That WTC7 is the "final mystery of 9/11." That is a BLATANT lie, and is what prompted me to create this film.

"The satellite feed had an electronic timer, which cut out at 1715 exactly."

as denying the basic common sense backed up by scientific fact that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were controlled demolition.

In the 90's I worked for Reuters America in Long Island, NY. I worked next to the guys that developed and maintained the New Processing System that is used to feed stories into the Reuters news wire (I worked on the Time and Sales application). The day of the OJ verdict a headline was put out early that OJ was convicted. It was quickly removed from the system within 15 minutes. Any Reuters reporter can enter a story or even just the headline (story to be added later) from any of the 15,000 Reuters terminals (at the time) around the world. So, it is certianly not impossible for a Reuters' reporter to have picked up a wrong headline, published it, and then have it deleted soon thereafter. As far as oversight, there basically isn't any. If a reporter makes a mistake they can correct it with an update - they don't need "approval".

Hopes this helps.

it was exactly right, just a few minutes early.

And: They even seem to know that nobody died in the that collapse. That's clearly clairvoyant, at this was the official account afterwards (regardless of right or false).

Mike Rudin seems to jump on that bandwaggon, that Mark Roberts set off: The whisper that building 7 would come down because it was so terrible damaged. The problem with this story: Even after years of reserch we coulnd't not track down the original source of that claim. Sure, firefighters and police officers repeated it, but were did it emerged at first?

I have shown all over that someone strangely knew all along what would happened that day, the aprroaching second plane, the south and north tower come down, WTC 7. And even more strangely it was always a anonymous guy within the OEM, who predicted all that stuff. That's totally bogus, if it would be real, we knew the name of this hero!

Thanks for this, Joe - looking fwd to watching it tonight!

Betsy
Summer of Truth

Shayler thinks real planes never hit the WTC and later, went nuts in public. It doesn't matter how good the film is, they will be able to turn around and link it to a complete lunatic on the order of Icke and lizards, so it makes anything he does useless.

"David Shayler explained to reporters at The Times, The Liverpool Echo, and in public appearances recorded on video, that the Trade Center jetliner crashes where faked using "missiles wrapped in holograms", and that "' . . . there is little evidence to show that jets went into the buildings . . . Watch the footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Centre.'"
9/11 was an inside job says Shayler; by Paddy Shennan; January 22, 2007; The Liverpool Echo
http://daveshayler.com/print/papers/220107LiverpoolEcho.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html

and

"Shayler has since become controversial for his opinions regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks but has been rejected in the 9/11 Truth Movement following his public allegations of being a messiah and his claims that real airplanes did not impact the World Trade Center towers.[1][2][3][4][5][6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler

North Texans for 911 Truth (new site)
http://tellstruth.webs.com/index.htm
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site
http://9-11.meetup.com/249/

Yes, it has a lot to do with it.

"I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet but the credibility I add to the movement is enormous."
9/11 was an inside job says Shayler; by Paddy Shennan; January 22, 2007; Liverpool Echo
http://daveshayler.com/print/papers/220107LiverpoolEcho.html

"What I am still saying is go onto the internet and look at the footage . . . people have had a go at me saying there were no planes but there is little evidence to show that jets went into the buildings. I'm entitled to say they didn't and something else did . . . You can make some accurate calculations from Newton's laws of motion."
9/11 was an inside job says Shayler
http://daveshayler.com/print/papers/220107LiverpoolEcho.html

The reality is that most spooks or agents or infiltrators have something meaningful to provide in order to gain access to a group. The challenge is to get what they offer without getting stained by them in the process.

Think someone has lost, or have no credibility, for anything they said or did, or that it has no value, just because they got sick later.

And / or people lacking in personal credibility themselves, and / or have lacking levels of compassion and empathy and caring.

WTF is wrong with people, anyways?

Interview from yesterday !!!

---

I was like you Shoestring, optimistic that much good would come from this episode, but having listened to his short interview, now believe this episode will be a whitewash !!!

If this is, what it's looking like, then all I can say is shame on Mike, and shame on the BBC.

---

Please listen to it yourselves and post what you think... it starts approx 1hr 38mins into the broadcast.

Link : http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00cb1v4

---

I hope he includes at least the following in this episode :

• Editor (Bill Manning) of Fire Engineering Magazine said,
  "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."




• All the Securities and Exchange Commission's lost evidence, resulting in the SEC spokesperson
  in the NY Post on 12-Sep-2001 stating...

  "it's devastating, they'll have to scrap many cases, and start from scratch on others"

---

If this is a hit, however subtle then I can only assume that parts of the BBC are participating in the 9/11 cover-up.

At least WTC7, Richard Gage, Prof Jones and Dylan Avery will get some airtime, and many folks will wonder why they had never heard or seen WTC7's "demolition like" collapse on 9/11.

---

Best wishes

>>If this is a hit, however subtle then I can only assume that parts of the BBC are participating in the 9/11 cover-up.

Of course it's a hit. But it's likely the BBC just did what everyone else did, which was to do whatever those in power want them to do, and then when they made a mistake, they worked hard to cover their asses.

Look at the Enron scam that bilked many Americans and the state of CA out of billions. Did the financial analysts who covered for Enron go to jail? No. Merrill Lynch, Citi, etc. -- all the same who then went and did the subprime scam -- they were involved and covered Enron glowingly all through until it was impossible not to, but nothing happened to them. Only the Enron direct sidekick Arthur Anderson went down, but none of the others and the mainstream media were "implicated" as participants.

And in the end what happened? A very few went to jail, but most walked away with millions, hundreds of millions and billions. And California got the Terminator.

There are winners and losers in these crimes. Likely BBC just did what everyone else was doing. The interesting part is when these efforts to trash the CTs have blowback and we gain more people than they turn off.

But claiming they're part of the plot only gives them opportunities like this to rant that they are not. They just did what they were told, and like everyone at Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Enron, the subprime scam, etc., they never asked the questions they were supposed to, and probably helped cover for anyone powerful who they could personally benefit from helping.

If you did not believe that only one person participated in the murder of JFK, then you were someone who believed in a conspiracy . . that a group rather than an individual committed the crime.

The official 9/11 narrative is a tale of a conspiracy led by one of the world's wealthiest men who is hiding in a cave tethered to a dialysis machine. If you believe the official story, then you believe in conspiracies.

"Apparently, the 11 September attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration with the collusion of the secret service and the New York fire and police departments. The evidence? The fate of World Trade Center 7."

And this is why more and more Ive been taking the Jon Gold approach to 9/11 truth. The constant focus on controlled demolition is becoming tiresome.

_______________________________________
9/18 was an inside job! So maybe 9/11 was too...

>>The constant focus on controlled demolition is becoming tiresome.

I don't see a constant focus, I see tons of different types of articles and ideas all over the front page.

The demolitions touch on the most fragile areas of the cover-up, so they will generate the strongest efforts to discredit, dissuade, distort, etc.

If you feel fed up, tell the BBC. Or, go work on something else. There are *tons* of other things to work on.

Absolutely. Mike Ruppert was not far off base when he told about how he'd seen physical evidence being manipulated in a court room. So it is important to stress other subjects.

I dont feel fed up, but when someone says the evidence for 9/11 being an inside job is essentially "building 7" I do certainly cringe. And thanks for the marching orders to 'work on something else' --actually, Ive been working on a piece about PROMIS and one about the anthrax attacks.

_______________________________________
9/18 was an inside job! So maybe 9/11 was too...

> Mike Ruppert was not far off base when he told about how he'd seen
> physical evidence being manipulated in a court room.

Funny you would imply that he was off base about that at all. That's happened more than once. The crime lab in Houston and others have been found to have faked all kinds of reports and testimony.

However, how would network and amateur videos, all of which show the Towers' rapid, even, explosive, and thorough destruction be manipulated to change those utterly damning features?

The biggest rhetorical problem with controlled demolition is that people get bored with what's old and simple, so they start looking for stuff that's new and complicated. As a result, the pristine clarity of that core evidence -- which has been available to everyone since the day of the attack -- gets muddled and diluted with speculation and debate about precisely how it was done. I'm not saying Dr. Jones iron-rich spheres findings or other stuff like that is a waste of time -- far from it. But it's already as well established as well as any engineering explanation ever could be, that the WTC was brought down by (unconventional) controlled demolition. That alone, in any fair world, would be enough to generate a new, unbiased investigation, not of "what really happened" but of WHO DID IT.

It is through distractions, both external and internal, that we stray off-point and off-message. If we had come up with proper sound-bites from the beginning, pitched to the masses who will NEVER get as interested in all this as we are (and will never read BOOKS or long webpages about it) we would be in a very different position by now. I propose a bumper sticker and I grant permission for anyone to make it and sell it: A simple, clear graphic of the Twin Towers forming the two L's of "They Fell Too Fast!" plus the web address of a very credible website such as 911RESEARCH.COM, JOURNALOF911STUDIES.COM, or AE911TRUTH.ORG, in very legible letters.

Other such very brief but clear stickers must be possible -- help think of more! "9/11 Was an Inside Job" doesn't work well, because it only expresses an opinion. It doesn't provide ANY evidence and it doesn't give people any starting point for intelligent research.

If just one out of ten of us 9/11 skeptics had such a readable, almost (but not quite) immediately comprehensible (therefore intriguing), and memorable sticker on our car, our gym locker, or elsewhere, before long we might be getting a lot more MSM interviews. It could become a phenomenon unto itself, which would be the brain-dead MSM "human interest" hook. Whoever gets interviewed would need to firmly redirect the reporter to the features of the destruction that indicate CD, instead of wasting valuable air time as Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer did by (respectively) showing the laptop used to make Loose Change and the office where they write, making the story about personalities instead of the evidence.

My 17 cents (after inflation).

Sorry but controlled Demolition is the most solid edivence out there, you could have someone from the CIA admitting that they played a major part in letting the attacks happen and for one reason or another they would be ignored or ripped to pieces in court. You cannot argue with Science, we have seen this happen when people believed the world was flat- and look who won that one.

The stance people should take about " Oh so, the Govenment, the fire department, the police the BBC and CNN must have all been in on it?- thats too many people" is agree. I agree that if 1000's of people like Fire Fighter and News reporters were involved someone would have talked by now.

The fact of the matter is- we need to be dealing with 'Conspiracy Facts' not 'Conspiracy Theories'- we dont need to fill in the blanks ourselves and make stuff up to fit, all we need to do is prove the govenment account isnt correct and keep educating the masses and we will get there. Look how far we have come already, and the wonderful work people are doing out there on the streets!

Dont worry about the BBC- Their last attempt to discredit us did absolutly nothing to the movement, and anyone with half a brain could see how bias it was. This one will be more of the same and Im pretty sure will look as pathetic.

Also just tell people-

Peer review papers in Scientific journals, 400 architects and engineers ( hopefully 1000 by 9/11/08) all support CD.

They cant all be wrong can they?

How many scientologists are there? Im being facetious but you understand the logic Im sure. Im not debating controlled demolition, Im speaking against making controlled demolition = 9/11 truth.

PS - could you point me in the direction of these peer reviewed papers in scientific journals please? Im unaware of them unless you are counting Steven Jones article more than once, and even then, as I recall, that particular journal is online only.
_______________________________________
9/18 was an inside job! So maybe 9/11 was too...