!

"I'd also like to ask why footage of Ben Sliney saying that someone needs to held accountable for 9/11 was cut?" Emily Church

Flight 93 Disappeared.

"It does seem a bit strange for a plane to disappear but..."
Andrew Maxwell, Comedian.

Next the group go to Shanksville, Pennsylvania, to the place where Flight 93 crashed into the ground, leaving no bodies and no parts of plane, according to the official report.  The coroner‘s report says that the crash cannot be explained. Rodney rightly asserts that therefore, everything they are about to hear is speculation, not proof.

Crater at Shanksville.

Here we are presented with the craziest science yet. Greg Feith, former American Air Safety Investigator with the NTSB tells us that when Flight 93 hit the ground, the nose stopped but the rest of the plane still had so much energy that it collapsed into itself but by then it was 40 feet underground so the earth fell in on top of it and it was buried. That's why the crater was so shallow. But the black box was recovered almost immediately. We’re also told that on high speed impact, human bodies will explode like water balloons, like they didn’t in the Pentagon where Alan Kilscheimer saw deceased stewardesses. Feith then has the five doubters dropping stones into piles of flour; the stone, representing the plane; the flour, the ground. They are also given eggs to throw on the ground to see how something can shatter into tiny fragments. Then water balloons to demonstrate how debris can scatter over a large area. Hang on, Greg -  you've lost me. I only have a GCSE in Physics but a hard stone hitting a loose pile of soft flour just seems a little different from an egg hitting the hard ground. Which is the plane? The stone, the egg or the water balloon? Which is the ground? Soft, loose flour or hard concrete? What happened to the plane, Greg?  Did it get buried, did it shatter into tiny pieces, did it get scattered for miles, or are you talking total bullshit?

This isn't an inquest into Humpty-Dumpty's death, Feith.

3000 deaths, hundreds of thousands more in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Feith’s trying to justify it all with an egg? At least Charlie seems happy with this explanation, messing about with a model of a Boeing 757 when back on the bus, ignoring Rodney, the science graduate. Remember, Rodney didn’t tell his Mum about the trip!

Faked Phone Calls?

Next Andrew wants to prove the existence of Flight 93 by taking them to meet Mark Bingham’s mother, Alice Hoglan who received a call from her son who was on board Flight 93 when it was hijacked, according to the official story.

Shazin has chosen as her most definitive and irrefutable opposition to the official story, the theory that the phone calls were faked. How about Building 7? The missing 2.3 trillion? The mysterious deaths of 9/11 witnesses over the last ten years? Nope. It’s got to be the fake phone calls. Oh well. I expect this is down to the BBC's editing, those other questions may well have been asked over the course of the week.

Charlotte points out that during the phone call to his mother, Mark Bingham didn’t answer any direct questions but repeated what he had said first. This suggests that his voice could have been recorded previously, morphed and ‘played’ to his mother. This is how the conversation went.

M.B: “Hi Mom this is Mark Bingham. I want you to know that I love you. There’s three men that say they have a bomb.”
A.H: “Well, who are they, Mark?”
He repeated that he loved her and then the phone went dead. She phoned his cell back twice and left two messages.

Dr George Patterson(?) an inventor of voice morphing technology, takes a recording of Shazin’s voice. Her own words are; ‘I think everyone wants to be optimistic..’ and with his software he makes her say: ‘I think everyone wants to disappear and vanish.’ It is very convincing; it sounds exactly like her. However, Patterson thinks it would be too impractical to do in live time. Rodney says it could be done on a soundboard. I don’t know what that is but looking back at what Charlotte said, if Mark Bingham didn’t answer any questions and the conversation was one way, it could have been recorded and manipulated previously. 

What follows is an emotional and touching meeting with Alice Hoglan.  She tells the group that she subsequently heard the cockpit recording (from the recovered black box presumably.) She heard people running and someone shouting:  ‘In the cockpit! In the cockpit!’ and that’s it. For Andrew, the aim of meeting her is to convince the rest of the group that she believes she was talking to her son. Afterwards, reasonable-nice-chap Andrew escorts Alice back to her car, whilst Baader-meinhoff nanny Charlotte and Mum-hater Rodney are still not convinced. Rodney says he has no doubt that she believes she spoke to her son, but that it's still a possibility the phone call was faked. The technology is there, he says. It is a convenient ending for Andrew and the BBC. It’s obviously trying to ‘break’ the contestants with emotion and guilt, intending to make any who still think there was more to 9/11 than the official story, feel bad about doing so. Next we cut to an argument on the bus where Emily says Charlotte has a heart of stone, and I guess it’s edited like his because the audience is supposed to agree with her. (Emily later said they made up swiftly but this was cut.)

A reason why the BBC chose such young participants is that they anticipated they would be susceptible to this kind of crude manipulation and bias persuasion, and therefore ‘break’ easily.  There was no Richard Gage or Judy Wood to the themite expert. No David Ray Griffin to the Alan Kilscheimer.  No Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to the Brent Blanchard. I could go on.
The BBC is saying: ‘If you think there was a US government or Mossad conspiracy behind 9/11, you don’t care about the victims.’ It’s reminds me of 1984 and double think:

New Enquiry=Cruel. Complicit Silence =Sympathy and Respect. 


Pentagon Memorial

As the group convalesce and reflect on all they've experienced at the Pentagon Memorial, Andrew reviews which ones he has managed to 'crack.' With Charlotte and Rodney, he has failed. Emily looks quite exhausted and is on the fence. Shazin says she's the 'least conspiratorial,' which is not what she means but we know what she means because we're all used to this new language by now, that the BBC and the government have invented for 9/11 and the War on Terror. Charlie has gone from being a high profile 'Truther' to dismissing everything he thought before as propaganda. In just one week. Hmm.

At least they can all agree on one thing, laments Andrew, that 9/11 was a tragedy. I think they knew that already but thanks, Andrew, without your guidance and this ridiculous programme, I may not have realised.

No doubt, I haven’t debunked all of the debunking in the programme as thoroughly as I might have with the information now available, but I will add this:  The ‘theory’ that the official report is not the be all and end all of 9/11, is not a linear argument that breaks when one piece of supporting information doesn't fit. The many questions that need to be answered have multiple strands with supporting evidence, and if one falls away, the whole thing does not break, or disintegrate, like planes. If it does, the same should be true of the official story.

I’m still not sure if it was worth tackling this programme but I hope I’ve highlighted some of the holes in the arguments in a more consistent way than they were presented to us. 

Thanks for reading.

Saturday, 3 September 2011

On Robert Fisk on 9/11

The opening paragraph of Robert Fisk's article, 'The Lies we still tell ourselves about 9/11', published in Saturday's Independent:

"By their books, ye shall know them. I'm talking about the volumes, the libraries, nay- the very halls of literature- which the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001 have spawned. Many are spavined with pseudo-patriotism and self-regard, others rotten with the hopeless mythology of CIA/Mossad culprits, a few (from the Muslim world, alas) even referring to the killers as "boys", almost all avoiding the one thing which any cop looks for after a street crime: the motive."

He goes on to highlight in a tone of condemnation "hundreds of thousand of innocent deaths..lies and hypocrisy and sadistic torture by the Americans - our MI5 chaps just heard, understood, maybe looked, of course, no touchy, touchy nonsense- and the Taliban."

And then asks:

"Are we still not able to say those three sentences: the 19 murderers claimed they were Muslims. They came from the Middle East. Is there a problem out there?"

Throughout the article, Fisk's frustration and the cause of it is clear; despite 'the halls of literature', the 'deluge of post 9/11 trauma' TV and films, few have mentioned the word, Israel. Fisk comments on some of the deluge, and we get the firm impression that the answer to his own question lies in his quote from Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan's book, The Eleventh Day : "All the evidence.. indicates that Palestine was the factor that united the conspirators - on every level" and "Palestine was certainly the principal political grievance driving the young Arabs.."  

Parallel to this, he rightly emphasises that in this 9/11 fest, the media rarely mentions Iraq and when it does, does not explain "the degree to which 11 September 2001 provided the excuse for this 2003 war crime. (How many died on 9/11? almost 3,000. How many died in the Iraq war? Who cares?")

Fisk was in journalism when I was in nappies. He lived in Beirut for 30 years and has reported from all over the Middle East. Me? Oh, I've stopped over in Doha airport on the way to Vietnam. It doesn't really give me grounds to start criticising his views. A lot of the time, I wouldn't need to; I wholeheartedly agree with Fisk's assertions on the illegality of the Iraq war, the horror of the invasion of Afghanistan, the hypocrisy of the Americans, intelligence services and the Taliban. I condone his support for Palestine, his criticism of Israel, his scathing description of 'Obama on his knees before Netanyahu.'  Fisk wrote a brilliant an inspiring piece during the News International scandal earlier this year, in which he outlined his reasons for leaving Murdoch's The Times; Murdoch's bias toward Israel. I think of Fisk as a force for good, a humanitarian journalist, one who is motivated by the noble aim of disseminating the truth.

What I don't understand about Fisk on 9/11 is his simultaneously conflicting viewpoints on the 9/11 Truth Movement. I will define the term loosely: those who question the official 9/11 Commission and Warren enquiry and would like to see a new and impartial investigation carried out. Many in this bracket believe that The Bush Administration, the CIA or Mossad were compliant in, if not planned the attacks.

On the same page, Fisk regards the movement as 'rotten', but when he talks of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, he says he is 'not surprised that millions of Americans believe [what Scholars for 9/11 Truth have told us.]' 

The reason behind such mythology, he understands is 'the secretive, obtuse and sometimes dishonest account presented by the Whitehouse- not to mention the initial hoodwinking of the official 9/11 Commission staff.'

In an article about motive, I am surprised that Fisk does not discuss the motive behind such secretiveness. The official line would no doubt be 'National Security', or embarrassment limitation; the Whitehouse sheepishly trying to cover-up the incompetence of the world's most military equipped Super Power against some Arabs armed with box cutters. I anticipate Fisk would be willing to accept this line. But let's look back to 2007, to a previous  of Fisk's articles on 9/11 for The Independent titled, 'Even I question the truth on 9/11.'

The purpose of the first two paragraphs seem solely to separate himself from 'the ravers' who apparently plague his lectures worldwide, kicking chairs over.  The raver is irrational, sometimes distressed, forever asking Fisk, 'Why don't you reveal the truth behind 9/11?'

He says, "The assumption in each case is that Fisk knows – that Fisk has an absolute concrete, copper-bottomed fact-filled desk containing final proof of what "all the world knows."
I think that could be a crude assessment of the assumption behind the question, perhaps it is a badly articulated question and 'the raver' means, 'why don't you investigate the truth behind 9/11?' and, 'As this has had such a huge effect on the Middle East, don't you want to know what's behind it?'

This fear of being grouped with the 9/11 'ravers' and 'nutjobs' is endemic in the mainstream media. In any admission to the credibiltiy and legitimate questions of the  9/11 Truth Movement, a mainstream journalist always guards himself against the nutjob label, thus Fisk's opening paragraphs laying the ground; identifying the 'real nutjobs'; separating himself; I'm not a nutjob, but-.

"But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.
I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".

If I were at a lecture of Fisk's, I would ask why these questions are not as important to him now as they were four years ago. I would, of course, supress all traces of outrage, passion, or disbelief in my voice, in case I might sound like 'a raver.' I'm finding the whole 'nutjob thing' so tiresome and old to be honest.

Former BBC Middle East Correspondent Alan Hart revealed in an interview with Alex Jones, his knowledge about 9/11 and his true thoughts on Mossad involvement. He said he didn't include them in his book because he didn't want to come under attack and be labelled as a conspiracy theorist which would distract from the rest of his book's content. But since his book has been published by the time of the interview and he no longer works for the BBC, it is a lot easier for him to share his unique knowledge.

Alan Hart: "The time has come to end my silence. The mainstream media has betrayed democracy."

In Fisk's July article for the Independent 'Why I had to leave The Times,' he talked of self-censorship; how journalists under Murdoch just knew what was printable and what was out of bounds. Yet, he appears to have exercised a form of self-censorship in The Independent also: 'our MI5 chaps just heard, understood, maybe looked, of course, no touchy, touchy nonsense,'  he scoffs. It is humorous in its simultaneous obedience and rejection of MI5's official line but it also says, 'I'm going to say something without really saying it, because I know where my boundaries lie.'

I wonder if Fisk is aware that families of 9/11 victims are leading the BuildingWhat? campaign, which aims to raise awareness of Building 7 and demand that New York City Council and Manhattan District Attorney  open an investigation into Building 7′s destruction.

Building 7 is weakly linked to the hijackers, cough, whose flight school teachers said were terrible pilots, cough. See, now I'm doing it! As Fisk himself says in his 2007 article: 'World Trade Centre Building 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it?'  Does Fisk think the answer to that question lies in the Palestinian -Israeli conflict? To suggest explosives were present in the building is a less 'hopeless' notion. So how did they get there? Who put them there? Supporters of Palestine??
The more you take Building 7 into account, the more the likelihood of the 9/11 Commission and its version of events unravels.

In Saturday's article Fisk rubbishes the myth that '9/11 changed the world forever'- it was the Bush/Blair repetition of this dangerous notion that allowed their thugs to indulge in murderous invasions and torture.. '

Can you spot the clue in there? Wasn't 9/11 and the media's  repitition of the above notion just a little too convenient for US foreign and domestic policies, some of which had been outlined long before? 

General Wesley Clark on 9/11

Fisk focuses on the alleged hijacker's motives but little on our governments' motives. Does he, as a journalist reporting on war, really think that Bush and Blair endorsed the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions with the aim of defeating an enemy and protecting our nations? Why did our Prime Minister ignore the million who turned up in London to protest against it? Did they think they needed 'protecting?' Does Fisk believe that bullshit that at the time Blair really did think Iraq had WMDs?  Does Fisk not think these wars were at all about oil, opium control, the industrial military complex, the Patriot Act, etc etc? 

Yes, the Arab world may well be angry about Palestine, some may well want to attack countries that support Israel. On my pathetic excuse for a trip to the Middle East: Doha Airport, I was sat next to a Pakistani man. He wanted to talk about Islam. I wanted to talk about 9/11. He said a true Muslim would never take his own life, never mind another's; suicide is the worst sin. He also shrugged and asked, "Why do you think the Arab world would want to attack America?" 
"Palestine?" I said. He nodded.  

Fisk has a completely valid point and in all this deluge of '9/11 Ten Years On' media, the West should indeed be thinking about Israel and our relationship with it. But is he missing another point? If I had the chance, I'd offer to sift through some of the deluge for him and ask him to reconsider his views in light of Alan Hart's interview and David Ray Griffin's book, 'The New Pearl Harbour,' which details FBI HQ ignoring prior warnings from lower levels about an upcoming attack and blocking investigations, the PNAC New Pearl Harbour document, and many other startling pieces of information. Maybe look at those things before dismissing the truth movement as 'rotten.'
It hardly seems like a fair adjective for those who are also passionately opposed to war and war criminals, and whose questioning of the Official report does not indicate disrespect for the 9/11 victims and their families, but quite the opposite.   


Operation Northwoods
Operation Northwoods: Unclassified documents which outline false-flag operations that originated within the United States in 1962. The proposals called for the CIA or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation.