Alan Colmes And Leslie Marshall Get It Exactly Right On 9/11 Movie

There has been so much news and so much coverage of the loose change news in the past week, that it would take 100 posts to cover it all. So I thought I'd just present this one-Josh

Alan Colmes And Leslie Marshall Get It Exactly Right On Sheen's 9/11 Movie

Lew Rockwell.com | March 26, 2007
Thomas E. Woods, Jr.






There was yet another great segment for liberals on Hannity & Colmes Friday night, March 23, 2007. Alan Colmes and News Hounds top dog and radio talk show host Leslie Marshall provided the perfect response to attacks from Sean Hannity and Michael Reagan against Charlie Sheen over his narration in a “9/11 conspiracy” film. Marshall and Colmes confronted Hannity and Reagan for attacking Sheen with personal insults rather than debating the issues at hand. Neither Hannity nor Reagan had a counterargument, other than to level more attacks at Sheen and the left. The result, in my view, was that Hannity and Reagan were exposed as thuggish oafs while Marshall and Colmes sounded the voices of reason. With video.

Hannity, during a teaser at the beginning of the program said, “The hopelessly confused actor is going to narrate a film full of his wild-eyed conspiracy theories.” Can you imagine Alan Colmes saying before a segment about, say, Ann Coulter, “The hopelessly malicious columnist will offer more of her crackpot theories in an upcoming book?” I can't. On FOX News, the conservatives do the attacking, often while complaining about the rhetoric of the left.

At the beginning of the actual discussion, Hannity played a clip of Sheen calmly talking about why he doesn't believe the official explanation of 9/11. Hannity said, “That was Charlie Sheen, ranting like a lunatic.”

Reagan didn't waste a moment getting in a slur of his own. “The apple does not fall far from the very tree at all, with Martin Sheen being his father.”

In synch with the conservatives, the screen chyron read, “CHARLIE SHEEN'S 9/11 CONSPIRACY RANT HEADED TO THE BIG SCREEN.”

Reagan added, without explaining how he “knew,” that jihadists will use the film to blame the Jews.

Marshall laughed at that, saying that she has a lot more Jew in her than he does. Comment: Why don't more liberals laugh at conservative attempts to intimidate them? What could take the wind out of a bully's sails more?

Marshall said, “Last time I checked, we're all Americans here… I don't think someone's an idiot if they disagree with you or me, Sean…. I don't think Sheen's an idiot for expressing his mind.” Responding to Hannity's ridicule of conspiracy theorists, she added, “Last time I checked, there are a lot of people today in Dallas standing on a grassy knoll, still disputing the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter is still in office.”

During Colmes' turn, he said to Reagan, “Look, the fact of the matter is, I don't agree with Charlie Sheen. But, you know, your way of dealing with it though is to ‘Let's denounce Charlie Sheen. Let's denounce Martin Sheen…' rather than actually debate the issue and talk about just what's going on here. You want to make it personal and go after the individual.”

Reagan answered, “You're out of your mind to debate that.”

Colmes continued, “You're missing my point. My point is, you take free speech, which we all agree we all have, and you meet that with other free speech... That's the way free speech works… You choose to make it a personal attack on the individual rather than deal with what the individual is saying, which you can easily refute.”

Reagan had no answer to that, apparently. So he widened his field of attack. “People who support that also are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”

“Stop with the aid and comfort to the enemy,” Colmes told him. “Michael, can we believe everything the government tells us?”

Reagan stopped in his tracks. “What kind of a question is that, Alan?”

“A good one!” Colmes fired back. “I'm trying to get beyond the idiot-calling and actually have a conversation with you, if that's possible. We've already established that you think he's an idiot. That's your level of debate. Do you think the government would ever lie to us?”

But Reagan didn't seem to have anything else to say beyond attacking the left. “Don't make the issue other than what it is. It is Charlie Sheen, Mark Cuban supporting Charlie Sheen and putting this out so the left can have an orgasm…”

Marshall jumped in. “The only person having an orgasm here, Michael, are the right, attacking the Sheens – Charlie and his father – attacking any conspiracy theory, actually attacking any one individual on a personal level – I agree with Alan – rather than just ‘let's sit down and talk.' …One of the things that I know is that you can only learn more if you hear every side and every opinion.”

Reagan, stymied again, responded with yet more invective. He said scornfully, “Charlie is a wonderful human being, just a wonderful guy…”

Marshall answered, “That's not what I said. I've never met him… I'm here to debate what he's doing. I'm not going to debate his character.”

Hannity broke in to end the discussion. Waggling his bullyboy pen, he declared, without offering any evidence, “He has free speech but I gotta tell you something. This will be used by America's enemies as propaganda.” Comment: Unlike, say, an invasion of a Middle East country on false pretenses?

Colmes said sarcastically, “You should never speak out in this country.”

Dallas brings 9-11 truth to end the war protest

Josh Reeves
northtexansfor911truth.com

Hundreds gathered in Dallas Monday march 19Th on the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war, to protest the ongoing occupation of the middle east by the united states. People of all ages and colors descended upon mockingbird lane in a march that culminated in an end of march block party on the smu campus, where speakers and protesters mingled in an open sea of issues behind a backdrop of signs,reggae music,and a fully equipped riot squad.Topics ranged from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq,the impending Iran invasion,and the planned bush presidential library the site on which the protest was ended.

But amid the majority of straight line anti-war protesters,was a small group of local 9-11 truth activists who represented the exploding 9-11 truth movement with signs,information,flyers,deception dollars and hundreds of free DVDs,with the bulk of protesters being open and receptive to the groups efforts.

Chants of "9-11 was inside job!" could be heard echoing through the crowd with others picking up and chiming in. Although it seemed most of the participants in the march had no idea of such things as building 7, or the fact that 9-11 was the prime motivator for the Iraq war, people were very receptive and hungry for the info their fellow Americans were handing out to them.

Some confused individuals were heard saying such things as "I believe JFK but I don't believe that" and "I was under the impression the 9-11 truth commission said osama and the Taliban had no involvement in 9-11" as well as "My brother works for NASA and he tried to tell me the moon landing was fake and I don't believe that either!"

With the exception of a small minority the general public seemed to be accepting of 9-11 truth but also seemed to be starved and deprived of the information itself.
One member of the group walked around with a portable DVD player showing wtc 7's collapse to the marchers, sending them home interested and with DVDs in hand.
As well as participants,local media crews were also given copies of DVDs which yielded "9-11 truth now!!" signs being shown on local television media and print.

Titles included Alex Jones Terrorstorm,9-11 mysteries,Aaron russo's America freedom to fascism and loose change.

The concerned population of citizens are hungry for the truth but still seem to be reliant of the mass media to bring them information.Once we are able to reach the masses on a large scale,9-11 truth will become the unstoppable fire that will burn through the illusion of the fictitious left/right paradigm.

This is a call to arms to all 9-11 truth activists to participate in their area in protests no matter what political issue or group may be involved.
Once you realize that people WANT to know the truth, you can realize YOUR own place in the fight to take back our republic.

Video coming soon to google

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_078222731.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=129440&catId%20=513

O'Donnell Out Of The Closet... As A 9/11 Truther Talk show host lays out WTC 7 facts in blog

It has been evident for a number of weeks now that talk show host Rosie O'Donnell has been trying to cover 9/11 truth in the best way she can without being yanked off the air - now her latest blog posting confirms this.

In her latest blog, dated March 15th, O'Donnell dispenses with the small talk and gets to the nub of the matter by stating some of the facts surrounding the demolition of building 7 on 9/11.

Here is the Blog entry in full:

at 5 30 pm
9 11 2001
wtc7 collapsed

for the third time in history
fire brought down a steel building
reducing it to rubble

hold on folks
here we go

• The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
• Silverstein said to the fire department commander “the smartest thing to do is pull it.”
• Firefighters withdrawing from the area stated the building was going to “blow up”.
• The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint.
• Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.

[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency’s major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. …”Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive,” said Max Berger of New York’s Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. “This is a disaster for these cases.” [New York Lawyer]

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]

Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service’s largest field office with more than 200 employees. …”All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building,” according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]

lets start here
ok…go slow
remember 2 breathe
use google


Clearly anticipating a huge response, O'Donnell has suspended the comments form on the post.

O'Donnell's day time ABC chat show, The View first came to the attention of the 9/11 truth community last December when actor James Brolin, the husband of Barbara Streisand, encouraged viewers of the show to check out the website 911weknow.com, which purports to expose how the twin towers and Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, were brought down via controlled demolition.

The show then came to our attention again last month when O'Donnell and a panel discussed John Conner of the Resistance Manifesto. At this time O'Donnell mimicked Conner by shouting "9/11 was an inside job" in front of her mainstream audience.

On the panel at that time was The "Grey Gardens" star Christine Ebersole, who declared her admiration for Conner. Ebersole then appeared on John Conner's radio show (MP3) and stated that she agreed a corrupt faction within the U.S. government is to blame for 9/11.

"I think we want to look at our government as sort of like a benevolent father that's going to take care of us and be kind to us and treat us well, and I think it's too much for our people to conceptualize, and I'm sure that's what happened to people in Nazi Germany," Ebersole commented.

The New York Post immediately blasted Ebersole as a "kook".

O'Donnell was again in the news today after she covered the "confession" of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, questioning it's authenticity. The Huffington Post commented:

"...it's very difficult to assert anything with certainty right now. But it's a little disquieting to listen to the laugher of the View audience and they try to figure out what they should be cheering for and what should bother them."

Indeed, it seems that O'Donnell has woken up to 9/11 truth only to find herself in a situation where her audience are not really 'typical' truth seekers, which is entirely a good thing. It therefore comes as no surprise to see Rosie O'Donnell making a more forceful attempt to educate her readers at this time.

It is important to stress that celebrity sound bites do not make a revolution, but it is important to remember that people such as O'Donnell have an avenue to reach a lot of people. It is down to the discretion of her viewers to decide whether to look into what she is saying.

While many have praised her, some vicious bloggers have already labeled O'Donnell as a lunatic and an anti-semite and are calling for her head, no doubt the mainstream media will pick up on this as they usually do, two days later than everyone else.

Watch this space.

Is There A Secret To The 9/11 Insurance Battle? Why is Allianz really holding out on paying Larry Silverstein?

Infowars.net | March 14, 2007
Steve Watson

A major insurance company is holding back from paying Larry Silverstein insurance money he says he is still owed from the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, the question is why?

Reuters is reporting:
Mr Silverstein, who leased the downtown site destroyed on September 11, 2001, claims Allianz still owes him $US553 million ($A708.57 million) and that a second insurer, Britain's Royal & Sun Alliance, owes him $US250 million ($A320.33 million). He said their reluctance had slowed rebuilding at the site.

Silverstein has making a great deal of noise this week out on the streets of Manhattan with a crowd of about 200 cheering construction workers chanting "We're going to make you pay!''

Silverstein has also been comparing his case to that of Gulf Coast homeowners who are suing for claims from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. "You can count on some insurance companies to look for every way they can think of to avoid paying up,'' he is quoted as saying.

The payment dispute arose when Silverstein agreed with New York's Port Authority on terms for the reconstruction of the new Freedom tower in April last year. Under the deal, he was granted permission to build the Freedom Tower but is required to hand it back to the Port Authority after completion.

Silverstein later filed a lawsuit in June, claiming that seven insurers had refused to provide assurances that their obligations to pay were unaffected by the April agreement. Silverstein has claimed that it is this that is holding up redevelopment at ground zero.

Allianz is now the sole remaining insurance carrier that has not affirmed they will pay out

The New York Times reported at the time:
But a lawyer for Allianz, which owes a maximum of $552.5 million at ground zero, said yesterday that the lawsuit was unnecessary, because a legal proceeding was begun nearly five years ago to determine exactly how much money is owed at ground zero under the terms of the insurance policy. He said that Mr. Silverstein was merely seeking a different venue for one of many issues now being debated in federal court.

At the end of two trials in 2004, a federal court decided that the insurers owed a maximum of $4.6 billion, more than the $3.5 billion term of the insurance policy. Silverstein had originally claimed $7 billion, attempting to prove that the crashing of the two planes into two towers constituted two separate events. The two sides have been locked in a grueling appraisal process to determine exactly how much of the $4.6 billion must be paid out.

A spokeswoman for Allianz has said that a mediation process between Mr Silverstein and the German insurer began yesterday. She said she had no further details.

Reuters further reports:
The Allianz spokeswoman said the insurer had already paid almost $US2 billion ($A2.56 billion) in claims from the World Trade Center disaster, settling with all its policy holders except for Silverstein and the Port Authority.

Ms Schwarzer said Allianz has paid Mr Silverstein and the Port Authority almost $US550 million ($A704.72 million) and that the developer had more than enough money in the bank to begin construction at the lower Manhattan site.

Another spokeswoman for Allianz, Andreas Shell, head of the damages department, was quoted by the Financial Times as saying "The reconstruction could start immediately. This is not down to the insurers,"

It now seems that Allianz is being forced to back down as Brooklyn-Queens Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner has vowed to punish the insurers with fines or operating restrictions if they do not pay up.

Silverstein is determined to rake in every last penny possible from 9/11 and has already secured billions from other insurers without a blink of an eye over the fact that he leased the property just six weeks before the attacks and has since been caught in an admission that he ordered at least one of the buildings, WTC 7, "pulled" on 9/11.

Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the World Trade Center complex. Photos taken minutes before its collapse show small fires on two or three floors. Building 7 became only the third steel building in history before or since 9/11 to collapse from fire damage. The other two were the North and South towers of the World Trade Center.

We have thoroughly documented the mystery surrounding the collapse of building 7 , an issue which recently exploded back into the limelight with the revelations that the BBC reported that the building had collapsed up to an hour before it actually fell.

Any building that was not owned by Silverstein Properties that day strangely remained upright, despite being a lot closer to the two towers that collapsed onto them.

Questions about the highly suspicious nature of the building's collapse remained comparatively muted until January 2004, when a PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, originally broadcast in September 2002, received attention across the Internet.

The documentary was made infamous for one comment made by Larry Silverstein on the subject of 9/11. Silverstein states, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six." The term is industry jargon for planned demolition.

For the following year and a half the Internet and alternative talk radio was aflame with talk of Building 7 and Silverstein's apparent admission. For many it is now the central issue of 9/11.

In January last year we reported that the State Department, as part of its pathetic efforts to debunk 9/11 research, had posted a response from Silverstein's spokesperson Dara McQuillan to the "pull it" saga.

The statement read:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics ( 9/11: Debunking the Myths , March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Silverstein's explanation, after two years of stonewalling, that "pull it" meant to withdraw the firefighters is a lie. There were no firefighters in the building for hours before the building's collapse.

Furthermore, even if he did mean "pull the firefighters" then why did he say "pull it", with no reference to anything other than the building? Consider also the timing: "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Could it really be possible that some (nonexistent) fire brigade was removed from the building and just at that moment ("then") the building collapsed? Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant?

The only reasonable conclusion is that Larry Silverstein's statement is an admission that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, meaning that the official version of what happened to WTC 7 is false, and casting serious doubt on the official story that terrorists of a foreign origin destroyed the twin towers, as well as on the rest of the official account of 9/11. Note that this admission is a statement against Silverstein's own interests (putting him at odds with the official version of events and potentially jeopardizing his insurance claims). Such statements are given great weight as a matter of law.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

Since then a total of nine insurance companies have continued to pay Silverstein as the legal wrangle continues. The only ones who have resisted in any way have been Allianz.

Interesting it is then that Allianz are also the only insurance company involved to also refer to the Silverstein "pull it" saga.

In May 2005 we carried a report from press release website PR Web which highlighted a proposal by a small shareholder to withhold approval from the Board of Directors for failure to investigate signs of insurance fraud on 9/11 had been published on the website of the Allianz Group in preparation for its May 4th annual meeting.

The report stated:

Allianz Group published a shareholder proposal on April 20th faulting management for ignoring signs of insurance fraud on 9/11/2001. Allianz carried a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, and stands to pay a corresponding portion of the $3.5 billion payout currently being litigated in New York. In his proposal, shareholder John Leonard, a California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition, and for no plausible reason related to the 9/11 attacks. Management replied that it relied on official US government reports which made no mention of such evidence.

The Allianz Group is incorporated in Germany and has approximately 570,000 shareholders. Under German Stock Companies law, publicly held companies are required to publish shareholder proposals that meet certain criteria.

The full text of the proposal can be read at the bottom of our original posting of this report here .

Is it possible that Allianz have indeed looked into these claims and are withholding any more pay outs partially due to these factors?

If so there may be a secret to this insurance battle that Silverstein properties and certainly the federal government would not want to expose. This is certainly an interesting possibility and a case we shall be keeping close watch on.

Paul Joseph Watson contributed research to this report.

Newly Unearthed Footage Exposes 9/11 Media Scripting Bizarre foreknowledge and explanation of towers' collapse more cryptic clairvoyance

Yet more archive news footage unearthed from broadcasts on 9/11 offers further evidence that the media were being fed a script in which a cover story was quickly groomed to offset questions about the highly suspicious collapse of the twin towers.

Two weeks ago we highlighted BBC World footage from September 11 in which a correspondent reports the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. New footage unearthed from Britain's Channel 5 news coverage provokes more questions about 9/11 scripting in a similar vein.

"Sections of the other tower are also crumbling - now the reason this is happening, according to the website for the World Trade Center, they're actually telling us that the structure, the outside cladding of this building is integral to the safety and security of it," states the news anchor following the collapse of the south tower.

"Once you penetrate that apparently the very structure of the building is under threat and that's why one tower has already collapsed."

The suspicious rapidity of the instant press release aside, why did the World Trade Center's website carry such a blatantly fallacious explanation for the collapse of the first tower? Even the layman knows that any modern building is anchored by core columns, not "outside cladding," and the twin towers were no different . To rest a building's integrity on its "outside cladding" is a reversal of all commonly accepted architectural knowledge. Why was the World Trade Center website peddling this nonsense in contradiction with the words of the twin tower's own designers ?

Included in over a dozen examples compiled here , Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said that the towers could sustain "multiple impacts of jetliners" without collapsing.

In addition, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, stated that, “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”

The twin towers were desgined to absorb airliner impacts by means of their 47 huge core columns. The twin towers could not be compromised simply by damaging their "outside cladding," such a claim is patently absurd and why it was immediately peddled as an explanation for their collapse is highly suspect.

Later in the clip, the anchor comments, "It is completely enveloped in smoke, it is on fire, and we understand that this other tower is also in a situation of near collapse."

Based on the testimony of the experts who designed and built the twin towers, how on earth could officials and the media be so sure that the towers were going to collapse unless they were being fed a script by individuals who knew they were about to be imploded and were carefully preparing the cover story?

Another video that was shot before the first tower had even collapsed shows people on the street telling others to get back from the towers because they are about to "explode." Since no modern steel building had collapsed from fire damage alone and the fires were almost out, as described in the firefighter tapes , to forecast that the towers were about to crumble, a fortuitous act of clairvoyance that was also enjoyed by Rudy Giuliani , was an impossible prediction to make unless a pre-planned script was already circulating.

There are also videos of "experts" in news studios and even eyewitnesses on the ground intricately detailing why the towers collapsed within minutes and hours of them falling.

As the video below makes clear, if a crime were committed and immediately afterwards "experts" appeared on the scene claiming knowledge that no one could possibly have about the crime, would this be in the least bit suspicious?


Shortly after the collapse of the towers, a "random" eyewitness on the street interviewed by Fox News states with perfect clarity, "I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second - mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense ." The individual sounds like he is reading a prepared statement. There is no "I think" or speculation in the statement, it's boldly proclaimed as an undoubted fact, despite the many reports of additional explosions relayed by firefighters, first responders and journalists that preceded the towers' collapse.



How did this "average Joe" manage to get ahead of NIST and FEMA in clearly annunciating what would later become the official cover story - especially considering that by the time the towers collapsed most of the "intense" fires had been replaced by oxygen starved black smoke?

In addition, more BBC video from the day of 9/11 has been unearthed in which a correspondent, within hours of the towers coming down, claims the reason for the collapses is because of their design. He then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns.

The news anchors in the Channel 5 clip also make mention of a car bomb at the State Department and the bombing of a shopping mall in Washington DC. These were not rumors generated as a result of "confusion" as is often the defense - the anchor cites a "senior U.S. law enforcement official" as the source. Why did officials inform the news agencies of these events when in hindsight we know they never happened?

The State Department bomb report was also picked up by Forbes , who attributed it to "State Department sources." Reports of suspicious packages would be expected in a time of such hysteria but can "confusion" account for reports of actual bombings attributed to senior officials?

It is commonly accepted that the breadth of the 9/11 attack was planned to be larger in scope because Flight 93 did not reach its target. Were the State Department and Washington Mall "bombings" intended to go ahead but for whatever reason failed or were called off? Was the media fed the script too early as in the case of Building 7?

By the evening of September 11, following a "perimeter walk around our building," the State Department publicly stated that no such bombing had taken place.

Why were senior State Department officials telling the media that there had been a bombing without even conducting a basic appraisal of the building's perimeter? Can this all be put down to "confusion" or were some elements of the 9/11 script changed according to how events were unfolding on the day?

Boeing Fitting Aircraft With Illegal Parts? Chip that was illegally installed in 2000 could have been utilized to execute 9/11 attacks

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Wednesday, March 7, 2007


Are Boeing fitting their aircraft with illegal devices that could enable terrorists to remotely hijack airliners and crash them into high profile targets? In light of what happened on 9/11, Boeing's blanket denial that this practice has taken place is both highly suspicious and a threat to national security.

We called ALPA, the world's largest pilot's union, to ask them if such technology had been installed in commercial airliners and they denied all knowledge, despite the fact that Boeing were hit with a record fine of $15 million after the company broke the law by selling commercial planes equipped with the QRS-11 gyrochip, which is also used in the guidance system of the Maverick missile.

According to the Associated Press, from 2000 to 2003 Boeing shipped 94 airliners oversees, mainly to China, that contained the chip, a device used for "military applications," stated the report.

According to the Seattle Times, "The QRS-11 chip, made by a unit of BEI Technologies in Concord, Calif., is just over 1-½ inches in diameter and weighs about 2 ounces. It sells for between $1,000 and $2,000. Described as "a gyro on a chip," it is used to help control the flight of missiles and aircraft."

"There could be dozens, even hundreds more components like the QRS11 gyros that have slipped under the eyes of State Department enforcers, said Joel Johnson, the vice president international of the Aerospace Industries Association," reports the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and "Aircraft incorporating the QRS11 chips are already routinely making flights."

Should it concern us that Boeing began installation of a chip that turns a plane into a remotely guided missile immediately before 9/11?

One month before 9/11, German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that U.S. military-industrial complex giant Raytheon landed a 727 jet six times by remote control using GPS technology at a Hollomon AFB in New Mexico.



In April 2001, aviation history was made when a Global Hawk, which is equivalent in wingspan to a Boeing 737, flew by remote control out of Edwards Air Force Base, across the Pacific Ocean, and landed safely at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state.

Other sources from within the airline industry have told us that such devices were common in aircraft years before 9/11, a remarkable supposition that has led many to suspect that the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were executed using this remote access system.

Recent newspaper reports discussing these devices and the policy to have them in all airliners within three years assure us that they would prevent another 9/11 style outrage - but because any such system is vulnerable to hacking allied with the fact that pilots have no way of overriding the autopilot, not even with secure access codes, this only increases the chances of another 9/11 style attack.

A comprehensive investigation on behalf of those who have the authority and resources to perform it needs to be mandated immediately into whether devices that completely remove control of a plane from the pilot and that have illegally been installed in many existing aircraft are a fundamental danger to national security.

Also visit www.hawkscafe.com for source info

Photo Suggests Building 7 Fires Staged?

Editor of WhatReallyHappened.com and TV visual effects specialist Michael Rivero saw the Building 7 photo we posted in our earlier article and had some interesting comments about the small fires seen in the image.
I am looking at the photo of the WTC-7 fired Paul uses in this article and alarm bells are going off. As long-time readers know my "day job" is in film and TV visual effects, and frankly those fires look like the fires we intentionally set up to make a building LOOK like it is on fire.

Now, those are real fires, and stuff is really burning, but those fires are all up against the windows. There does not appear to be any fire deeper inside the building. A real fire would have blown through the tunnels from the towers, gone up the elevator shafts, and spread out from the core. The more I look at THESE fires in the photo I get the sense they were deliberately set to create a reason for the building to come down.

I know there is no way to prove that, of course. But that is what they look like to me. It does not make sense that fire supposedly blown up through the elevator shafts would just plant itself in a few offices up against the glass and leave the rest of the floors uninvolved.

The photograph was taken at around 3PM on 9/11, approximately 2 hours 20 minutes before the collapse of WTC 7 (or around 1 hour 54 minutes if you're the BBC ).

BBC strikes Google-YouTube deal

BBC strikes Google-YouTube deal

By Tim Weber
Business editor, BBC News website

Friday, 2 March 2007, 11:31 GMT

The BBC has struck a content deal with YouTube, the web's most popular video sharing website, owned by Google.

Three YouTube channels - one for news and two for entertainment - will showcase short clips of BBC content.

The BBC hopes that the deal will help it reach YouTube's monthly audience of more than 70 million users and drive extra traffic to its own website.

The corporation will also get a share of the advertising revenue generated by traffic to the new YouTube channels.

Three deals in one

The deal with Google - non-exclusive and set to run for several years - will establish three different YouTube services:

* BBC: One of the BBC's two entertainment channels will be a "public service" proposition, featuring no advertising.

It will show clips like trailers and short features that add value - for example, video diaries of David Tennant showing viewers around the set of Dr Who or BBC correspondent Clive Myrie explaining how difficult it is to report from the streets of Baghdad.

The channel's main purpose is to popularise current programming and drive traffic back to the BBC's own website, and point the audience to the BBC's pages, where they can watch or download programmes in full, once the BBC Trust approves the corporation's catch-up television proposal, called iPlayer.

# BBC Worldwide: The second entertainment channel will feature self-contained clips - about three to six minutes long - mining popular programmes in the BBC's archive. Excerpts from Top Gear, The Mighty Boosh and nature programmes presented by David Attenborough are top candidates for this channel.

This YouTube page will carry advertising such as banner adverts, and possibly pre-roll adverts (shown as part of the video clip) as well. Controversially, the BBC Worldwide page - adverts and all - can be seen in the UK.

BBC Worldwide insists that this is not a new departure, as BBC magazines like Top Gear and channels like BBC World and UK Living (which shows mainly BBC content) already do carry advertising.

# BBC News: The news channel, which will be launched later this year, will show about 30 news clips per day. It will be advertising funded like a similar deal with Yahoo USA. BBC News is also offered to non-UK subscribers of Real Networks.

Because of the advertising, these clips can be seen outside the UK only. Any UK users clicking on a link to one of the news clips on YouTube will get a message that they have no access to this clip.

Groundbreaking - and controversial

The BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, called the deal a "ground-breaking partnership" that would "engage new audiences in the UK and abroad".

The BBC's director of Future Media and Technology, Ashley Highfield, said the deal was "not about distributing content like full-length programmes; YouTube is a promotional vehicle for us".

In the United States, several television programmes experienced a discernible audience increase after they made clips available on YouTube. But the deal is likely to be controversial with other media companies, who have accused the BBC of straying from its licence-fee funded public service remit and moving too far into commercial web ventures.

Copyright protection

Several large US broadcasters, including CBS, NBC and Fox, already have similar agreements with YouTube.

YouTube makes it easy for members not only to watch and share video clips, but also to upload their own content.

However, the site is riddled with pirated film and music clips uploaded by members who do not own the copyright.

Some media firms, most prominently Viacom, have recently demanded that YouTube removes tens of thousands of clips from the site that they own the copyright for.

Mr Highfield said the BBC would not be hunting down all BBC-copyrighted clips already uploaded by YouTube members - although it would reserve the right to swap poor quality clips with the real thing, or to have content removed that infringed other people's copyright, like sport, or that had been edited or altered in a way that would damage the BBC's brand.

"We don't want to be overzealous, a lot of the material on YouTube is good promotional content for us," he said.

YouTube was founded in February 2005 and was bought by Google in November last year for $1.65bn.

In January, one of YouTube's three founders, Chad Hurley, announced that the website would soon start sharing revenue with the thousands of users who upload their own content to YouTube.