Colorado PBS Runs 9/11 Film Sponsored by 9/11 Families: Experts Reject Official Story, Present Evidence of Demolition

Thanks for posting this story.

For further evidence that the NIST WTC reports are not true, see my article picked up by the Council on Tall Buildings and Habitat.

Are Tall Buildings Safer After NIST WTC Report?

It's excellent to finally see this website actually post an article providing deserved coverage for the qualitative work done by what I consider to be real, true 9/11 "truthers".  Many people have mocked and tried to discredit "9/11 Truth" and I suspect that this is very much, if not entirely, because of the promoters of balony and well debunked theories; f.e., the people promoting the notion that no real aeroplanes were involved in the attacks and we were supposedly fooled with holographic images of aeroplanes.  Even today, some people continue to repeat such nonsense.  I thought this one about holographic images of aeroplanes was dead years ago but recently came across comments by some people and they were again repeating this stupid "theory".

More can be learned about the disinfo and misinfo "truthers" at 911review.com, 911research.wtc7.net and probably also wtc7.net, which're by the same editor or editors.  Searching these for "disinfo" should turn up links for related pages and there's still more about this at these websites, just that "disinfo" might not be the best term to use for the search.  Visibility911.com might also have some pages about this since it's a general activist website and is recommened by one or more of the aforementioned three.

Some people continue to promote the idea that no plane or nothing like a 757 hit the Pentagon and I believed this for quite a while due to not seeing what I expected from a plane crash.  There was just a very small piece of fuselage and a wheel set, whatever the latter is called.  But I came to learn of what 911review.com and 911research.wtc7.net say about this and was then convinced that a large plane like a 757 did hit the Pentagon.  These websites provide a very good or excellent explanation and it's proven fact that a high-speed plane crash can blow the aircraft into smithereens; very tiny pieces, even dust.  There's a short video clip at YouTube about a military jet maker, or the US military itself, running a fighter jet on tracks something like railway kind. The plane is driven at very high speed and is smashed into a solid wall of what I guess is concrete. What we see happen is the plane being smashed so hard that it's pulverized into a cloud of dust.  The plane that hit the Pentagon didn't turn into dust, but it was smashed into zillions of very small pieces that make the Pentagon property look like a lot of people were spreading small litter over a large area of the lawn and the helicopter pad (whatever it's called).

I've referred different people many times to these websites in order for them to learn that the "no plane" theory is well debunked in all respects but there still are people who promote this bunk anyway.  Some people believe disproven things and are very obstinate about giving up these beliefs, as well as their attempts to try to get other people to believe falsehoods.

Even if the debunking, most of it, is now years old, the disinfo'ers nevertheless have remained a real "thorn in the side" for the well-grounded people of the "9/11 Truth" movement.  Many people who've continued to think that the movement is full of nonsense evidently haven't studied any better than those who promote debunked and nonsensical theories while claiming to be real "9/11 tuthers".  Some of the latter are probably shills intentionally trying to discredit the real and competent "truthers", but other people who've learned of only what these shills and othe disinfo spreaders say have been negligent in allowing themselves to not learn about the serious people in the movement and what they say and have been saying for many years.  Exposing the LIE that is 9/11 as pretext for a series of wars is of utmost importance and paying careful attention to the truly competent researchers and their allies is essential.

Of the three websites, WTC7.net might be the most edited in current terms and then I think 911research.wtc7.net is next, but all three nevertheless provide plenty of information that's definitely worth reading.  I haven't read everything at any of these websites but have read enough to see that they all are very recommendable even if I also think that 911review.com needs a little updating here and there.  We can often discern what the updates would be once we've read enough at these websites, but it would be a little better if the small updates were made.  I've read enough to be able to realize what some of the updates would be, if they were added or made, and when I don't but have doubts, then searches of these websites usually turns up links for pages that provide the necessary information.  People who aren't very familiar with these websites, however, could be mislead for they wouldn't know what there should be updates for based on what's stated in other pages at one or more of the three websites.

They're very good  resources though; definitely recommendable.

Yet, we also don't need strictly scientific analysis and evidence to be able to realize that there has to be a major lie about the official story regarding the 9/11 attacks and the wars based on those attacks.

The famous "Jersey Girls" didn't need scientific analysis to be able to very promptly realize that Washington wasn't providing adequate justification for war on Afghanistan in order to stand opposed against such recourse until many critically important questions were answered.  These four women were super-fast.  They were extraordinarily alert, "sharp".  I knew that Washington was talking crap, that the logic didn't hold up; but, my argumentation consisted of far less than what these four women had in store for Washington. 

My argumentation basically consisted of two simple questions.  1) What's the proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible?  After all, Washington didn't provide any proof that he was guilty and our law is "Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt".  And, 2), if he was responsible, then why did he do or command this?  Answer to #2 is very simple and it's that his action would be retaliation, rather than first-strike.  It would be in response to something unacceptable that Washington was guilty of having done and we should have learned far earlier than 9/11 that Washington can't be trusted to be moral, etc.  Iow, if bin Laden had been  responsible, then we needed to know what his reasons would be.  Well, he wasn't responsible, so we can forget question #2.

But, the "Jersey Girls" had a lot more in store for Washington and we still haven't gotten the answers to their questions or certainly not most of them.  They're all critically pertinent questions and Washington continues to roguishly deny us the answers. Why? Well, the answer is simple. It's because Washington is guilty as sin (or worse) in all of this.  The questions constitute terrain or turf that Washington bosses don't want to enter.  It has an invisible sign at the border of this turf and it reads, "Do NOT Enter; Danger!".   If Washington has nothing self-incriminating to hide, then it will answer the questions in all honesty; but its "leadership" refuses.  Instead, they avoid these critical questions as if they're the plague.  Plague of what?  Plague of people who aren't easily fooled.

But what proof was there for bin Laden being guilty as the White House clowns claimed for justification for war on Afghanistan?  There was no proof.  The FBI doesn't list bin Laden as guilty for 9/11.  A journalist inquired about this many years ago and some FBI official said that the reason was that there wasn't sufficient proof.  The official added that it's not the FBI that indicts people but, instead, the DoJ does this and it hadn't, due to lack of proof. 

Even Cheney said in an interview several years ago that there never was proof that bin Laden was at all responsible for the attacks, and he added a lie in saying that the White House administration had never claimed that bin Laden was guilty as it alleged on day #1.  The latter part of what Cheney said in the interview is a blatant lie, for bin Laden being allegedly guilty was the basis for war on Afghanistan.  Actually, it was for that reason as well as the Taliban supposedly refusing to hand over bin Laden, which was yet another lie from Washington.

2-minute interview on the Tony Snow Show with Dick Cheney on March 29, 2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FftI0U2Gm9s 

The following is a brief excerpt from an interview that bin Laden provided and it might put some people to sleep, for he was plentifully repetitive; because of the questions from the interviewer.  It helps to illustrate that he was very consistent, for this wasn't the sole interview that he provided prior to the launch of the war on Afghanistan and he was always consistent; unlike Washington.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697

Quote:

Interview with Osama bin Laden. Denies his Involvement in 9/11

Full text of Pakistani paper's Sept 01 "exclusive" interview

By Global Research

Global Research, May 09, 2011

Daily Ummat in Urdu (Translation into English by BBC Worldwide Monitoring September 29, 2001 28 September 2001

Global Research Editor’s Note

We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.

The authenticity of this interview, which is available in recognized electronic news archives, is confirmed.

Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Bin Laden’s statements in this interview are markedly different from those made in the alleged Osama video tapes.

In this interview, Osama bin Laden exhibits an understanding of US foreign policy. He expresses his views regarding the loss of life on 9/11. He also makes statements as to who, in his opinion, might be the likely perpetrator of the September 11 attacks.

This is an important text which has not been brought to the attention of Western public opinion.

We have highlighted key sections of this interview. It is our hope that the text of this interview, published barely a week before the onset of the war on Afghanistan, will contribute to a better understanding of the history of Al Qaeda,the role of Osama bin Laden and the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Michel Chossudovsky, May 9, 2011

Washington is run by charlatans and Bush provided an interesting response to a journalist's question in January 2003.  He was speaking to a group of journalists at the White House about waging war on Iraq and except for one of these journalists, the others just took notes or were like half asleep.  The alert one asked (probably paraphrased, for I don't have a copy of his/her words to refer to), "But what about the Constitution?".  The person realized that there was a constitutional problem with what Bush was saying so asked about what the White House administration was doing regarding the Law of The Land of the USA.  Bush eventually replied that the Constitution "is just a piece of paper"; that is, the Constitution is unimportant, we can nonchalantly disregard what it says about the US and war. 

It's what Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and many others have rather very evidently or obviously thought about the Constitution, but only GW Bush was witless enough to state it explicitly.  Through their actions we can see that they, other White House people, military chiefs, and so on, don't care about the Law of the Land in the USA.

"Funny thing" is that when I was in USN bootcamp we received a relevant course.  It included the military jacket manual and our first oath, which is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Silently, I cheered. The instructor also added that if we're ever given orders that we know or strongly suspect to be wrong, then duty is to disobey.  I doubly cheered; of course, silently.  After all, I didn't enlist for war.  War, it was hoped, wouldn't occur during my 3-year service contract.  Unlike for a US Army Colonel who was interviewed by a journalist during the worst years of the war on Iraq regarding whether or not he liked war and he said that he loved these "turkey shoots", clearly meaning shooting Iraqis, war has to be of very last recourse for me.

Military personnel are taught that the first oath of service is to defend the Constitution against all enemies and Washington nonchalantly disregards it, treating it as unimportant.  And it doesn't matter if it's done in explicit terms, such as with Bush Jr, or implicitly.  Either way, Washington "leadership" implicitly declares that it is enemy of the Constitution and, therefore, of the USA. And this sort of enemy of the Constitution is the very worst, the most extreme kind.

The govt "assures" that we don't have to bother with the Constitution and, therefore, the US military member's first oath is pure nonsense, bunk.  Many voters evidently agree.  After all, by far most of them repetitively elect and re-elect not only impropêrly or insufficiently vetted and unvettable candidates but also ones who've already established for us the fact that they're criminal, roguish, treachorous, terrorist, ....