How conspiracy theorizing may soon get you labelled a ‘Domestic Terrorist’
Conspiracies for good and for evil do exist now, as they have from time immemorial. The only question is which intention do you want to devote your life towards?
If you are starting to feel like forces controlling the governments of the west are out to get you, then it is likely that you are either a paranoid nut job, or a stubborn realist.
Either way, it means that you have some major problems on your hands.
If you don’t happen to find yourself among the tinfoil hat-wearing strata of conspiracy theorists waiting in a bunker for aliens to either strike down or save society from the shape shifting lizard people, but are rather contemplating how, in the 1960s, a shadow government took control of society over the dead bodies of many assassinated patriots, then certain conclusions tend to arise.
THREE ELEMENTARY REALIZATIONS FOR THINKING PEOPLE
The first conclusion you would likely arrive at is that the United States government was just put through the first coup in over 58 years (yes, what happened in 1963 was a coup).
Although it is becoming a bit prohibitive to speak such words aloud in polite society, Nancy Pelosi’s official biographer Molly Ball, recently penned a scandalous Time Magazine article entitled ‘The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that Saved the 2020 Elections’ which admitted to this conspiracy saying:
Even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream- a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”
A recently discovered eyewitness account of an “incredibly loud explosion” during the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001, has put the National Institute of Standards and Technology in a very uncomfortable position.
NIST claimed in its 2008 report on Building 7 that there were “no witness reports” of an explosion when the 47-story skyscraper fell symmetrically into its own footprint. The account of correspondent Gigi Stone Woods, who was reporting that day for local cable news channel NY1, categorically contradicts NIST’s claim.
Anyone familiar with the unscientific way that NIST conducted its investigation would expect the agency to simply ignore Woods’ account. But that won’t be so easy in this case because of the pending “request for correction” submitted last April by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The organization is now leveraging the request for correction to compel NIST to interview Woods, who confirmed her account to AE911Truth in January 2021.
AE911Truth did not become aware of Woods’ account until September 28, 2020, the same day that it filed its appeal of NIST’s initial denial of the request for correction. After the nonbinding 60-day deadline for NIST to respond to the appeal came and went, AE911Truth submitted Woods’ account — along with three other corroborating eyewitness accounts — as a supplement to both the request for correction and the appeal.
At the time that AE911Truth submitted the supplement in early December, however, the organization was not sure of the identity of the journalist who reported an “incredibly loud explosion.” In the letter to NIST dated December 7, 2020, AE911Truth stated that it “appeared” to be NY1 correspondent Annika Pergament.
That view changed a few weeks later when Ted Walter, AE911Truth’s director of strategy and development, received a Facebook message from cameraman Basche Warner. Walter had contacted Warner two months earlier because Warner had been identified by the reporter in the clip as the cameraman responsible for shooting the footage.
Warner wrote in his message to Walter: “Yes, I shot that video. It was WTC 7.” In a follow-up message to Walter, Warner advised that the reporter was actually Gigi Stone Woods and not Annika Pergament.
Walter then contacted Woods to ask her to confirm her statement of 19 years earlier, and that is just what she did in an email response on January 4, 2021. In her reply, she stated, “All I remember is that we were reporting near building 7 [sic] heard a loud explosion and people yelling to run and we all did.”
US foreign policy has clearly continued in the same direction, without missing a beat. Unlike in previous transitions in the White House, this time US President Joe Biden has not even really tried to promise even the faintest hope that it wouldn’t.
There were a few glimpses of remote hope – particularly regarding the possibility the US wouldn’t abandon its last arms treaty with Russia, New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) – and Biden’s promise of returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal.
However, in Biden’s first speech regarding foreign policy since taking office, now posted on the White House’s official website and titled, “Remarks by President Biden on America’s Place in the World,” reveals that, if anything, US belligerence on the global stage is set to only expand.
“America is back. Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy.”
Biden’s opening remarks attempt to suggest that America has drifted away under his predecessor US President Donald Trump. But when he says “America is back,” we are left to assume he means “back” to what the US was doing under the administration of US President Barack Obama under which he served as vice president.
As I write on January 1, 2021, the new year is not starting very auspiciously. Ominous pronouncements are coming from the usual high places and their media mouthpieces, announcing “highly contagious virus variants” of so-called Covid-19.
Joseph Biden has warned of a very Dark Winter to come. His use of that term Dark Winter has been echoed by officials everywhere adept at reading the talking points handed to them. The echo chamber is resounding with dark warnings. Anthony Fauci and the CDC are predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths this month alone.
These officials are now saying the vaccines they are rolling out will take time; will not eliminate the virus, etc. Hedging their bets as they announce utter disaster to come, rather like a fire and brimstone warning from Jonathan Edwards for the sins of celebrating festive times. Guess who will be blamed?
Grim projections are following the holidays like buzzards to a dead carcass. Just follow the mainstream corporate media news headlines to confirm this. You don’t need any linked directions from me.
I prefer to be brief so you can read about the incredibly important 2014 book by Graeme MacQueen, The 2007 Anthrax Deception. Then read his book. His analysis of the anthrax attacks tied to 9/11 sheds important light on the current corona virus crisis.
CBS News has learned of a threat to attack the U.S. Capitol on the same day Congress is set to count Electoral College votes. The threat cited Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who was killed by the U.S. last year.
AE911Truth’s new documentary about Dr. Leroy Hulsey’s groundbreaking new study on WTC7
By Kevin Ryan
Global Research, December 30, 2020
OffGuardian 29 December 2020
The new film Seven (trailer above), directed by Dylan Avery, examines the story of the scientific study of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) recently published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.
After inputting worst case conditions, and painstakingly eliminating what didn’t happen, Hulsey and his team of engineers came to the following conclusions:
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
These peer-reviewed conclusions directly contradict the findings of the U.S. government’s final investigation into WTC 7 as reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Seven documents the journey of Professor Hulsey and his team from their introduction to the subject and the related evidence to the final publication of their report in March of this year. It is an interesting story and important for several reasons. First, it shows what an objective group of engineering science professionals will find if they look closely at the destruction of WTC 7. Additionally, it provides a great example of what one concerned citizen can do to make a great difference in shedding light on the truth of the events of September 11, 2001.
The concerned citizen, who was barely mentioned in the film, is John Thiel, a nurse anesthetist from Alaska. In 2010, Thiel began a 3-year process of looking for an engineer to conduct an honest scientific investigation into the destruction of WTC 7. Thiel was not a structural engineer, but he knew that the official reports on the destruction of that building were false and he wanted to do something about it. Ten years later, after contacting 150 engineers, finally finding and gaining Hulsey’s commitment to do it, and persuading Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to get involved, Thiel’s persistence paid off.
Seven also features comments from some brave engineers who have spoken out in the past about WTC 7. This includes fire protection engineer Scott Grainger, structural engineer Kamal Obeid, civil engineer and AE911Truth board director Roland Angle, and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti. All these men make powerful statements in the film about NIST’s failures and omission of evidence.
The film reviews much of the evidence and how it was treated by the initial ASCE/FEMA building performance study and by NIST. It discusses circumstantial evidence including the suspicious tenants of WTC 7 (e.g. the CIA, the Secret Service, the DOD, and the SEC) and foreknowledge about the collapse of the building. It reviews the inexplicable “predictions” of WTC 7’s collapse by media giants CNN and BBC, both of which reported the collapse before it actually happened.
However, the strength of the film is in exposing the viewer to scientific facts and evidence as described by credible experts like Hulsey, Angle, Grainger, Obeid, and Szamboti. This includes the samples of steel exhibiting intergranular melting and sulfidation that the New York Times originally called “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” but that were ignored in the NIST reports. It includes the fact that no tall building had ever collapse primarily from fire and that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary and were fed by only 20-minutes of fire load in any given area. The film also highlights concerns about the lack of scientific integrity in NIST’s manipulation of model parameters like the coefficient of expansion of steel and the omission of shear studs on the WTC 7 floor assemblies.
The film is only 45 minutes long and focuses largely on the evidence related to Hulsey’s study. It does not include some facts and evidence about WTC 7 that have been pointed out in the past. For example, it does not detail NIST’s history of failed hypotheses, like the diesel fuel tank hypothesis or the claim that the design of the building contributed to the collapse. It also doesn’t mention that the new WTC 7 was completed in 2006, when NIST was stating it had no idea what happened to the first one.
In the film, Professor Hulsey comes across as very credible and driven by the desire for an objective approach that gives the public an understanding of what happened to WTC 7. His comments about building his study on a clear palate, using pure science, ring true. Avery tells Hulsey’s story simply, without engulfing the viewer in unanswered questions.
Overall, Seven is an excellent presentation for people with a scientific mindset. As John Thiel wrote to me:
Any engineer or scientist with a basic understanding of physics, who does not suffer from cognitive dissonance, should easily be convinced of the truth after watching this video.
If people want to help reveal the truth about WTC 7, and therefore about 9/11, they should share this film with every scientist and engineer they know. It is available on multiple streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and Microsoft. As a society, our understanding of the crimes of 9/11 continues to be crucial to our understanding of what is going on today.
Seven is directed by Dylan Avery, released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and available to rent and buy from various platforms, here.
Zachary K. Hubbard has made a deep study of Gematria, finding that it has great powers not only of explanation, but also of prediction. Here is a link to his two books. I recommend reading the first one first (Letters and Numbers), or at least the first few chapters, before reading the newer one, Number Games-911 to Coronavirus. The link is on his Patreon page, but the books are now free. https://www.patreon.com/posts/merry-christmas-45416770
The suppression of alternative voices on the internet, including those who challenge the official story of 9/11, is relentless. And it’s getting worse.
The censorship of non-mainstream viewpoints includes content created by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This practice, by online giants like Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, has been going on for a long time but has been reaching a fever pitch over the past two or three years.
It is particularly YouTube and its parent company, Google, whose policies have made it more difficult to find AE911Truth and its content online.
This is all being done in the name of reducing “harm” allegedly created by “extremism” and “misinformation.” Mainstream accounts of events like 9/11 are more and more being shielded from scrutiny as material challenging them is either banned or made harder to find.
Meanwhile, mainstream media are being held up as authorities on what is true and what isn’t. This effectively means that alternative journalists whose reports differ from those of the corporate media on the same subject are assumed to be spreading misinformation.
Internet censorship is being carried out in a number of ways. A few years ago, YouTube began “demonetizing” videos that it considered inappropriate or problematic in some way. This did not affect AE911Truth directly, since the organization has never used the platform to generate advertising revenue.
But more recent moves are having an effect.
AE911Truth videos won’t come up nearly as readily as they once did when someone searches for them on YouTube, nor are they as easy to find on Google. In fact, even when you type in the precise title of an AE911Truth video, you’re far more likely to find numerous mainstream outlets appearing ahead of what you are actually searching for. Sometimes you’ll see AE911Truth videos that have been re-posted on other YouTube channels.