Monday, March 19, 2007

News Just IN, KSM booked for CONFEST 2007!

Waleed Mohammed bin Attash, long suspected of plotting the bombing of the USS Cole, confessed at a hearing in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to planning the attack, according to a Pentagon transcript released Monday.

This has enraged the world champion confessor, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, or KSM as he has become known. The mainstream media darling was planning to open the confession gig 'confest 2007' with confessing to being the 'mastermind' behind the audacious attack, and to providing the equipment, personnel and even to piloting the craft and being killed in the attack!

The Pentagon sponsored event is expected to attract the cream of international terrorism patsies to confess to both solved and unsolved crimes before an audience of heckling conservative rednecks. As a special treat, Pentagon spokesperson said that there would be some extra surprises at this years event and hinted at spectacular expose's of who created the 'face' on Mars and how crop circles are really formed.

This Year's CONFEST is set to be the biggest and best for years, with the staff at the Pentagon having worked overtime diligently preparing the confessions for this years show.

"We have really pushed the boat out this year and utilised every tool at our disposal to come up with the most amazing collection of confessions possible." said a Guantanamo spokesperson, on the condition of annonimity. "This year is set to be the best year for confessions we have ever had."

However, speculation was quashed about an amazingly spectacular confession by the Israelis at this years show. "The attack on the USS Liberty will not be in this years show, and anyone that is claiming it is, is a dirty anti-semite and a friend of the terrorists." Said the spokesperson.

Well we should not expect miracles now, should we?

Friday, March 02, 2007

Why the BBC is plain wrong!

The BBC managed to, somehow, predict the collapse of WTC 7 half an hour in advance of it happening. They also predicted HOW and WHY it fell in advance. The same how and Why that has been parroted without question ever since by the 'official' news media and the 'official' government.

I am NOT suggesting that the BBC is part of the conspiracy, but I am still waiting for them to explain how they got detailed talking points in advance of the collapse happening.

This 'official' version of the conspiracy of Islamic terrorists attacking the USA and causing the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is what has lead to several wars and a major reduction in our civil liberties and a significant change in our way of life, not to mention that it has been used almost daily ever since by the Government and media to deliberately attempt to scare the population and make us live daily in fear and to submit to the Government ever since.

The Problem is WTC 7 could not have collapsed the way the official version suggests it did. Why? well below is one argument:

"Just to give you an example of the strength of a weld, for example; a 5/16" fillet weld 6" long, .928 x 5 x 6 = 27.84 kips per each 6" weld. A kip is equal to 1000 pounds, so this weld strength would be 27,840 pounds, if properly welded. thats 14 ton of force per 6 inches of weld or nearly 2.5 ton per inch. I have just read that WTC7 had steel added for reinforcement with 12 miles of welding. It supposedly fell down, at freefall speed with no resistance because of fire, no way. Workout the resistance 12 miles of welding would produce at 2.5 tons per inch. That’s 63360 inches per mile which is 760320 inches per 12 miles at 2.5 tons per inch which is 1900800 ton of resistance or 41,000 ton of resistance per floor using an average. The resistance is the force needed to shear the weld and the way this building was built all the welds per floor would need to shear at the same time to fall the way it didl. That is only the calculation for added steel. Absolute nonsense, this is so obviously not feasable.How can you meet such massive resistance and fall as fast as finding no resistance at all.If 41,000 ton of weight fell on 41,000 ton of resistance it would stop. If 100 ton of force met 50 ton of resistance you would have 50 ton of force so my point is you will meet resistance on every floor maybe not enough to stop it but easily enough to slow it..You don’t need to have any engineering knowledge to know freefall speed with absolutely no resistance is simply not possible,you just need some common sense and I despair that so many people appear not to have any.As for the heat causing the metal to weaken garbage,steel is a very good heat transferor.You can heat one beam and the heat will transfer to every other interconnected beam like a massive heatsink.Carbon fires would do diddly squat to that steel.This building WTC7 was a controlled demolition,it is the only possible explanation.
- ROBBY B | 03.01.07 - 7:04 pm"

And here is another-

the building was constructed with a huge amount of structural redundancy built in. In other words, it could stand having entire floors removed and still maintain structural integrity. In other words, it was VERY BLOODY STRONGLY BUILT! : Read more...

Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7

So in the way that the BBC has tried to muddy the water and avoid answering serious questions, they have only brought more people into contact with the WTC 7 story. Some of these people realise that, whenever, or however the collapse story came out, that the collapse, as described by the media, is (according to the laws of physics) impossible.

However plausible the notion that during the day, firefighters believed the building became structurally unsound and cleared a collapse zone, believing the building to be in danger of collapse.(fact) The news of this spread the news agencies (fact) the BBC mistakingly went to air with a collapse presented as fact half an hour before it happened (fact). The BBC was NOT part of the conspiracy to attack the United States (fact). The fact remains that, without the use of explosives, the firemen should have been keeping people away from the building for days until the area was finally cleared by the 'deconstruction and site clearing engineers. Says who? THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

Why did the firefighters believe the building was going to collapse? Some because their colleagues told them, some it was gut instinct, they looked at the building, and after everything that happened that day, they just thought it would. Some firefighters thought it would, because they had been told it was going to be blown up! SO, WHO TOLD THEM?

Therefore, it makes the media's pre-determination of collapse with their description of cause even more suspiscious.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

More unsatisfactory answers from the BBC.

Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an
article published online.

The notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently
ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could, based on
the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the exact
timing of events that day - this is the first time it has been brought
to our attention and it was more than five years ago. If in the chaos
and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building
had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error.

With regards
BBC World Customer Relations

Sorry, but that does not come even close to an acceptable reply. I have not ever at any point suggested in this question that the BBC were part of a conspiracy on the day and for you to suggest this is both offensive and beneath contempt.

Your response to this may lead people to suggest that you have become part of the cover up, however.

> The notion that the BBC has been part of any
> conspiracy is patently ludicrous.

I agree!

> We reported the
> situation as accurately as we could, based on the
> best information available.

Not True, you did not check the story at all, nor did you offer any attribution.

> We cannot be categorical
> about the exact timing of events that day - this is
> the first time it has been brought to our attention
> and it was more than five years ago.

Check the video of the day? Oh you can't, you LOST them! (in breach of your own procedures!) download a copy from the internet then!

> If in the chaos
> and confusion of that day our correspondent reported
> that the building had collapsed before it had done
> so, it would have been a genuine error.

IF? The building was clearly standing behind her! there is no IF in this. However I do accept that reporting this was a genuine error, now what we want to know is, how, exactly, did this error occur? It is obvious from the video that an error occured, that is NOT the issue here, the issue is HOW?

I have several very reasonable questions that the BBC, for some unknown reason, is refusing to answer.

1. How did you get the report that the WTC 7 had collapsed (past tense) before it happened?

2. Who prepared the detailed talking points about the collapse?

3. Were talking points prepared for the other (closer to to the two towers) buildings in the WTC complex, just in case they collapsed also? If not why not? Why only for this building?

4. Why was this news rushed to air live? without attribution or qualification, but presented as factual? I thought the BBC had a duty to check it's stories OR Attribute them. on this occasion they did neither.

5. Why has the BBC not complied with it's own obligations with regards to keeping copies of it's broadcasts?

6. What was the cause of the dropped feed 5 minutes before the building collapsed?

7. What did the correspondent in Manhatten think as the building actually collapsed? and what did she think once she realised it was the building that she had already described in detail collapsing, before it collapsed?

These are serious questions that, for some reason, the BBC refuses to take seriously, or answer. So far the BBC has lied and contradicted itself in response to valid questions of it's handling of a very serious story on a very significant day.

9/11 is a day so infamous that barely a news day goes by when it is not trumpeted as the cause of many major national and international policies, from ID cards, to immigration, to detention withoout charge or trial, to participating in multiple theater wars and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, paid for out of our taxes.

Why, then, are you taking such a cavalier and condescending approach to people asking very reasonable questions about the BBC's conduct on his day?

I have been trying, seriously, for 5 years to dis-prove the notion that WTC 7 was deliberately imploded. I have failed to PROVE this.

I can state that it may be plausable that it looked like WTC 7 might be compromised to some people and they thought that it MIGHT fall over. These are unqualified people who were going off their gut instinct, however this story may have been changed, in a chinese wispers effect to become 'has collapsed' (instead of 'may collapse') and was passed on the wires and unquestioningly reported as fact by the BBC and CNN, but this still does not explain, why you reported as fact without attribution or source or checking, a surprise collapse well before it happened. Nor does it explain why the BBC lost the tapes from this day.

NIST has not helped, by only adding supposition to their conclusions. FEMA has not helped. Larry Silverstein did not help by saying that he had the building 'pulled'. Many fire fighters have written sworn affidavids that they were told that the building was to be "brought down". Add this to the fact that no steel frame building had ever collapsed due to fire, the building collapsed in a way that was fully consistant with a controlled demolition, molten metal has been reported at the site. WTC 7 was further away from and behind two other buldings, so was unlikely to be compromised by the two towers collapsing.

Add all this and more together and the whole, "we accidentally broadcast an un-attributed claim of a demolished building, without it being checked, 25 minutes before it actually fell", and it begins to look very much like someone (who? and how?) knew it was going to collapse in advance. How else could you have repoerted the collapse 25 minutes early? How did they know? Whilst this does NOT prove forknowledge, it IS VERY suspicious.

IF this building was so badly damaged, by the collapsing towers, that for public safety reasons, it had to be deliberatly brought down, then that is a reasonable conclusion, given what had happened that day. However therin lies the problem.

How long does it take to wire up a 47 story building for a controlled demolition? A lot more than the few hours that they had had that day. This would mean that the building had to have been prepared before 9/11. That would mean more than forknowledge of the attacks. It would mean a deliberate involvement in the instigation of these attacks. Complicity!

The public who are paying for the multiple wars with their hard earned taxes, the people whose international reputations are going down the drain further with every innocent child bombed because of 9/11 has a right to have these VERY SERIOUS questions answered.

This has NOT been seriously investigated by anybody except the 'oddball conspiracy fringe'. NIST has not covered this properly, FEMA hasn't, the official 9/11 commision didn't. and now the BBC parrot without question the 'official line'. WHY CAN YOU NOT INVESTIGATE THIS?

You mention it has been five years since the attacks, very true. Why has it taken so long for this to come out? Because the mainstream media has (and largely still does) completely refuse to touch the WTC 7 story with a barge pole. Why? Because when people see that building come down, the obvious conclusion people (including demolition experts with 40 years of Controlled Demolition experience) draw, is that this WAS a controlled demolition.

This needs to be investigated. We need an answer that stands up to close scrutiny. We have had years of the Bush and Blair administration lying to us about WMD and Iran's nuclear ambitions and so much more. We have also had years of the BBC parroting these false and demonstratably fraudulent claims as fact. Without any investigation whatsoever, the BBC has been a propaganda mouthpiece for the Government.

It is time the people were represented and it is time you gave an honest account of both yourselves and of WTC7.

There are still too many if this happened and if that happened then that means that, on both sides of the debate. EVERY version of what happened that day, including the official one backed by the BBC, is a 'conspiracy theory'. None of these theories stand close scrutiny, they all have holes in them.

We just want the truth!

Ken Hall.