 |
|
|
Boston
Premiere of “Zero – An Investigation Into 9-11”
You can watch the extended trailer (the first 14 minutes
of the film) below.
|
|
|
Boston911Truth.org
proudly and respectfully presented the Boston Premiere of the new
Italian film “ZERO - INCHIESTA SULL'11 SETTEMBRE” [“ZERO – AN INVESTIGATION
INTO 9-11”].
“ZERO” was exclusively screened at the Regent Theatre, 7 Medford
St., Arlington Center on Thursday September 11, 2008 at 7:00pm.
The house was nicely packed with close to 500 attendees, with about
15-20% relatively new to the 9/11 truth phenomenon, and still believers
of the Official Theory (by a show of hands prior to the film).
“ZERO”, featuring intellectual heavyweights Gore Vidal and Nobel
Prize winner Dario Fo, includes shocking new evidence exposing the
truth of the 9-11-01 crimes! “ZERO” was a sensation at the 2007
Rome Film Festival last Fall.
“ZERO” has one central thesis - that the official version of events
surrounding the attacks on 9/11 can not be true. This new documentary
explores the latest scientific evidence and reveals dramatic new
witness testimony, directly conflicting with the US Government's
account.
"What results is a sequence of contradictions, gaps and omissions
of stunning gravity". (Italian daily newspaper Il Corriere de la
Sera)
“The importance of this film can not be overstated, if its thesis
is correct, the justification for declaring the war on terror is
built on a series of outrageous lies.” -La Repubblica
“The bomb at the Festa del Cinema di Roma is called Zero. An incendiary
documentary. The rhythm is breathtaking. The filmmakers entertain
and inform with the same dramatic force”. -Il Messaggerro
You can read more about “ZERO” and view trailers at these
links: “ZERO - INCHIESTA SULL'11
SETTEMBRE”.
|
|
|
 |
What
was Larry Silverstein describing with his "pull it"
remark in the PBS interview?
|
|
|
Larry Silverstein was the
owner of WTC7, and long term leaseholder of WTC1 and WTC2 on that
fateful day of September 11th, 2001
Did he commit a classic Freudian slip with the "pull
it" remark?
Transcription of Silverstein's
actual statement;
“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 then they made that decision to pull and we watched
the building collapse.”
VIEW
VIDEO EXCERPT |
Many people, even some seasoned 9/11 Truthers, are unsure of the
true meaning of Larry Silverstein’s infamous “pull it”
comment made during his PBS interview. Some believe he might
possibly have meant "pull the fire fighting contingent",
as his recent attempted retraction states.
A review of the facts tends to indicate otherwise.
Larry Silverstein, principal of Silverstein
Properties, is a multi-billionaire, and is revered within his
circle of influence. However, unlike Donald Trump, Larry is
no camera-loving media magnet, and therefore is simply not used
to the flattering attention a professional media crew can bring.
I believe Silverstein was caught up in his 15 minutes of fame, and
in an unconscious attempt to appear suave and just a little bit
“hip”, carelessly revealed the fact that his WTC7 was
wired for a controlled demolition far in advance of the attack,
and here’s why;
- As we all know by now, "pull" is indisputably a
construction industry term for initiating a pre-prepared controlled
demolition. Silverstein is a true commercial real estate
mogul, has been in the business of buying, selling and managing
NYC high-rise buildings for many years, and is knowledgeable
of their construction and demolition. He is considered
savvier in the NYC Skyscraper business than Trump. This
fact is not an absolute guarantee his “pull it”
comment meant “demolish” during that interview,
but it is a guarantee he clearly understood that term to mean
a controlled demolition from his everyday professional life.
- He could not have been speaking of “pulling” the
firefighters from WTC7, as there were no firefighters inside
at that time. Earlier in the day the building was completely
evacuated and the building sealed against further entry.
The Fire Department Commander would have been 100% aware of
this fact, and would have informed Silverstein there was no
one to "pull". Consequently their conversation
could not have centered on removing people to prevent any further
"terrible loss of life". That whole comment
would not have been mentioned by Silverstein during the interview,
because that issue was off the table.
- The most revealing clue comes from an analysis of the grammatical
structure of Silverstein's statement, and reinforces the fact
he could only be referring to demolition, not evacuation.
Anyone trying to convey that they decided to remove all personnel
for safety reasons might have phrased that sentence more like
this;
"And then they made that decision to pull,
and thankfully we were able to get everyone out just before the
building collapsed.”
But certainly not;
"And then they made that decision to pull and we watched
the building collapse.”
The words "decision to pull" are directly coupled with
"we watched the building collapse". They pulled,
(then) it collapsed. There is no reference to the lives
saved, in the nick of time that his righteous decision was able
to accomplish. This guy is in the media limelight with a puff-piece
interview, tooting his own horn, yet his statement completely failed
to mention the most salient point of the whole episode; He saved
lives by making a great decision.
That’s because he wasn’t pulling out people, he was
pulling down a building.
|
|
|
|
|
Crime-Busters Turned Snoopers
|
|
|
| Are the shadowy “terrorists”
the FBI is chasing simply a convenient creation of the government,
invented solely to gain total control of the innocent citizenry?
Are the promotions and budget dollars flowing to those agencies that
are on board to the max with this unconstitutional power grab?
Yes and yes! – ED |
LOMPOC RECORD EDITORIAL
A team of research analysts at Syracuse University
has been tracking the FBI's activity in domestic crime investigations.
The results are revealing.
For example, in 2007, the FBI made 2,300 referrals of cases to be
prosecuted to the U.S. Justice Department. In 1993, the FBI made 20,900
such referrals.
Two decades ago, FBI investigations contributed 36 percent of the
total cases prosecuted by the Justice Department. Last year, the FBI
referrals were down to 16 percent.
So, if FBI agents aren't investigating crime in the United States,
what are they doing? Ferreting out terrorists, apparently, and invading
your privacy in the process.
Internal audits indicate the FBI has continued, and even expanded,
its pursuit of information on American citizens - made possible by
the Patriot Act - although it was ordered by a federal judge last
year to cease and desist.
The judge's ruling came after testimony that the FBI had issued more
than 140,000 “national security letters” in the period
from the beginning of 2003 through 2005. In his ruling, the federal
judge called such snooping the “legislative equivalent of breaking
and entering.”
So, in the opinion of at least one judge, instead of solving crime
and helping to put criminals behind bars, the FBI has instead focused
its energies on violating the privacy rights of U.S. citizens.
Those national security letters allow the FBI to comb through phone,
Internet and bank records in an effort to thwart terrorism. It seems
highly unlikely that there are many terrorists, or U.S. citizens with
connections to terrorist groups, among the hundreds of thousands of
citizens whose lives have now been pried into by the FBI.
FBI officials admitted last week that the federal judge's order to
stop snooping, or at least slow the pace, had basically been ignored.
The bureau apparently continues to eavesdrop.
The mental image is inescapable - the United States as become a nation
of frightened people, cowering in a corner, giving up all semblance
of privacy and civil freedoms in an effort to keep from being terrorized.
At least that's the image the Bush administration fosters in its relentless,
unending search for the evildoers of the world.
March 10, 2008 |
| |
|
|
The Truth About Fusion Centers
Will Blow Your Mind
|
|
|
|
Sunday, 23 March 2008
|
|
Imagine that somewhere close to your local community there
exists a secret computer center. Equipped with powerful
mainframe computers and the database integrating powers of
XML, this government-funded facility gathers data from thousands
of sources including local, state and federal law enforcement,
social welfare agencies, hospitals, banks, telephone companies,
ISPs, computer search engines, private security companies,
schools--essentially an endless list. With its massive
computing power, this secret outpost is able to search and
sift this data using vaguely defined criteria like "suspicious
activity" in order to identify individuals for even closer
scrutiny. Finally, this computer center dispenses the
results of its analyses to local, state and federal law enforcement
and to the military so that they can take action against the
citizens tagged as threats.
Such a scenario is no longer the product of a paranoid, over-stimulated
imagination. It is a reality called "fusion centers,"
forty of which have been established throughout the United
States.
Initially part of the "Total Information Awareness"
(TIA) program headed by Bush buddy and Iran-Contra convict
Admiral John Poindexter, fusion centers suffered a setback
when Congress de-funded TIA back in 2003 because of privacy
and civil liberties concerns. But an idea that grabs
so much government power at the expense of its citizens' privacy
always has a phoenix-like ability to resurrect itself, and
so the fusion center initiative has been reborn under the
Department of Homeland Security's "Global Justice Information
Sharing Initiative" and been provided with $380 million
in funding for 40 installations throughout the country.
These fusion centers are usually located deep in the bowels
of some state law enforcement agency (you can find your local
one using this map).
All forty coordinate and share data with each other, but no
single agency, Congressional or otherwise, has oversight authority
over them.
Civil liberties organizations like the ACLU
and the Electronic
Privacy Information Center see the fusion centers as a
huge threat to privacy and even democracy. They thought
they had been successful in stopping such a massive data gathering
initiative when TIA was defunded, but today, there are forty
fusion centers up and operating in the United States.
Why should you care if you aren't planning to crash some airlines
into skyscrapers? Think for a moment about how fusion
centers operate.
Say that you're planning to have a neighborhood get together.
You head to the local supermarket and pick up a few of those
big pork and beans cans and plenty of bottled water and soft
drinks. Of course, you give the clerk your shopper card
to save a few bucks. The record of your purchase heads
to the supermarket's central database which they have patriotically
agreed to share with the local fusion center. The out-of-the-ordinary
purchase is flagged because the government is on the lookout
for survivalist types who are stocking up for Doomsday and
thus violating anti-hoading
laws. Your bottled water purchase is cross-checked
against other records, and the following turns up:
- recent ammunition purchase made with a credit card (for
a quail hunting outing, but they don't know that)unusually
large cash withdrawal of $3,000 (for buyng your neighbor's
used car for your kid)
- visits to "questionable" political web sites
like the one where you're reading this (information courtesy
of your ISP)
The fusion center computer is now in a frenzy because of
the obvious threat you pose to national security. Thanks
to the kind of speed that $380 million can purchase, it spits
out your name and address just in time for the heavily armed
SWAT team to show up at your barbecue.
Seriously, anyone who doesn't think that all this unsupervised
information collecting poses no threat to democracy needs
only to remember those government employees poking through
Barack Obama's passport records to understand what fusion
centers could mean for democracy.
The sad fact is that no one is going to shut these fusion
centers down in the forseeable future. The best we can
do is to cut their access to our information by practicing
good personal privacy habits. Don't use that supermarket
card or a credit card when you make purchases. Guard
your privacy against ISPs and search engines by using an elite
proxy or VPN. Encrypt your email.
If we can't stop the government from violating our privacy,
we can at least make their job more difficult. Begin
to resist today.
Try the following exercise, Google the phrase Fusion
Centers
Always remember, when they tell you about a new project or
new weapon and its capabilities, you should multiply the admitted
specs by a factor of TEN to gauge what the real truth is.
And if you are uncertain about who the government now considers
"terrorists", please read the following articles
- ED
|
|
| |
|
|
900,000+ Names on U.S. Terror Watch Lists
|
|
|
|
1,000,000 names on the
government's "Terror Watch" List.
This means they are:
Eligible for warrantless arrest as a "Domestic Terrorist".
Eligible for incarceration without legal representation.
Eligible for rendition to a secret location.
Eligible for torture.
Are you on the list? How would you even know?
|
|
February 27, 2008 12:40 PMJustin Rood Reports: LINK
TO ARTICLE
The FBI now keeps a list of over 900,000 names belonging to known
or suspected terrorists, the American Civil Liberties Union said
today.If that number is accurate, it would be an all-time high,
exponentially more than the 100,000 names on the list several years
ago. But the number needs to be taken with a grain of salt:
after all, the ACLU doesn't keep the list, the FBI does, and the
bureau doesn't generally like to talk about it. (Indeed, the
FBI has not yet responded to a request for comment for this post.)But
if the ACLU's figure isn't accurate, it's also unlikely to be off
by that much.
Last September, the ACLU notes,
the Department of Justice's Inspector General reported
the FBI watch list was at 700,000 names, and growing at 20,000 names
per month.The ACLU says they "extrapolated" from those figures to
determine the list's current size. ACLU's Barry Steinhardt added
that the group had spoken privately with people familiar with the
watch list, who told them the 900,000 figure was not outlandish.
In the past, The FBI has told
ABC News that the size of its watch list is classified. Despite
that, both the bureau and the DoJ Inspector General have published
the total figure in unclassified reports.
There's no doubt the FBI's list is growing: just last June, ABC
News reported
it was at 509,000 names, based on information in an unclassified
FBI budget document. But strangely, the list may be growing
not because of swelling legions of foreign terrorists. Instead,
it appears the FBI may be adding tens of thousands of names belonging
to U.S. persons it suspects of being domestic terrorists -- people
who have no known ties to international terrorist organizations.A
separate entity, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), keeps
a list of all names believed to belong to terrorists linked to international
terror groups. That list, which was at 100,000 names in 2003,
grew to 465,000 names by last June --; but since then has grown
only modestly, according to NCTC spokesman Carl Kropf. Today,
Kropf said that list stands at roughly 500,000 names. (Unlike the
FBI, the NCTC does not maintain that the size of its watch list
is classified information.)The FBI takes that list and adds to it
a new collection of names which belong to U.S. persons believed
to be domestic terrorists: people who have links to terrorism but
not to any international group.
Last June, the NCTC was responsible for putting 465,000 names on
the watch list, and the FBI appeared to add an additional 44,000.
By September, extrapolating from the DoJ Inspector General's report,
the FBI's contribution appears to have grown to somewhere north
of 200,000 names.Today – if the ACLU is to be believed –
the FBI's contribution may be as high as 417,000 names. Which
would raise a new question: Where are so many domestic terrorists
coming from? Or do they simply use more aliases than foreign
terrorists?
Update: The FBI responded late Wednesday afternoon. Spokesman
Chad Kolton did not dispute the ACLU's figure, but noted that the
watch list contains names, aliases and name variations for individuals.
The number of people on the watch list, he said, was around 300,000,
and only 5 percent are U.S. persons. Kolton noted that the
list is "regularly reviewed for accuracy." Last year the bureau
removed 100,000 records "related to people cleared of any nexus
with terrorism," Kolton said.
|
| |
|
Rule
by Fear or Rule by Law?
|
|
|
|
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into
prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly
to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree
odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether
Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
|
|
Lewis Seiler, Dan Hamburg
Monday, February 4, 2008
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans,
the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial
law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and non citizen
alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse
in the event of “an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S.,
or to support the rapid development of new programs.”
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid
contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR)
to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United
States. The government has also contracted with several companies
to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles,
ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract
is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as
its goal the removal of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.”
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained
about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should
not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is:
What kind of “new programs” require the construction and refurbishment
of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with
the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),
“Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,” gives the
executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in
more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the
military in response to “a natural disaster, a disease outbreak,
a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President
determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that
state officials cannot maintain public order.”
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just
before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment
of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list
of “terrorist” organizations, or who speaks out against the government's
policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and non citizens
alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential
Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure “continuity of government” in
the event of what the document vaguely calls a “catastrophic emergency.”
Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred,
he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to
ensure “continuity of government.” This could include everything
from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching
a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.U.S.
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with
a new way to expand the domestic “war on terror.” Her Violent Radicalization
and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed
the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission
to “examine and report upon the facts and causes” of so-called violent
radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations
on combating it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her
colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces
a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping
investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who “engage in
sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the
name of animal rights” as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs
could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration
activists, *environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment
rights supporters ... the list goes on and on.
According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center
holds the names of roughly 775,000 “terror suspects” with the number
increasing by 20,000 per month. What could the government be contemplating
that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse
millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked
power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president
to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc.
Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.
Try the following exercise, Google the phrase
REX 84
And if you are still uncertain about who the government
now considers "terrorists", I have a have a 42" Plasma
TV, permanently locked onto FOXNEWS to sell you - ED
|
| |
| |
|
|
Miami Police Shoots Protester
then laughs about it.
|
|
|
|
A CNN news video documents the excessive SWAT Team force directed
at lawful and legal protestors, and the unnecessary firing of "less-than-lethal"
projectiles - the very same type of projectiles that killed
Victoria Snelgrove, a 21 year-old journalism major at Emerson
College in Boston during a 2004 post-game Red Sox victory celebration.
See
what a rubber bullet can do - CAUTION - GRAPHIC
IMAGES... The most chilling part of this video comes
during the SWAT Team's debriefing "party", where their
ranking officer demonstrates his gleeful approval at shooting the
woman in the head, right through her sign, and makes derogatory
comments about his own fellow American citizens, referring to them
(us) as "scurrying cockroaches".
This outrageous performance makes it clear it will be an easy transition
for our newly militarized police to escalate from "less-than-lethal"
tactics to Deadly Force to dispatch the "scurrying
cockroaches" when Martial Law is declared.
|
| |
|
|
