9/11: Disappearing explosions

There were multiple explosions
inside the Twin Towers on 9/11
before they collapsed.

Police reported them. Firemen
reported them. People on the
street reported them.

Even network news anchors
reported them.

Later that day, the reports stopped.

And they were never repeated
by the mainsteam news again.

Thanks to the magic of VCRs
that were recording live news
feeds all day, here are the
explosions that the news media
made go away:

In the minutes after the initial attacks on the World Trade Centers, reporters on the scene clearly reported MULTIPLE explosions in both buildings.

These live reports were somehow left on the “cutting floor” when the final version of 9/11 was packaged for the public.

This video is interesting, especially when you watch it along with:

1. “The 9/11 Solution” which shows what appears to be staged eye witness reports and instant analysis designed to implant the idea of “plane strike + fire = building collapse” which we now know to be a physical impossibility.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/108.html

2. “September Clues” which shows evidence of manipulation of the “live video” of the plane strike on the South Tower.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/108.html

We all “saw” the second plane strike, right?

Yes we did.

But we saw it on TV – and only on TV.

There are NO still images of this event and seemingly ALL the “eye witnesses” who saw the second plane strike the South Tower were news media people.

The only exception is an unidentfied man who appeared on the scene right after the second tower fell claiming he saw the second plane hit and offering a “scientific” explanation as to why the tower fell – months before even government studies put forward an explanation. (See “The 9/11 Solution.”)

Source: Brasscheck TV

Blair knew US had no post-war plan for Iraq

 

Tony Blair agreed to commit British troops to battle in Iraq in the full knowledge that Washington had failed to make adequate preparations for the postwar reconstruction of the country.In a devastating account of the chaotic preparations for the war, which comes as Blair enters his final full week in Downing Street, key No 10 aides and friends of Blair have revealed the Prime Minister repeatedly and unsuccessfully raised his concerns with the White House.

He also agreed to commit troops to the conflict even though President George Bush had personally said Britain could help ’some other way’.

The disclosures, in a two-part Channel 4 documentary about Blair’s decade in Downing Street, will raise questions about Blair’s public assurances at the time of the war in 2003 that he was satisfied with the post-war planning. In one of the most significant interviews in the programme, Peter Mandelson says that the Prime Minister knew the preparations were inadequate but said he was powerless to do more.

‘Obviously more attention should have been paid to what happened after, to the planning and what we would do once Saddam had been toppled,’ Mandelson tells The Observer’s chief political commentator, Andrew Rawnsley, who presents the documentary.

‘But I remember him saying at the time: “Look, you know, I can’t do everything. That’s chiefly America’s responsibility, not ours.”‘ Mandelson then criticises his friend: ‘Well, I’m afraid that, as we now see, wasn’t good enough.’.

Opponents of the war, who have long claimed that the Pentagon planned a short, sharp offensive to overthrow Saddam Hussein with little thought of the consequences, claimed last night that the programme vindicated their criticisms. Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, told The Observer: ‘These frank admissions that the Prime Minister was aware of the inadequacies of the preparations for post-conflict Iraq are a devastating indictment.’

Blair’s most senior foreign affairs adviser at the time of the war makes clear that Blair was ‘exercised’ on the exact issue raised by the war’s opponents. Sir David Manning, now Britain’s ambassador to Washington, says: ‘It’s hard to know exactly what happened over the post-war planning. I can only say that I remember the PM raising this many months before the war began. He was very exercised about it.’

Manning reveals that Blair was so concerned that he sent him to Washington in March 2002, a full year before the invasion. Manning recalls: ‘The difficulties the Prime Minister had in mind were particularly, how difficult was this operation going to be? If they did decide to intervene, what would it be like on the ground? How would you do it? What would the reaction be if you did it, what would happen on the morning after?

‘All these issues needed to be thrashed out. It wasn’t to say that they weren’t thinking about them, but I didn’t see the evidence at that stage that these things had been thoroughly rehearsed and thoroughly thought through.’

On his return to London, Manning wrote a highly-critical secret memo to Blair. ‘I think there is a real risk that the [Bush] administration underestimates the difficulties,’ it said. ‘They may agree that failure isn’t an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it.’

Within a year Britain lost any hope of a proper reconstruction in Iraq when post-war planning was handed to the Pentagon at the beginning of 2003.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s envoy to the postwar administration in Baghdad, confirms that Blair was in despair. ‘There were moments of throwing his hands in the air: “What can we do?” He was tearing his hair over some of the deficiencies.’ The failure to prepare meant that Iraq quickly fell apart. Greenstock adds: ‘I just felt it was slipping away from us really, from the beginning. There was no security force controlling the streets. There was no police force to speak of.’

The revelation that Blair was ‘exercised’ in private will raise questions about his public assurances. The former Labour leader, Neil Kinnock, told the programme he was given a personal assurance by Blair that he was satisfied by the preparations. ‘I said to Tony, are you certain?’ Kinnock told the programme. ‘And when he said: “I’m sure,” that was a good enough reassurance.’

Condoleezza Rice, then Bush’s national security adviser, confirms that the President offered Blair a way out. Bush told Blair: ‘Perhaps there’s some other way that Britain can be involved.’ Blair replied: ‘No, I’m with you.’

Sandra Jawad convinced her mother to let her wear Hijab. Later her mother wore Hijab as well.

This post is for non-muslims who always brattle saying that Muslims coerce their daughters and wives into wearing Hijab.

At 19, Sandra Jawad decided she wanted to wear an Islamic head scarf. Her mother’s response: a long lecture on how that could draw prejudice and limit her career options. “She told me, it’s going to be hard. … It’ll make things difficult,” Jawad said, recalling a four-hour talk with her mom in their Dearborn home last July.

Jawad eventually convinced her family to let her wear the head scarf. And six months later, her 44-year-old mother began wearing one, too, spurred by her daughter’s religious awakening.

The two are part of the growing number of Muslim women in Michigan choosing to wear the head scarves, known as hijab, with many donning them at increasingly younger ages.

The upswing is driven by increased attendance at local mosques and Islamic schools, where clerics often describe hijab as the flag of Islam.

And the local trend mirrors an increased use of hijab among women in the Middle East and Europe, where Islamic beliefs in Muslim communities have intensified. In the past, women often waited until reaching their teenage years or middle age before putting on hijab, but now, even elementary school-age children are wearing them.

The changes represent a fundamental shift in how Muslim youth identify themselves. But it comes with a price.

Some “look at us, smirk, stick out their tongues or shout out the window, ‘Why do you have that on?’ ” said Arrwa Mogalli, 29, of Dearborn, who has worn hijab since she was 11. “You have nuns totally covered … and no one questions it. But when a Muslim does it, we’re from outer space.”

Flip through Fordson High School yearbooks and you’ll see a marked change. In 1990, only seven seniors at the Dearborn school wore hijab in their class photos. That’s less than 5% of the female students in the senior class of a public school with a student body that’s at least 85% of Arab descent.

In the class of 2006, 78 are wearing hijab — 40% of the women in the class.

While some women stopped wearing head scarves in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, there has been a noticeable increase overall in recent years. In some cases, such as in the Jawad family, children are convincing their mothers to put on head scarves, a role reversal in which kids are guiding their parents toward an Islamic life.

“She was very, very anxious about wearing it,” Jawad said of her mom’s decision. “But after she saw me, she found the courage to take the step.”

Blending cultures

The idea of hijab — an Arabic word that also refers to clothing in general that conceals the body — is rooted in the Middle East. By covering up in the presence of men who aren’t their relatives, women can deflect the desires and gazes of the opposite sex, clerics say.

“Physical beauty is not what makes a woman,” Mogalli said. “It’s her mind and actions.”

For Muslim children growing up in the United States, that belief has run into American culture, producing a generation of young Muslims trying to blend teenage Western traditions with Islamic norms.

The usual outfit for women’s volleyball teams is sleeveless shirts and snug shorts, but last year’s captain of the volleyball team at Fordson wore long pants and hijab while playing on the courts.

Also last year, public pools in Washtenaw County began allowing Muslim women to cover their entire bodies while swimming. The policy change came after Jumanah Saadeh of Ann Arbor, then 13, was kicked out of a pool for swimming with long pants, a full-sleeve shirt, and her Islamic head scarf.

In Dearborn, there are now hijab-wearing cheerleaders. And some parents have started to allow daughters who wear hijab to date boys, though others still frown on that practice.

American Judge ruled that police can ban Hijab

A Philadelphia police officer has no right to wear a head covering as required by her Muslim faith when she is in uniform, a federal judge ruled yesterday.The Police Department’s uniform code “has a compelling public purpose,” Judge Harvey Bartle III wrote in deciding against Kimberlie Webb, an officer since 1995.

The uniform code “recognizes that the Police Department, to be effective, must subordinate individuality to its paramount group mission of protecting the lives and property of the people living, working and visiting the city of Philadelphia,” Bartle wrote.

Furthermore, the department’s uniform code, known as Directive 78, maintains “religious neutrality,” the judge said.

The ruling countered a finding by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2003 that the department had violated Webb’s rights in barring her from wearing a hijab, also known as a khimar, over the top and back of her head.

It was not immediately known whether Webb, 44, would appeal. Her attorney, Lance D. James, did not respond to a message seeking comment.

In his ruling, Bartle cited a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that determined Pennsylvania’s Garb Statute did not violate the rights of a Philadelphia public-school teacher in barring her from wearing a Muslim head covering.

“Prohibiting religious symbols and attire helps prevent any divisiveness on the basis of religion both within the force itself and when it encounters the diverse population of Philadelphia,” Bartle said.

The case began in February 2003, when Webb, a mother of six, filed an EEOC complaint after being denied a request to wear a hijab.

In August 2003, Webb was sent home three times after showing up at roll call wearing the hijab despite being told not to do so. She also was later suspended for 13 days.

Police officials initially defended their actions by saying, in part, that Webb could have been hurt or restrained by somebody grabbing the hijab.

In subsequent statements and legal arguments, the department, which was represented by law firm Cozen O’Connor, said its sole reason was fostering “obedience, unity, commitment and esprit de corps” with a uniform dress policy.

Detracting from that policy would cause the department “undue hardship,” it said.

Proof that Bin Laden had no links with 9/11 and the Bin Laden tape is a hoax! (Video)

The Bush Administration says yes, citing a grainy, badly-edited videotape that surfaced in December, 2001. In that tape, a fat guy who vaguely resembles Bin Laden chortles about the success of the 9/11 attacks. (In earlier interviews, Bin Laden had denied responsibility for 9/11, once even deploring the loss of civilian life in the attacks and calling them un-Islamic.)

Is the famous “confession video” genuine? Despite Bush’s insistence that the tape is authentic, America’s top academic Bin Laden expert has finally gone on the record, joining numerous other experts.

“It’s bogus,” says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program.

Lawrence, author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, offered his historic debunking of the administration’s lie in an interview with Kevin Barrett (“Dynamic Duo,” gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007, first hour). The interview marked Lawrence’s first major public statement since he made headlines last year by suggesting that recent Osama tapes are hoaxes and that the real Osama Bin Laden may be dead.

Why has the Bush Administration been lying for more than five years by telling us that this preposterously bad hoax is a genuine “confession video”? Lawrence, citing informants in the US intelligence apparatus’s Bin Laden units, said that everyone knows the tape is fake, adding that the hoax has been kept alive because it is politically useful to those who wish to deflect attention from
“conspiracy theories” about 9/11.

If Professor Lawrence is right—and anyone with eyes can see that he is, simply by comparing the overweight impostor in the Fatty Bin Laden bogus confession video to other pictures of Osama Bin Laden—the Bush Administration, by repeatedly citing the tape as authentic, is clearly guilty of obstruction of justice at best, high treason and conspiracy to mass murder at worst. Since the FBI now tells us that Osama Bin Laden is “not wanted for 9/11″ because there is “no hard evidence” connecting him to the 9/11 attacks, and since US intelligence personnel all know the “confession tape” is a Bush Administration hoax, it should not be difficult to nail the perpetrators of this outrageous cover-up of the crime of the century.

It is time for Congress or an appropriate judicial authority to mount an investigation of the Fatty Bin Laden bogus confession video.

Where did this tape come from? Who was responsible for the
administration’s claim that it is authentic, despite widespread knowledge in relevant intelligence agencies that it is bogus? If Bruce Lawrence is correct in asserting that US intelligence personnel know the tape is fake, we need to put them, along with Bush and Cheney, under oath and find out why our government has been lying so outrageously for more than five years in order to obstruct justice by shielding the real perpetrators of 9/11.

Please email your congressional representatives with the subject header “investigate bogus Bin Laden ‘confession video’ NOW!” and include a copy of this article in the body of the message.

The Connection between 9/11 and Protocols of Zion (Video)

 

Zakheim, a dual nationality Israeli-American and a rabid Zionist, had co-authored “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, a position paper by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 2000, which called for a new “Pearl Harbor” type of incident which would provide a pretext for US military moves to boost its global hegemony. The other signatories on the document included neocons I Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Kristol. Rabbi Zakheim’s career included various posts at the Department of Defense (DoD), foreign policy advisor to George W Bush, and also in the private sector on defense and consultancy. In the years running up to 9/11, he was corporate vice president of System Planning Corporation (SPC) and chief executive officer of SPC International Corporation. SPC is a manufacturer of highly sophisticated military specification technology such as its “Flight Termination System”. FTS includes SPC’s Command Transmitter System. It enables remote operators to control up to eight planes simultaneously, from a single position either on the ground or airborne (or, say, in WTC Building 7). The technology provides the capability to take remote control of aircraft already in flight.

Zionists had tricked the Bush Administration into carrying out a relatively small scale false-flag terrorist operation. An unmanned, remote-controlled plane would be crashed into a section of the Pentagon that was under renovation; hence, casualties would range from zero to very low. The remote control technology for the Pentagon incident would be provided by Raytheon. Since it was necessary to claim that “Arabs” had hijacked a passenger plane and the US government had not signed up to deliberately murder dozens of their own civilians as part of Operation Pentagate, the claimed flight that the “suicide pilots” had taken over would be one that ran fairly regularly, but was unscheduled on the particular day of the operation. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) flight records could be falsified after the fact – unless, of course, the planners were to slip up, as they did…

The “dead passengers” were to be individuals linked to government (e.g. Barbara Olson), and the defense contractor Raytheon, who would be paid to fake their own deaths and provided with sanctuary in Israel. As confirmation of the official version of events, it would be claimed that the “passengers” had made cell phone calls to report a hijacking by men of “Arabic” appearance. (Never mind the fact that such cell phone calls were impossible with 2001 technology at cruising height and speed; the fact that it takes at least an hour and 30 kg of coke to cremate a cadaver had not stopped the indoctrination of millions of people with a physically impossible ludicrous conspiracy theory about a secret German plot to gas and cremate 11 million “undesirables”.) If required, fictitious names could be concocted. In order to save on names, it would be claimed that the passenger count just happened to be unusually low that day, say, around one-third of capacity.

American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles was scheduled on most days, but was not scheduled (and did not fly) on September 11, 2001. The date had been chosen from the US “911″ emergency number. Hence, the official Bush-Cheney story would claim this as the plane which hit the Pentagon. The Bush Administration would then have a pretext for invading Islamic oil-rich nations and looting their oil wealth, and for granting itself with authoritarian powers by introducing legislation such as the Patriot Act. More to the point, Rumsfeld and Cheney – along with other corrupt leaders who had been bribed or blackmailed into the scam – would have a pretext for doing the Zionist Mafia’s bidding of supplying the servicemen of the US, UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, etc, as Israel’s proxy army to fight its enemy neighbours. I.e., the offering up of national armed forces as a supply of private mercenaries, or cannon fodder, or uranium-ingesting leukemia and cancer cases waiting to happen. These sacrifices were primarily for the personal profit of the avaricious Zionist Mafia, along with the corrupt Mafia-appointed government leaders who lapped up the few scraps and morsels tossed their way by their Zionist handlers.