Opinion and observation on a world gone crazy

Joe Gill, journalist and game inventor from Brighton, UK

Thursday 22 September 2011

Guardian breaks cover on 9/11

The Guardian studiously toes the official line on 9/11 until this piece on a New York 9/11 symposium.
Some very important Google search suggestions at the end of it too.

We have to do something. Even if that something is simply to Google 'Cass Sunstein' and start from there. Begin your own cognitive infiltration. Google 'Vigilant Guardian' or 'Able Danger'. Crosscheck 'Abdel Hakim Belhadj' and 'Al-Qaida'. Begin digging. Begin thinking. And stop believing.


Posted by Charlie Skelton Monday 12 September 2011 15.03 BST guardian.co.uk

BBC's 9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip Exposed

I saw the BBC Conspiracy Roadtrip programme on BBC3. I was not convinced it fairly represented 9/11 sceptics and felt strongly that its attempts to prove the official version correct were also unconvincing. You knew from word go what the programme was going to try and prove - that 'truthers' were dumb and their arguments and beliefs about 9/11 paper thin. Now one of the participants explains how the programme's editors totally misrepresented the actual tour of the group portrayed in the doc. Good for her - seriously revealing:

This summer I participated in a BBC hit piece on 9/11, entitled “Conspiracy Roadtrip”. The premise is simple: five non-believers of the official story journey across the east coast of the USA in search of the truth. On the way we meet “experts” and victims of the attacks, guided by “comedian” Andrew Maxwell who believes the 9/11 commission report was the be all and end all of the 9/11 story.

The show aired a few hours ago and I felt compelled to write my version of what happened on that 8 day roadtrip, to give you the perspective you were not shown by BBC 3.

Firstly, I must tip my hat to them. They did a wonderful editing job. Anyone who has ever had a conversation with me or knows me personally will be very much aware of my opinions re: 9/11, and how outspoken I am about them. However, on this show I appear to be pretty much silent the entire way through.

I wasn’t.

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

I’d also like to ask why footage of [FAA National Operations Manager] Ben Sliney saying that someone needs to be held accountable for 9/11 was cut? Surely that’s something that the TV license paying public should be able to see? But no, it didn’t fit their requirements for the perfect hit piece.

On the journey I was one of the most vocal contributors, consistently asking questions and receiving no answers whatsoever. I wonder why? Is it completely out of this world to assume that the answers to my questions might have made the truth about 9/11 a little too clear to the viewer? Is it a ridiculous conspiracy theory to assume that the reason the BBC turned me into a mute was to create a biased hit-piece? As with most 9/11 “conspiracy” documentaries, they focused on mostly debunkable theories such as no plane hit the Pentagon and fake phone calls. In other words, shit that pushes us further away from real truth and accountability. They also did a great job at making it seem like I believed most of these theories. I’ll freely admit that before I went on the show I was a “9/11 was an inside job” sort of girl. Hell, I even have a t-shirt from infowars.com. Yes that’s right, I knowingly gave money to Alex Jones.

Before I went on the show I had an epiphany of sorts. I realized that all evidence points to a plane hitting a Pentagon, that maybe the twin towers and Building 7 weren’t a controlled demolition and maybe Dick Cheney and co hadn’t plotted the whole thing with fake hijackers. Now I don’t know what is true and what isn’t. I am not 100% convinced about controlled demolition but it is a distinct possibility. I just decided to focus on the other, less spoken about side of 9/11. The fact that with multiple warnings, the US failed to prevent an attack on their own shores. The fact that so many people have been gagged from talking about 9/11 and revealing information they might know. The fact that the 9/11 commission report, by it’s own ADMISSION was set up to fail. These are just a few of the facts that I brought up on the show. Were they shown? No.

I made it very clear, before I went to the US, that I thought these theories can sometimes be harmful to our chances of ever getting a new investigation into 9/11. I asked repeatedly to speak to some sort of government representative, someone who I could ask my questions to. And despite being told I would get to speak to someone, alas that time never came.

So tonight I watched the show and saw no effort on the BBC’s part to differentiate myself from these theories. In fact, they made it look like these theories were actually my own. As you will see if you watch the show, they told me to ask about airport security, yet they cut out clips of me asking why the hijackers weren’t prevented from entering the country. I asked why, with all of the foreknowledge that the US had, were precautions not taken to protect the innocent American people that tragically lost their lives. I didn’t get an answer.

In ten years, not one person has been held accountable for the events of 9/11, when it is now so evident that the attacks could have been prevented. Hell, even Ben Sliney said that the attacks could’ve been prevented. Why are we so comfortable with letting people get away with this? And why, after ten years, are people that dare to question the official story still painted as conspiracy theorists? Hasn’t it been proven, time and time again, that elements of the US administration covered up their criminal involvement in 9/11?

Interestingly, the whole show seemed to be centered around Charlotte, trying to portray her as something she isn’t. The editing was truly phenomenal. Here we have a typical conspiracy theorist, unwilling to listen to anyone else’s point of view and adamant that she is right. That’s not how it was. They also included an argument that Charlotte and I had and took it completely out of context. They failed to include the fact that we made up shortly afterwards, with me apologizing to her. It made me quite angry to see vicious comments about her, considering the fact that she is a friend of mine and one of the people I have stayed in most contact with after the show. Yes, I may disagree with her on some points, but that is the great thing about being able to formulate our own opinions. Charlotte and I are united on the fact that 9/11 desperately needs a new investigation. Please don’t fall for the BBC’s clever editing trick, she is not a bad person and the show misrepresented her entirely.

The same goes for Rodney, the other person I have stayed in contact with since being in the US. Again, we may not agree on everything and we have our differences, but in my experience with him he is a rational and down to earth person. Maybe we should all remember that this was a well-crafted hit piece and the editing was designed to generate ill-feeling towards Rodney and Charlotte, the most head-strong people on the show (along with myself, obviously).

And here we reach Andrew Maxwell, the Irish comedian who consistently ridiculed us and walked away in the middle of debates. See, the BBC don’t want you to know that he complained throughout the entire shoot, laughed about us behind our backs and on more than one occasion said that he wished he’d never signed on to do the show. He’s not a bad person. He was there trying to make some money, we were there trying to get some truth. It’s as simple as that.

Personally, I’m disgusted at the documentary and I think participating in the show will always be one of my biggest regrets. But at the same time, I feel pretty lucky that I got to meet the people I did and ask the questions that I did, even though they weren’t included in the show. It saddens me that I look like a dumb student who doesn’t know a thing about 9/11 and it angers me that I barely have a voice in the entire 60 minutes that the show runs for.

Overall the experience was an interesting one, but one I wouldn’t do again. Imagine intense heat, stuck on a bus all day with cameras shoved in your face, 12 hour filming days, early mornings and emotional breakdowns. It was intense to say the least.

There are a lot more grievances I have with the show but that’s something I will write about another day. Now, it’s time to get some sleep and try to find hope in the fact that I know what happened on the 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip, I know what I said and I know the answers I got.

Monday 12 September 2011

What Lies Beneath: The Essence of Modern America in Somalia’s Blood-drenched Soil

What Lies Beneath: The Essence of Modern America in Somalia’s Blood-drenched Soil

For days, weeks on end, we have been bombarded with earnest disquisitions on the “meaning” of 9/11, its implications for America and the world ten years down the line. Oceans of newsprint and blizzards of pixels have been expended on this question. But in all the solemn piety and savvy punditry surrounding the commemoration of the attacks, almost nothing has been said about the place where the true “legacy of 9/11” can be seen in its stark quintessence: Somalia.

That long-broken land is, in so many ways, a hell of our own creation. Year by year, stage by stage, American policy has helped drive Somalia ever deeper into the pit. Millions of people have been plunged into anguish; countless thousands have lost their lives. It seems unimaginable that the situation could get even worse – and yet that is precisely where we are today: on the precipice of yet another horrific drop into the abyss.

Britain gave 100% backing, including on the ground intelligence support and funds, to the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006, which lasted until the end of 2007.

By now it should go without saying that the Nobel Peace Laureate in the White House has continued, entrenched and expanded his predecessor's failed and corrupt policies in Somalia, as he has in so many parts of the degraded American imperium. And it is in Somalia that our serious, savvy bipartisan elite -- and their innumerable enablers on both sides of the political fence -- are building up what may turn out to be the mother of all blowbacks: generations of implacable hatred sprung from unfathomable suffering, inflicted on innocent people by vicious warlords in the pay of the CIA, by America's own death squads ranging through the land, and by the entirely predictable (indeed, predicted) extremist insurgencies that arise in the chaos our elites create in their imperial marauding. Here, if anywhere, is the true legacy of 9/11.

Friday 9 September 2011

MUST SEE Where was Larry Silverstein on 9/11? - video

The new owner of the Twin Towers explained how he happened not to be at work that morning in this truly startling video interview. He only acquired the buildings on 26 July and says right at the beginning of the interview that every day he came into the WTC at 8am for a morning meeting except on 9/11, because his wife booked him an appointment with his dermatologist. Yeh, sure. And how does he labour this! How does he come across? I don't know about you...but I know what I think when I see this video. Insincerity does not begin to describe his performance. This is without doubt the most revealing and chilling single video I have seen since I began researching 9/11 several years ago. We must remember that Larry bought the towers only 6 weeks before, he only put $14m of his own money in when he bought the 99-year lease from the Port Authority, and won $4.55 billion in insurance payouts. What an amazing return on his investment! We must also remember that at least 60 Israeli intelligence operatives were arrested by the FBI in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and they had been following the activity of terrorist cells, as well as casing US military buildings - this is documented and confirmed by French intelligence reports among others. Five Israelis set up a camera to "record the event" (their words during a later Israeli TV interview) from a top story carpark and were seen smiling and dancing as the towers were hit. The FBI released the 'dancing Israelis' eventually and sent them home. Israel did warn the US about imminent attacks in August 2001. Silverstein is a highly connected Zionist individual who has long-term relations within the Israeli establishment. Shall I paint a picture? I don't need to - the video says it all. Or perhaps I am being cynical about aggressive property dealers and the limits of human greed. The fact that the buildings were targets of terrorists since before the first attack in 1993 - and known to be such, would never lead someone to do something as audacious as buy them in the knowledge they would be attacked, now would it?

Thursday 1 September 2011

Chemical engineer backs up thermite evidence from WTC site on 9/11

This interview with chemical engineer Mark Basile from last October, from Cincinatti 911 Truth, really does seem to verify the findings of Niels Harrit and Dr Stephen Jones in their open source paper on nanothermite published in early 2009. As Harritt said in the recent BBC Conspiracy Files documentary, since that paper's release, no scientific paper has come forward to discredit its findings. Basile's own tests, which he explains in this interview, back up the Harrit/Jones findings.

What Basile explains is that the evidence of thermitic deposits in the WTC dust cannot be dismissed as a product of the collapse and fires. It can only be explained as something that was put there to achieve an incendiary effect, and its origins are military scientific. They cannot be acquired on the open market by amateur terrorists. This is somewhere between a smoking and a loaded gun. I am surprised this interview has had so little coverage.