FALSE FLAG © (Novella)
The American Institute of Architects confirmed their place in modern Amercian [sic] SCAD in Atlanta this week, by voting not to confront the massed evidence of Controlled Demolitions in New York on 911.
By allowing the Thermal Expansion hypothesis of Shyam Sunder to stand part [“The Results Are In || May 16, 2015 Overwhelming Majority of AIA Delegates Make the Political Decision and Vote Down Resolution 15-6:”], the Institute formally wrote into the literature its blessing of the 911 creatioNIST agnotology, whereby engineering algorithms were constructed -without peer review – to explain the 82 columned 47 storied steel framed high-rises’ sudden, complete and symmetric FREE FALL, directly into its own plan area, due to the NIST described ‘New Phenomenon’ “Sequential building collapse (due to Normal Office Furnishing Fires” already OUT at time of critical initiation) on ONE floor, around ONE column seat, in 6.5 seconds.
‘“We are a professional – not a political – organization. But in this case, if we vote “no” on this resolution, we are making a political decision, not a professional one. Thank you very much.” – Daniel Barnum, FAIA
Those were the closing remarks from the lead sponsor of AIA Resolution 15-6, Daniel Barnum, FAIA. Seconds later, the AIA delegates cast their votes. The unfortunate outcome was that an overwhelming majority made the political decision. Resolution 15-6, which called upon the AIA to support a new WTC 7 investigation, was voted down 3,892 to 160, garnering 4% of the delegates’ votes.
The vote came after a number of impassioned statements from supporters and opponents. It was evident that those who opposed the resolution did not fully understand the official explanation of WTC 7’s destruction for which they claimed such adamant support. One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.
Resolution 15-6 met the same fate as all but one of the substantive resolutions considered. Even in terms of percentages, the outcome was not that different, with the other four losing resolutions garnering between 6% and 26% of the votes and one being tabled. This does not mitigate our disappointment—nor does it excuse the delegates for their failure to accept their moral and ethical responsibility as architects—but it does illuminate something that we learned: it is difficult to pass even most slightly controversial resolution at the AIA National Convention.
However, that does not signal to us that we should give up on reaching out to the AIA membership. We are pleased to have gained the signatures of another 150 AIA members, seven of whom are fellows of the Institute. We will continue and intensify our outreach efforts with ever more creative and incisive strategies.
We would like to thank everyone who supported and contributed to our AIA resolution campaign. We were able to spark an unprecedented level of dialogue at the convention and gain a much deeper understanding of how we can successfully awaken the architecture community. Thank you.”‘ [A&E Bulletin]
Bob Graham and the Missing 9/11 Report Pages
by Kevin Ryan
The media has taken an increasing interest in the 28 pages that were redacted from the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry Report. The stories usually feature one of the Inquiry’s leaders, former Senator Bob Graham, who has claimed that the missing pages point to involvement of the government of Saudi Arabia. Although Saudi complicity is in no way surprising, facts that are often overlooked suggest that Graham’s actions may not be entirely straightforward. This leads independent researchers to raise concerns about his intentions and there are good reasons why those concerns are justified.
To begin with, Graham never calls for release of other documents collected by the government’s 9/11 investigators, most of which are still held secret. That includes the majority of 9/11 Commission documents, of which only a fraction have been released—with much of the content redacted. The release of Commission documents is hindered by claims that they are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because they are congressional records. Nonetheless, the public deserves to see documents that might answer critical questions.
Read more here
LET’S REVISE 9/11 TRUTH’S DEMAND: CHALLENGE THE AFFIRMATIVE
by James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
The perpetrators of the myth of 9/11 as a radical Muslim terrorist operation to strike at a freedom-loving Great Satan, wielding box-cutters and hijacked airplanes, implanted that scenario early and ingeniously. And, most unfortunately, “once… humans launch on a belief and internalize it, that belief dies only under extraordinary circumstances.” (Jason Socol, There Goes My Everything, 83 ff.) In addition, the now long-since popular belief, or myth, that alien Muslims attacked America on our own soil eminently answers the need of the law-and-order-minded American populace for the satisfaction of deeply-craved certainty as opposed to uncertainty, the same preferential sentiment that has led to so many dozens of DNA evidence-based exonerations of late long after hurried convictions. We tend to want to see perceived (or conjured) threats taken off the street, charged, convicted, and removed as swiftly as possible – never mind the finer points of credible evidence.
And this is especially so if we can’t pronounce the alleged perpetrators’ names or stomach their beliefs. Weird people whose beliefs and clothes tend to show to many that they don’t belong in our midst need to be brought up short and slapped beyond silly for messing with us. And once the hook has been set in the collective mind that they did it, it’s near impossible to extricate.
“And who needs evidence?” the collectivity says. “Why undergo the tedium and expense of a confusing and nit-picking trial? We saw them do it with our own eyes. They were there and we know what they did.”
The programmed myth-believers always say to us 9/11 Truthers, “What do you mean they (the 19, construed into Muslims in general) didn’t do it even though they were, obviously, there? Was it all just happenstance? And what do you mean it was done by U.S. government and/or perhaps Israeli insiders instead? What’s your evidence that the Muslims clearly and undeniably on the scene, and undeniably up to no good, didn’t do it?”
And we, in return, recite now by rote every time every single bit of evidence and anomaly we know of as sort of our mantra, including the kitchen sink. And, every time, all they have to say in reply, their arms folded in front of them, is, “I’m not convinced,” or “Why on earth would your alleged ‘insiders’ kill three thousand of their own people? Toward what end would it be?” And we can argue until we’re blue, green, and purple in the face and it’s not going to move the needle.
And that’s for one reason: because we’ve been had. The dialogue pursued by our critics is illegitimate from the beginning and deliberately calculated to lead nowhere. Eliciting an attempted defense of the negative is, in fact, an evasion tactic designed and guaranteed to block the evidentiary path to the truth and instead lead to continued stalemate between disputants.
Because, as any lawyer or logician will tell you, “the burden of proof rests always on the affirmative.” So, instead, it is we who should be asking them (meaning anyone who wants to defend the Official Conspiracy Theory) “what credible evidence can you cite that supports the OCT or, better, tends to prove it true? Just give me one credible bit of evidence.” And I bet they’ll have to think hard about that. Because, there simply is no genuine supporting evidence for untruth, and it’s time they make that discovery.
So, don’t demand “a new or real investigation.” We know the powers that be aren’t going to assent to any such thing. Instead, let’s demand, and keep demanding, and demanding, and demanding credible evidence to substantiate their insisted-upon story. If we do that enough times, their failure to comply will, sooner rather than later, make it plain to everyone that they’re talking through their hat. And isn’t that what we want to happen?
The link to the full story is in the title above. The full text (minus links and photos) is below in case the article disappears from the NYT website or is put behind a paywall.
WASHINGTON — When Bruce E. Ivins, an Army microbiologist, took a fatal overdose of Tylenol in 2008, the government declared that he had been responsible for the anthrax letter attacks of 2001, which killed five people and set off a nationwide panic, and closed the case.
Now, a former senior F.B.I. agent who ran the anthrax investigation for four years says that the bureau gathered “a staggering amount of exculpatory evidence” regarding Dr. Ivins that remains secret. The former agent, Richard L. Lambert, who spent 24 years at the F.B.I., says he believes it is possible that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer, but he does not think prosecutors could have convicted him had he lived to face criminal charges.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Tennessee last Thursday, Mr. Lambert accused the bureau of trying “to railroad the prosecution of Ivins” and, after his suicide, creating “an elaborate perception management campaign” to bolster its claim that he was guilty. Mr. Lambert’s lawsuit accuses the bureau and the Justice Department of forcing his dismissal from a job as senior counterintelligence officer at the Energy Department’s lab in Oak Ridge, Tenn., in retaliation for his dissent on the anthrax case.
The late Bruce Ivins in 2003, when he was a microbiologist at Fort Detrick, Md. Credit Sam Yu/Frederick News Post, via Assocaited (sic) Press
The anthrax letters were mailed to United States senators and news organizations in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, causing a huge and costly disruption in the postal system and the federal government. Members of Congress and Supreme Court justices were forced from their offices while technicians in biohazard suits cleaned up the lethal anthrax powder. Decontamination costs nationwide exceeded $1 billion. At least 17 people were sickened, in addition to the five who died.
The bureau’s investigation, one of the longest-running and most technically complex inquiries in its history, has long been seen as troubled. Investigators initially lacked the forensic skills to analyze bioterrorist attacks. For several years, agents focused on a former Army scientist and physician, Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, who was subsequently cleared and given a $4.6 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit. Reviews by the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office faulted aspects of the F.B.I.’s scientific work on the case.
Mr. Lambert, who was himself criticized for pursuing Dr. Hatfill for so long, has now offered, in his lawsuit and in an interview, an insider’s view of what hampered the investigation.
“This case was hailed at the time as the most important case in the history of the F.B.I.,” Mr. Lambert said. “But it was difficult for me to get experienced investigators assigned to it.”
He said that the effort was understaffed and plagued by turnover, and that 12 of 20 agents assigned to the case had no prior investigative experience. Senior bureau microbiologists were not made available, and two Ph.D. microbiologists who were put on the case were then removed for an 18-month Arabic language program in Israel. Fear of leaks led top officials to order the extreme compartmentalization of information, with investigators often unable to compare notes and share findings with colleagues, he said.
Mr. Lambert said he outlined the problems in a formal complaint in 2006 to the F.B.I.’s deputy director. Some of his accusations were later included in a report on the anthrax case by the CBS News program “60 Minutes,” infuriating bureau leaders.
The police in Frederick, Md., spoke with a woman they identified as Diane Ivins, the wife of Bruce E. Ivins, 62, at the couple’s home in Frederick, Md., in 2008. Credit Rob Carr/Associated Press
The F.B.I., which rarely comments on pending litigation, did not respond to requests for comment on Mr. Lambert’s claims.
Although the lethal letters contained notes expressing jihadist views, investigators came to believe the mailer was an insider in the government’s biodefense labs. They eventually matched the anthrax powder to a flask in Dr. Ivins’s lab at Fort Detrick in Maryland and began intense scrutiny of his life and work.
They discovered electronic records that showed he had spent an unusual amount of time at night in his high-security lab in the periods before the two mailings of the anthrax letters. They found that he had a pattern of sending letters and packages from remote locations under assumed names. They uncovered emails in which he described serious mental problems.
The investigators documented Dr. Ivins’s obsession with a national sorority that had an office near the Princeton, N.J., mailbox where the letters were mailed. They detected what they believed to be coded messages directed at colleagues, hidden in the notes in the letters.
As prosecutors prepared to charge him with the five murders in July 2008, Dr. Ivins, 62, took his own life at home in Frederick, Md. Days later, at a news conference, Jeffrey A. Taylor, then the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, said the authorities believed “that based on the evidence we had collected, we could prove his guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”
But Mr. Lambert says the bureau also gathered a large amount of evidence pointing away from Dr. Ivins’s guilt that was never shared with the public or the news media. Had the case come to trial, he said, “I absolutely do not think they could have proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” He declined to be specific, saying that most of the information was protected by the Privacy Act and was unlikely to become public unless Congress carried out its own inquiry.
After retiring from the F.B.I. in 2012, Mr. Lambert joined the Energy Department. But an F.B.I. ethics lawyer ruled that because Mr. Lambert had to work with F.B.I. agents in his new job, he was violating a conflict-of-interest law that forbade former federal employees from contacting previous colleagues for a year after they had left their government jobs.
That ruling led to his dismissal, Mr. Lambert said, and he has not been able to find work despite applying for more than 70 jobs. His lawsuit asserts that several other former F.B.I. agents were able to take identical intelligence jobs with the Energy Department and that he was singled out for mistreatment.
The Anthrax Coverup Exposed
Paul Craig Roberts
Graeme MacQueen’s 2014 book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy, has been vindicated by the head of the FBI’s Anthrax Investigation.
Four and one-half months ago I posted a review of MacQueen’s book. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/02/2001-anthrax-deception-case-domestic-conspiracy/he hired government apologists, the despicable presstitute media, and the usual gullible patriots greeted the book with screams of “conspiracy theory.” In fact, MacQueen’s book was a carefully researched project that established that there indeed was a conspiracy–a conspiracy inside the government.
MacQueen’s conclusion stands vindicated by Richard Lambert, the agent in charge of the FBI anthrax investigation who has turned whistleblower. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/04/head-fbis-anthrax-investigation-calls-b-s.html
Read more here
Democratic presidential candidate’s logo sets off mini-Twitterstorm with claims of plagiarism, mixed messages and allusion to the twin towers
Hillary Clinton’s new campaign logo was the subject of fevered comment as soon as it hit the internet on Sunday.
Some pointed out flaws in its basic symbolism, as a red arrow – the colour of US Republicanism – striking to the right, through what people said looked like a blue blockade.
Wikileaks entered the fray to accuse Hillary of plagiarising their own logo, which also, erm, features a red arrow.
But others saw a more sinister image at play.
The problems with the official version of events in New York on 11 September 2001 are revisited and re-examined in this Art-documentary ~ using stabilized and enhanced footage.
How Science Died at the World Trade Center
by Kevin Ryan
Science has been misused for political purposes many times in history. However, the most glaring example of politically motivated pseudoscience—that employed by U.S. government scientists to explain the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC)—continues to be ignored by many scientists. As we pass the 10th anniversary of the introduction of that account, it is useful to review historic examples of fake science used for political purposes and the pattern that defines that abuse.
An early example of pseudoscience used to promote a political agenda was the concerted Soviet effort to contradict evolutionary theory and Mendelian inheritance. For nearly 45 years, the Soviet government used propaganda to foster unproven theories of agriculture promoted by its minister of agriculture, Trofim Lysenko. Scientists seeking favor with the Soviet hierarchy produced fake experimental data in support of Lysenko’s false claims. Scientific evidence from the fields of biology and genetics were banned in favor of educational programs that taught only Lysenkoism and many biologists and geneticists were executed or sent to labor camps. This propaganda-fueled program of anti-science continued for over forty years, until 1964, and spread to other countries including China.
Read article here