Posts from October 2010
Former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks has broken his media silence
16 October 2010
"No sleeping, no talking, no moving, no looking, no information"... David Hicks describes his first two weeks imprisoned in Camp X-Ray as "a blur of hardships". Photo: AP/GetUp!/Jarra McGrath
Turned over to US forces while trying to flee Afghanistan in 2001, David Hicks was later flown to the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is his story of his arrival at Camp X-Ray.
I awoke on a concrete slab with the sun in my face. I looked around and saw that I was in a cage made out of cyclone fencing, the same as the boundary fence around my old primary school. Internal fences divided the cage into ten enclosures, and I was in one of the corner-end cells. Around me, I saw five other concrete slabs with what looked like bird cages constructed on top. A fence covered in green shadecloth and topped with rolls of razor wire was wrapped around these six concrete slabs, able to house sixty unfortunate human beings. Hanging on the inside of this fence were signs saying, ''If you attempt escape, you will be shot'', complete with a featureless person with a target for a head.
All around the outside of the shadecloth, civilian and uniformed personnel cleared and flattened grass and trees. They poured cement and assembled the wire cages, calling them ''blocks''. There was nothing much else around us except guard towers boasting large, painted American flags and manned by armed marines.
My block was only the second to have been built, but that would change over time. As this prison grew out of the grass, more ''detainees'', as they liked to call us, rather than POWs, arrived. About a month later, around 360 of us lived in these outdoor enclosures. They were open to the wind, sun, dust and rain and offered no respite. The local wildlife was being disturbed as their homes were bulldozed to make room for the concrete blocks, and scorpions, snakes and 23 centimetre-long tarantulas tried to find shelter in what were now our enclosures.
My cage, like all the cages, was three steps wide by three steps long. I shared this space with two small buckets: one to drink out of, the other to use as a toilet. There was an ''isomat'' (a five-millimetre-thin foam mat), a towel, a sheet, a bottle of shampoo that smelt like industrial cleaner, a bar of soap (I think), a toothbrush with three-quarters of the handle snapped off and a tube of toothpaste. When I held this tube upside down, even without squeezing, a white, smelly liquid oozed out.
This bizarre operation was called Camp X-Ray. Our plane was the first to arrive on this barren part of the island, and we remained the only detainees for the first three or four days. We had been spaced apart because of the surplus of cages. Every hour of the day and night we had to produce our wristband for inspection, as well as the end of our toothbrush, in case we had ''sharpened it into a weapon''. These constant disturbances prevented us from sleeping. We were not allowed to talk, or even look around, and had to stare at the concrete between our legs while sitting upright on the ground. If we did lie flat on the concrete, we had to stare at a wooden covering a foot or so above our cages, which served as some type of roof. Apart from blocking the sun for about two hours around noon, the roof offered no other benefit.
Sitting or lying in the middle of the cage, away from the sides, were the only two positions we were allowed to assume. We could not stand up unless ordered to, and the biggest sin was to touch the enclosing wire. If we transgressed any of these rules, even if innocently looking about, we were dealt with by the IRF team, an acronym for Instant Reaction Force. The Military Police nicknamed this procedure being ''earthed'' or ''IRFed'', because they would slam and beat us into the ground.
I first witnessed the IRF team a day or two after my arrival. An MP stopped outside the cage of an Afghan, my closest neighbour at the time. The MP demanded to know what the Afghan had scratched into the cement. He had not scratched anything and could not even speak or understand English. I heard the MP read, ''Osama will save us''. The detainee had no idea what the guard was on about, yet the MP was furious when he did not respond. ''I'll teach you to resist,'' the MP threatened and stormed off. Suddenly six MPs in full riot gear formed a line outside his cage. The first one held a full-length shield. He entered the cage first, slamming the detainee, pinning him to the cement floor with the shield, while the others beat him in the torso and face. The last to enter the cage was a dog handler with a large German shepherd. The dog was encouraged to bark and growl only centimetres from the Afghan's face while he was being beaten. In later cases, the dogs bit detainees.
When they had finished, they chained him up and carried him out. His face was covered in blood. A few hours later an MP washed the blood off the cement with a scrubbing brush and hose. To add to that injustice, an MP told me some weeks later that he himself had scratched that statement into the cement before any of us had arrived at Guantanamo, while they had been training and awaiting our arrival.
Every two or three days a planeload of detainees would arrive. They were always made to kneel and lean forward on the gravel while being yelled at and struck in the back of the head. They had to balance in this position while one detainee at a time was picked up from the line, escorted into a block and deposited into a cage. Those who were moved first were lucky not to have to endure the stress position for hours. .
It was around this time that helicopters hovered above, and very large groups of civilians walked through the camp to view us in our cages - specimens in an international makeshift zoo.
The first two weeks of Camp X-Ray was a blur of hardships: no sleeping, no talking, no moving, no looking, no information. Through a haze of disbelief and fear, pain and confusion, we wondered what was going to happen. To pass time and relieve the pressure on my ailing back, I chose to lie down rather than sit up. During the day I would look slightly to my right, focusing my vision just beyond the wooden roof, and lose myself in the sky beyond. It was an escape, so peaceful, so blue and full of sunlight. I gazed at the odd cloud and spied big, black birds circling high above, called vulture hawks. It was never long, though, before a hostile face blocked the view, screaming, ''What are you looking at? Look up at the roof.'' All I could do was sigh and avert my gaze from the infinite, blue sky to a piece of wood.
Guantanamo: My Journey, by David Hicks (William Heinemann Australia, $49.95).
Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’
Victoria Ashley | Aug 1, 2009
This essay examines the work of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a team of two people who claim to prove that a complicated "magic show" occurred during the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01, fooling all of the witnesses and surviving victims of the event into believing that American Airlines Flight 77 (AA77) hit the Pentagon, when instead, it flew just over the building, obscured by a simultaneous explosion, and then somehow flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area (the "flyover" theory). CIT took their camcorders and went to Washington, DC, where they interviewed a select group of Pentagon attack eye witnesses whom they believe, indicate a different flightpath from the accepted flightpath (the one described by a trail of damage leading up to the building). These interviews, it is claimed, provide the primary "evidence" for the flyover theory.
Or so we are led to believe.
The general conclusion that "no plane" or "no Boeing" could have hit the Pentagon -- widely accepted by skeptics of the official version of events of the Pentagon attack, even as it is generally not carefully examined -- is based on a series of erroneous physical evidence claims. The details of these common errors made by investigators of the Pentagon attack are not the purpose of this essay, but have already been described in What the Physical Evidence Shows.
The purpose of this essay is to critically examine the claims, methods and themes employed by CIT in their attempts to make the case for the flyover theory. This essay will show that CIT's claims about what happened in the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01 are without a meaningful scientific process and are reliant on biased interpretations of broad statements made by less than 20 witnesses to the attack, 8 years after the event. The witness recordings made by CIT are sometimes muddled, are significantly edited, and at times appear to have almost nothing to do with what CIT interprets from them, leaving many video viewers and forum readers, told they would see "proofs", frustrated and perplexed about what is going on.
At the heart of it, what CIT has really created from the witness accounts is an elaborate historical fictional drama focused around the narrow theme of witnesses appearing to describe a different flightpath for the plane that day. Without any viable corroborating evidence for the claim that the plane never hit, but instead flew over the building, the filmmakers instead offer up a fascinating premise:
"Everything was faked!"
So what began as an innocent sounding exploration of discrepancies in eye witness testimony, moves on to "proofs" of how the existing damage incurred during the attack could not have happened from the impact of a large Boeing. A summary of the many "it was faked" claims indicates a somewhat daunting if not entirely ridiculous premise for the "flyover":
- Lamp posts downed by plane impact: faked
- Generator damage by engine impact: faked
- Boeing parts on the ground and inside the building: faked
- Impact hole cutout in the Pentagon matching a 757-sized jetliner: faked
- Recovered DNA identifying Flight 77 passengers and crew: faked
- Recovered victim personal effects provided to family members: faked
- All witnesses to the plane impact: plants or confused about what they saw
And at this point, the doubts are just beginning. Given the complexity of such fakery and sleight of hand, most who attempt to confirm the full story end up at one of several dead ends in the scenario. The claim that so much evidence at the scene of the Pentagon was staged in advance, so precisely and amidst hundreds of people in all directions, simply to make it appear that the plane which approached the building had actually impacted it, strains credulity and logic.
Because as most readers and viewers quickly surmise, far easier than all of the elaborate fakery, would have been to simply ram a plane into the building, just as was done in NYC. That would be one part of the official story. While CIT claims that anyone who believes the plane hit the building is endorsing the official story, in reality, there is a overwhelming case for insider involvement in the Pentagon attack consistent with the impact of Flight 77.
New 9/11 Footage Reveals WTC 7 Explosions
Video clip NIST fought tooth and nail to keep secret contains clear audible booms as eyewitness describes “continuing explosions” from direction of Building 7
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com | October 13, 2010
Newly obtained 9/11 eyewitness footage that NIST fought tooth and nail to keep secret contains what appears to be the sound of explosions coming from the vicinity of WTC 7 after the collapse of the twin towers, offering yet more startling evidence that the building, which was not hit by a plane yet collapsed demolition style, was deliberately imploded.
The clip was released by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) as part of a 3 terabyte package of video and photo data in response to a lawsuit brought by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. As we highlighted in our previous report, almost every single video studied as part of the release thus far contains damning evidence of controlled demolition on both the twin towers and WTC 7.
The fact that NIST dragged their feet for so long in an attempt to block the release of these highly incriminating videos clearly indicates that they were part of an attempted cover-up. In addition, the fact that some of the videos appear to have been edited in an effort to hide evidence of controlled demolition is another smoking gun.
The latest video is from eyewitness Richard Peskin, who filmed ground zero from a high rise building that appears to be about a dozen blocks down the street from Building 7. The first portion of the footage is filmed immediately after the collapse of the second tower of the World Trade Center. At about 10 seconds into the clip, two clear explosions can be heard.
The clip then cuts to a later time and the cameraman states, “…explosion or something because there’s a lot of police activity and sirens and more smoke rising from the ground – new smoke – so there was some kind of additional explosion but I don’t know what it was….maybe it was a federal building or something like that,” as the camera pans across a shot of WTC 7.
At around 11am – around half an hour after the collapse of the north tower of the World Trade Center and an hour after the collapse of the south tower, Peskin states, “I still hear continuing explosions, I don’t know what it is,” as small explosions can be heard in the background.
At 1:49 in the clip, a louder rumbling explosion can clearly be heard coming from the direction of WTC 7 – “That’s another explosion,” says Peskin.
The clip was contained in the NIST folder named “Richard Peskin” and is a combination of footage from the files Peskin 25.avi, Peskin 28.avi, Peskin 29.avi, and Peskin 30.avi.
... read the rest at prisonplanet.com
Secret Iraq - Insurgency | Four Corners
Reporter: Quicksilver Productions | Broadcast: 11/10/2010
The invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, claimed he wanted to remove a dictator who is armed with weapons of mass destruction, and liberate a people. Instead the invasion provoked a bloody insurgency resulting in the death of thousands of civilians, massive troop casualties, and at the same time laying the ground-work for the arrival of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Made for Quicksilver productions by producer Sam Collyns, the series tells the story of Iraq not simply from the point of view of the invaders but from the insurgents who fought them. It tells how fundamental strategic mistakes made by the Americans pushed formerly peaceful Iraqis into the arms of the fanatical Al Qaeda.
"Time in Abu Ghraib (prison) helped recruit the insurgency ... even people who had not fought the Americans before their arrest vowed to die fighting them after their time in prison."
In the opening episode of "Secret Iraq", the insurgents reveal how their treatment at the hands of the allied troops instilled a hatred of Westerners and in turn sparked their rebellion. Many have never spoken before.
"I'm like any Iraqi who wanted to defend his honour, his family and his home."
A key C.I.A. operative explains how the decision to use private security contractors, instead of soldiers or police, also created massive problems for the Coalition:
"Their goal was to protect some guy in an armoured car. And they made a lot of bad enemies because of the way they behaved."
Other Iraqis explain how the decision to purge the military and police forces of anyone seen to be connected with Saddam and his Ba'athist Party allowed those same institutions to be taken over by murderous Shia militia, who set up death-squads prepared to kill anyone they did not accept.
"If you like they were police officers by day and terrorists or insurgents by night."
But the Americans were not the only commanders making major policy errors. The program also reveals the failure of the British to gain control of Basra.
What did the allies do wrong? What provoked the insurgency? Who was behind the death squads killing hundreds of people? And what will the invasion ultimately mean for Iraq? Those are just some of the questions this series tries to answer.
"Secret Iraq - Insurgency" goes to air on Monday 11th October at 8.30 pm on ABC1. It is replayed on the same network at 11.30 pm Tuesday 12th.
9/11 Report Is A Cover Up From Start To Finish | Col. Anthony Shaffer
Anthony Shaffer is a U.S. Army Lt. Col who has alleged that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) failed to properly evaluate intelligence on 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Shaffer's allegations subsequently became known as the Able Danger controversy. In October 2003, according to his later statement to Congress, Shaffer told the 9/11 Commission staff director, Dr. Philip D. Zelikow, that in 2000 a DIA data-mining program known as Able Danger had uncovered two of the three terrorist cells eventually implicated in the September 11 attacks.
Shaffer reportedly told Zelikow that DIA leadership declined to share this information with the FBI because military lawyers expressed concerns about the legality of doing so. Shaffer also asserted that he briefed Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet on three separate occasions regarding his unit's activities. The 9/11 Commission Report did not mention Shaffer's allegations, but in 2005 and 2006 the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, Rep. Curt Weldon, publicized Shaffer's allegations in public statements and hearings.
Cognitive Infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement: A book review by Adam Syed
Adam Syed | 10 October 2010
Buy the book at Amazon.
This work by David Ray Griffin is an engaging and captivating read, my personal favorite since "Debunking 9/11 Debunking," which was such a joy to read as I watched Popular Mechanics become exposed as the propagandists they really are when it comes to this issue.
A member of President Obama's cabinet, Cass Sunstein, in 2008 wrote an essay in which he purportedly made the case in favor of having a program in which government agents, mostly anonymous bloggers, would "infiltrate" "conspiracy groups" in an attempt to muddy the groups' research, in addition to derailing their unity, activism and overall effectiveness. The "conspiracy theorists" to which he most often refers are the members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, the growing number of world citizens who realize that the official account of 9/11 is false.
One serious problem with Sunstein's proposal is that it is Constitutionally illegal, a gross violation of the First Amendment. However, Sunstein's essay suffers from many other shortcomings as well.
To understand the significance (including the wit and irony) of Griffin's analysis, one first needs to understand that the term "conspiracy theory/ists" is virtually always used in a one-sided manner, usually as a pejorative term to dismiss instantly any person who questions the orthodox historical narrative of a major event. However, the true objective definition of conspiracy theory is simply this: a theory of who committed a conspiracy. A conspiracy is when two or more people agree in secret to perform an illegal and/or immoral act. When understood objectively, we can understand that the Bush Administration's official story is itself a "conspiracy theory," namely a theory in which Osama bin Laden and 19 al Qaeda hijackers conspired to attack America with the motive that they hate our freedoms (or in an alternative interpretation still consistent with the official account, that the attacks were "blowback" for decades of cruel US foreign policy in the Middle East).
Dr. Griffin's subtitle to this book is: "An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory." The question is, which conspiracy theory is Sunstein trying to undermine? The Bush Administration's official theory? Or the 9/11 Truth Movement's theory, the "inside job" theory?
One of the hallmark traits of "disinformation" is to accuse others of what you yourself are guilty. In "Debunking 9/11 Debunking," Griffin showed the deplorable depths to which the journalistic ethics of the Popular Mechanics senior editors had sunk in their hollow attempt to defend the official theory. Not only did the PM editors accuse "9/11 conspiracy theorists" of basically being unstable mental nut jobs who believe what they want to believe and disregard any information that doesn't fit their views, but the PM editors, all throughout their book, were guilty of these very sins themselves, as DRG so thoroughly illuminated!
Cass Sunstein's paper tries to put the "mental nut jobs who believe what they want to believe and disregard any information that doesn't fit their views" portrayal of 9/11 Truth activists into lofty academic-speak. He doesn't claim that 9/11 truthers are "mental nut jobs," just that we suffer from "crippled epistemologies" and "informational isolationism." However, as Griffin shows, it is the people who believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory who actually suffer from this informational isolationism; most of these people only rely on the corporate mass media for their world view. Also, the website PatriotsQuestion911.com lists over 400 professors, some of whom, Griffin notes, have taught at institutions in the same league as Sunstein's own (Harvard and University of Chicago). "Could Sunstein with a straight face tell these professors that the reason they disagree with him about 9/11 is because they have been 'informationally isolated?'" Griffin rhetorically asks. He goes on to list a veritable gold mine of names of people in the relevant professions of architecture, engineering, piloting, intelligence officers, journalists, political leaders and more, who have gone on the record to reject the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
So the "exoteric" (surface) interpretation of Sunstein's essay is that Sunstein wants his agents to undermine the 9/11 truth movement's conspiracy theory. The "esoteric" (deeper) interpretation of Sunstein's essay is that Sunstein knows that it's the official conspiracy that holds no water and needs to be undermined. Might the best way to gradually introduce the public to the truth of 9/11 be to let truths slip out gradually over much time, so that it's not TOO much of a shock to the American people once the truth finally gets out? Damage control, in other words, so that when the public finds out en masse, they will simply accept it, as opposed to actually rising up and demanding serious change?
One reason that Griffin is tempted to take this esoteric interpretation is because he knows that Sunstein, being a graduate of Harvard among other places, is not a dim bulb. He has to be a very smart man, and must PRIVATELY KNOW that the official 9/11 theory is without merit. Griffin points out that Sunstein leaves many "clues" to the fact that he knows the Truth Movement is on the right track by way of the footnotes he provides in his essay. If a person is thorough and follows up, going to Sunstein's sources for which he cites one quote, one will find that the very source itself completely contradicts the very claim Sunstein makes!
It is interesting that Sunstein writes about his plan to "cognitively infiltrate" the truth movement in the future tense, as if such a thing hasn't been happening with groups going back to at least the JFK Assassination (and indeed Sunstein himself goes on to acknowledge the existence of COINTELPRO). It has definitely been happening for years in the 9/11 movement. For one thing, there is the Popular Mechanics literature and the sites like ScrewLooseChange and 911myths, which claim to oppose the truth movement in its entirety. Indeed, Griffin sharply points out that in a preliminary draft of his paper, Sunstein included a reference to Popular Mechanics, which he deleted for his final draft. Sunstein's original words were: "One may see the game [of neutralizing the 9/11 movement] as involving four players: government officials, conspiracy theorists, mass audiences, and independent experts --- such as mainstream scientists or the editors of Popular Mechanics --- whom government attempts to enlist to give credibility to its rebuttal efforts." In the final version, the words "or the editors of Popular Mechanics" have been deleted, presumably because Sunstein that he had accidentally revealed that the government had "enlisted" the PM editors to wear the mask of "independent experts." Great catch, Dr. Griffin, or should that be "great cache?"
Then are also the people who I suspect of being gatekeepers within the truth movement, pretending to be activists but whose real goal is to stem the tide against certain damning evidence more quickly getting accepted more widely. These people blend their way into the 9/11 truth community and earn its respect by posting lots of genuinely good material on the World Trade Center collapse. But then they expend their "credibility capital" by staunchly defending the official line on many other aspects of the official theory, particularly to do with the dubious phone calls from the planes, the existence of "real" Islamic hijackers, Israeli involvement, and of course, the biggie: what really happened at the Pentagon.
Now on that last point, let me relate my own thoughts on observations and experiences I've had within the 9/11 Truth Movement over the past year and how they tie in with Dr. Griffin's work.
Within the truth movement blogosphere, there's been some extremely damning evidence, proving an inside job, that's been the target of much maligning among supposed truth activists. Readers of this review should watch the presentation "National Security Alert," by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), link provided at the end of this review. Basically, the official story claims that Flight 77 knocked down five light poles before crashing at an angle into the west wing of the Pentagon. However, the downed light poles all follow a flight trajectory that must be SOUTH of the CITGO gas station at all times (see image):
However, when you watch NSA, you will see and hear witness after witness after witness (times thirteen) interviewed, most of whom are standing where they were on 9/11. Without exception, each witness puts the plane NORTH of the Citgo gas station, which is absolutely irreconcilable with the evidence. It is indeed the simplest smoking gun of 9/11 proving a staged deception: plane north of gas station = inside job, staged light poles, pre-planted explosives in the Pentagon, and a flyover of a remote-controlled jet to produce the illusion that AA77 crashed there. (Though if you watch NSA you will indeed find two people who saw the plane flying away. These people still reconciled what they saw with the official story by convincing themselves they'd seen a *second* plane, when in reality it could ONLY be the original PentaPlane which the observers to the approach place on the North of Citgo path.)
911blogger.com is the truth movement's most heavily visited 9/11-only site (no discussion of chemtrails, forced vaccinations, global warming hoax, etc.). As it is a highly visible site, common logic dictates that it would be one of the prime targets of Sunstein-style cognitive infiltration. One of the content moderators goes by "loose nuke." He is one of the individuals responsible for disseminating the "work" of those alleged truthers who claim to "debunk" the CIT evidence, and at the time when he banned myself and at least three other commenters at the site from posting any more, we had been backing him into a corner and pointing out some glaringly serious errors with the blog he was promoting, entitled "The South Path Impact: Documented, by Adam Larson" (google it). This blog tries to make the spurious, Popular Mechanics -style claim that the thirteen North of Citgo eyewitnesses (who were confirmed and corroborated first hand by CIT) are somehow outnumbered by "dozens" of "South of Citgo impact witnesses," the implication being that all of the North Path witnesses are either lying or someone all mistaken in the exact same way. What Larson offers up are nothing more than snippets of third hand, printed media quotes, virtually all of which don't mention the gas station at all, just that the witnesses saw an "impact." (Of course, even the NORTH path witnesses BELIEVE the plane hit; it was a military deception intended to fool, just like the demolition of the WTC and how most of us were fooled into believing the planes and fires were responsible. But when a witness provides mutually exclusive claims [north path, impact] a true skeptic must choose which claim is correct. And the NoC witnesses corroborate each other over and over, proving they were deceived about the impact.)
Tying Adam Larson's "South Path Impact Documented" essay in with Griffin's current book: as Griffin says, the esoteric interpretation of Sunstein's essay is reached if a person actually bothers to check the footnotes and the claims (or if the person is already a well versed 9/11 researcher), rather than take the author on faith. And as we know, the esoteric interpretation is that Sunstein knows the official conspiracy theory is false. LIKEWISE: if a person bothers to check the claims made in Larson's blog, one comes across some "errors" that are SO serious that in a few cases they can only be interpreted as deliberate. They are SO glaring that one can't help but wonder if "loose nuke" promotes this material on the ONE hand because he's perhaps receiving a check from someone higher up, his assignment being to muddy the waters, but on the OTHER hand, knows that if a person does the digging themselves, will realize that the "arguments" defending the South of Citgo flight path are, to quote Barrie Zwicker, "tricky and unreliable, in fact, as flimsy as the official story they try and defend."
This review is getting long so in the interests of space, I will cite what I consider to be the most blatant deception in Larson's blog: Larson listed a particular person as a "light pole witness," meaning that the person watched the plane hit the light poles on the South of Citgo path. Upon actually doing some simple checking, however, it turns out that this "witness" was IN NORTH CAROLINA and arrived in Arlington in the afternoon, and happened to see the downed light poles! Yet he was cited as a flight path witness to support the official flight path!!! This was one of MANY such deceptions in the blog.
I will say of "loose nuke" what Griffin says of Sunstein: "Loose nuke" can not possibly be this stupid or incompetent, even though we don't know his academic pedigree. The proof is that he's written some good essays on the WTC collapse. Not being stupid, he must know that those supporting the official damage path at the Pentagon being caused by AA77 don't have a leg to stand on, and like Sunstein, he leaves (not-so-)subtle clues for those that have the time and energy to check.
Well Dr. Griffin, given what I've seen and experienced in the truth movement this past year or so, this is an extremely timely work indeed! Bravo, once again! The truth movement thanks you!
Link to the presentation National Security Alert (NSA) by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT):
Early interview with William Rodriguez
This video (obtained under FOIA) provides additional testimony about explosions and corroborates later statements made by Mr. Rodriguez.
Firemens’ testimony proves multiple explosions in WTC lobby before collapse
Firemens' testimony in 9/11 video obtained under FOIA proves multiple explosions in the WTC lobby before collapse.