A recent video in the BBC archives shows a woman giving a report about Building 7's collapse, even though directly behind her, on live TV, stands WTC7.

The release of this video has stirred up all kinds of uploaders to google video, youtube and articles like this one bringing the issue out and front.

Removed and deleted videos.

An article that links to the newly found video sites exposes the fraud of the 9/11 official story and with over 910 Diggs in 10 hours is not listed in the first 10 pages of digg. You should be able to find a link to the video from the article link here / here or in the digg comments for the entry.

Google pulled the video many times throughout today, YouTube has repeatedly removed the video.

Thinking about the BBC doing incorrect reporting comes to mind. But what you are witnessing is a BBC reporter that is talking about WTC7 having already collapsed, when it was still standing behind her.

There are many ways that you could come up with reasons as to how they could be so wrong as to report and discuss this false collapse between two reporters. But how?

When WTC1 and WTC2 fell there was no question. You either saw it or heard from someone who saw it or watched it.

Someone or her would have to write the report down, take in ideas from other people, discussed it maybe with her crew before she went on. She had to talk with someone with someone that knew it fell, otherwise why does she give the story. How could they not know?

At the end of my thinking, why does google remove the video, why does youtube remove the video? Why does digg keep this most dug story buried?

Censoring this video makes no sense. These makes google and youtube look like sell out.

Ron Paul Presidential Exploritory Commity Video

How to save the world for dummies.

1. Wath this video from Ron Paul.

2. Go to google video and learn what Ron Paul is about by watching him in action. Google Video Ron Paul Search.

-By Ron Paul for President

The Pentagon recently reported that it now spends roughly $8.4 billion per month waging the war in Iraq, while the additional cost of our engagement in Afghanistan brings the monthly total to a staggering $10 billion.  Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq.  This sum is not reflected in official budget and deficit projections.  Congress has funded the war by passing a series of so-called "supplemental" spending bills, which are passed outside of the normal appropriations process and thus deemed off-budget.

This is fundamentally dishonest: if we're going to have a war, let's face the costs-- both human and economic-- squarely.  Congress has no business hiding the costs of war through accounting tricks.

As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it's important to ask ourselves an overlooked question:  Can we really afford it?  If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I'm quite certain it would end very quickly.  The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes.  When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.

Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance.  Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular.  The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department.  In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny.  Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve system is a creation of Congress.

The result of this arrangement is inflation.  And inflation finances war.

Economist Lawrence Parks has explained how the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 made possible our involvement in World War I.  Without the ability to create new money, the federal government never could have afforded the enormous mobilization of men and material.  Prior to that, American wars were financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which have limits.  But government printing presses, at least in theory, have no limits.  That's why the money supply has nearly tripled just since 1990.

For perspective, consider our ongoing military commitment in Korea. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent $1 trillion in today's dollars over 55 years.  What do we have to show for it?  North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear weapons, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector.  The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, as the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the men who fought in Korea give little thought to what was gained or lost.  The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region. 

The $500 billion we've officially spent in Iraq is an enormous sum, but the real total is much higher, hidden within the Defense Department and foreign aid budgets.  As we build permanent military bases and a $1 billion embassy in Iraq, we need to keep asking whether it's really worth it.  Congress should at least fund the war in an honest way so the American people can judge for themselves.

 http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst021907.htm

By Ron Paul

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testifies twice every year before the congressional Financial Services committee, and I look forward to these opportunities to raise questions about monetary policy.  I believe monetary policy is critically important  yet overlooked in Washington.  Money is the lifeblood of any economy, and control over a nation's currency means control over its economic well being.   Fed bankers quite literally determine the value of our money, by controlling the supply of dollars and establishing interest rates.  Their actions can make you richer or poorer overnight, in terms of the value of your savings and the buying power of your paycheck.   So I urge all Americans to educate themselves about monetary policy, and better understand how a small group of unelected individuals at the Federal Reserve and Treasury department wield tremendous power over our lives.

The following are some excerpted comments from my opening remarks at the hearing with Mr. Bernanke:   

Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support.  I've often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy.   Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank.

Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve.   There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks.  We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.

The role the Fed plays in the President's secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress.  The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions.

But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money.  And that purchasing power is always reduced.  The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started.  This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability.   All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation's poor and middle class.   This leads to political turmoil.

Government officials consistently claim that inflation is in check at barely 2%, but middle class Americans know that their purchasing power--especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition-- is shrinking much faster than 2% each year.

We look at GDP numbers to reassure ourselves that all is well, yet a growing number of Americans still do not enjoy the higher standard of living that monetary inflation brings to the privileged few.   Those few have access to the newly created money first, before its value is diluted.

For example:  Before the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, CEO income was about 30 times the average worker's pay.   Today, it's closer to 500 times.  It's hard to explain this simply by market forces and increases in productivity.   One Wall Street firm last year gave out bonuses totaling $16.5 billion.  There's little evidence that this represents free market capitalism.

In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods.   Today that dollar is worth $5.15.  Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar.   We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.

How can a policy of steadily debasing our currency be defended morally, knowing what harm it causes to those who still believe in saving money and assuming responsibility for themselves in their retirement years?   Is it any wonder we are a nation of debtors rather than savers?

We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.

The traitor who started the latest Real Id Act, says that it will help fight terrorism, mainly because they say that the 9/11 hi jackers had valid drivers licenses. And now the so called terrorist are going to cost american tax payers $11 billion dollars to implament the real id act.

As of now six states have passed legislation that are in direct opposition to the act. Among these states are Maine, New Mexico, Washington, Wyoming, Montana and Georgia.

Georgia Senator Mitch Seabaugh introduced Senate Bill 5, which states that the exact requirements of the Real ID Act have yet to be defined, and several deadlines ranging from November of 2005 to January of 2007 have passed with no requirements established.

In addition to this, the bill states that the Real ID Act was tacked to the end of a spending bill for defense and tsunami relief, allowing it to slip through without careful examination. Without taking a closer look at the bill, some fear that this will leave documents more vulnerable to counterfeiting and citizens more susceptible to identity theft.

Well at face value, if you believe the lie called the 9/11 commission report, and believe that the 19 hi jackers are responsible for 9/11, would you not find it interesting that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia. Even bin laden himself is from Saudi Arabia. But Bin laden happened to hiding in a cave in the same country we wanted to invade before 9/11.

Oh thats right we haven't found osama bin laden yet. He is not important. bush never said he wanted him dead or alive. bush just uses the bin laden name and word terrorist to start other wars that he relates somehow to the terrorist he has yet to hunt down or show evidence of their involvment in 9/11.

Hackers have already cloned the RFID in the Real ID chips and used them for other purposes. Meaning that your Real ID card, has a radio frequency device in it. It gives out an electrical signal that is unique all its own. Kind of like your social security number. The problem them is that armature hackers have already found a way to clone and duplicate the RFID signal in Real ID cards, making it so that they could impersinate anyone by simply hacking a technology the federal government has no idea on how it works or the vulnerabilities the technology has. All congress knows is that they have a bunch of lobbyist or bribist giving them money and things to pass this bullshit National ID card down to the states and force something unconstitutional.

If the states do not stop this national id card sham, welcome in the era of show me you papers all over again. If you do not know about the Real ID Act, you better go find out all you can, then tell your congressman to get the lobbyist out of his ass and act like an american.

Real ID will not stop terrorism.
How can you stop or wage a war against terrorism.
Terrorism is not a physical entity, it is a belief.
I could get a real ID card and the next day decide to be a terrorist.
This is a way to monitor those INSIDE the country.

A man of few words can cripple the English language even the heritage and history of the United States of America along with them.

When george bush and his administration lie to the American people over and over again, he has to dig deep for some meaning that draws a similar line to that is in which his policy at home and abroad.

On this years presidents day, george bush compares himself and his fight against terrorist and Iraq to George Washington fighting the British for Independence.

There is nothing presidential about george bush. The executive office is to uphold the constitution. Bring it first before any situation, use it as a guide. For bush to say that the war on terror is somehow related to independence is against the constitution. The interest of the United States is by and for the people.

As America voted recently, we want an end to the illegal war in Iraq before bush starts wars with Iran and Syria. I know why Syria is a threat to America, they switched to the Euro for their currency. War with Iran is a bunch of propaganda that is just like the build up for the lie war with Iraq. We helped Iran with building nuclear program for energy, just like they said then. The last time Iran went to war, it was in 1980 against Iraq. And do not forget the Operation Iran-Contra.

In the Iran-Contra Affair (also known as "Irangate"), United States President Ronald Reagan's administration was involved in the sale of arms to Iran, which was engaged in a bloody war with its neighbor Iraq from 1980 to 1988 (Iran-Iraq War).

With all of the lies from george bushs own mouth and the other people he surrounds himself with, why do people believe the story of the bush administration about the events of 9/11.

It is now confirmed that the information from the CIA, was fixed by bush administration. This information was fed to us, congress, the media, the world as our reasons for starting pre emptied wars on sovereign nations with elected officials.

When an administration like this bush regime operates in such a matter, it is a parallel to dictatorship. What did Hitler do after he took office, he burned down the Parliament building and created laws similar to the Patriot act, that take away your freedoms and rights. The bush administration is well known for concentration camps, one in Guantanamo bay. These people are held indefinitely without being charged for a crime, in a foreign nation. There are camps in the United States where people labeled terrorist are thrown into detention centers without a phone call, without being charged, and without seeing a judge.

If 9/11 was about terrorist, then why are the borders left open, and why do both republicans and democrats cheer for a guest worker program from Mexico?

How about a national id card. That way instead of having to have multiple documents for identification, you can have one card that can be scanned in any state and manipulated by anyone running the computer systems.

Do you trust a government who's own congress gives away its duties to create its own money interest free. The constitution says that congress should declare war. Do you trust a congress that gives it over to one person (dictator)?

Why is bush meeting with prime minister of Canada and president of Mexico about an American union (source whitehouse.gov)? Why is the council on foreign relations writing documents called "Building a North American Community"?

Search north+american+union.

America, we are not free anyone. No matter how much we want congress to do common sense things that benefit all people, or presidents to stop doing stupid shit, we cant. Voting will not help. Who are you going to vote for? Who do know who really gives a shit about the people? For god sakes they are taking away paper trails at voting booths and now its electronic. The fixed game can now be forever fixed.

So the media doesn't care, you cant make a difference and the government really doesn't care about anyone. Look how long it has taken to increase minimum wage, its been 10 years. None of them none care about you or me. 

They tap our phones with the help of big corporations that do the work form them, AT&T, Verizon, etc. Bill Clinton tapped phones just like george bush. The issues of our time are far beyond the political spectrum that pins two sides against each other.

This USA place has turned into a fixed game for everyone but the people. Are you going to tell me that congress created so good of piece of legislation that they cant take back their constitutional right about declaring war? If they cant stop the war, that leaves either we the people to stop them or we let bush continue dictating away.

And even if its cutting funding, its not like they are going to leave troops there and not feed them or not put them in gear or make them walk around everywhere.  It means they wont be able to deploy more troops because they dont have the resources to support them.

One person in congress that I trust, only because I have watched him speak on the house floor, is Ron Paul. He is running for president and you should search for videos of him on the house floor at google video. He is like no other Congressman I have ever known.

Are you wondering what the Bohemian Grove is? Watch this documentary full of sourced information along with video footage of a few men that break into the Bohemian Grove.

The fiercely guarded, 2,700 acre retreat is the country extension of San Francisco's all-male ultra-exclusive Bohemian Club to which every Republican President since Herbert Hoover has belonged.

(MP3 Audio) Nixon comments, "But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time . . . It is the most faggy god damned thing you could ever imagine with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco."

Watch Ron Paul on the house floor below. This video will show you why a vote for Ron Paul is the right thing to do. He values the constituion and the people. http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/

Ron Paul is against the war, against policing the world. He is against the Federal Reserve Bank, that robs our government and then us every second of every day. He is against big government and taxes. It sounds the same, however he knows the Federal Reserve Banking system needs to lose its unconstituional right of printing our currencty.

If you watch anything, watch Ron Paul on the floor as a congressman speaking like any real american congressman.

Ron Paul for President 2008

by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)
 

EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole.
 

It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.

You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.

Sincerely,
Michael Meyer

Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations -- until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear program to military use. The IAEA has said that for most of the past three years its inspectors have been able to "go anywhere and see anything". They inspected the nuclear installations at Isfahan and Natanz on 10 and 12 January and will return on 2 to 6 February. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei says that an attack on Iran will have "catastrophic consequences" and only encourage the regime to become a nuclear power.

Unlike its two nemeses, the US and Israel, Iran has attacked no other countries. It last went to war in 1980 when invaded by Saddam Hussein, who was backed and equipped by the US, which supplied chemical and biological weapons produced at a factory in Maryland. Unlike Israel, the world's fifth military power with thermo-nuclear weapons aimed at Middle-East targets, an unmatched record of defying UN resolutions and the enforcer of the world's longest illegal occupation, Iran has a history of obeying international law and occupies no territory other than its own.

The "threat" from Iran is entirely manufactured, aided and abetted by familiar, compliant media language that refers to Iran's "nuclear ambitions", just as the vocabulary of Saddam's non-existent WMD arsenal became common usage. Accompanying this is a demonizing that has become standard practice. As Edward Herman has pointed out, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "has done yeoman service in facilitating this"; yet a close examination of his notorious remark about Israel in October 2005 reveals its distortion. According to Juan Cole, American professor of Modern Middle History, and other Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". He said, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". This, says Cole, "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all". Ahmadinejad compared the demise of the Jerusalem regime to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Iranian regime is repressive, but its power is diffuse and exercised by the mullahs, with whom Ahmadinejad is often at odds. An attack would surely unite them.

The one piece of "solid evidence" is the threat posed by the United States. An American naval buildup in the eastern Mediterranean has begun. This is almost certainly part of what the Pentagon calls CONPLAN 8022, which is the aerial bombing of Iran. In 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 35, entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization, was issued. It is classified, of course, but the presumption has long been that NSPD 35 authorized the stockpiling and deployment of "tactical" nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This does not mean Bush will use them against Iran, but for the first time since the most dangerous years of the cold war, the use of what were then called "limited" nuclear weapons is being openly discussed in Washington. What they are debating is the prospect of other Hiroshimas and of radioactive fallout across the Middle East and Central Asia. Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker last year that American bombers "have been flying simulated nuclear weapons delivery missions . . . since last summer".