Roman’s Website

Representative Press Video

Jesse Ventura, the former governor of Minnesota, ex Navy Seal, Vietnam Veteran, Demolition Expert and an avid spokesperson for 911 Truth participates in a very tense Q&A with reporters: (See video at thestateoftruth.com)

From georgewashington2.blogspot.com:

NIST claims that the collapse of building 7 is “the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.

But then goes on to argue:

“The fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event”

In fact, the fires in WTC 7 were orders of magnitude less than other high-rise fires, which did not produce collapses. (Read more)

SEE ALSO:

-Beginner’s guide to 9/11 truth
-Fire fighters for 9/11 truth
-Pilots for 9/11 truth
-Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
-We Are Change
-9/11 Research
-911truth.org

After years of pretending World Trade Center Seven never existed and never collapsed, the BBC headlines an article 9/11 third tower mystery ’solved’. As is typical of 9/11 white-washers, they allow some 9/11-truth-seeker ideas:
-the super-efficient removal and melting-down of debris before it could be investigated
-WTC 7’s occupation by several secretive federal agencies
-unprecedented collapse of a steel-framed structure because of fire (which can’t melt steel)
-the sudden, violent, uniform collapse
-WTC 7’s omission from 9/11 Commission Report

The revelation by so-called ‘experts investigating the collapse’ seems to be nothing more than a reassertion of the boilerplate explanation that fire weakened the steel structure and caused the building’s collapse.

As noted on georgewashington.blogspot.com, this explanation is refutable in one sentence:

Partly EVAPORATED Steel Beams Were Found At WTC 7, but normal office and diesel fires are not nearly hot enough to evaporate steel. (See NY Times article)

Nor does the BBC’s sudden acknowledgment of WTC 7’s collapse explain or even acknowledge their reporting of WTC 7’s collapse BEFORE it happened. Let me say that again: They reported the collapse of WTC 7 BEFORE it happened.

The reassertion of fire causing the collapse also contradicts Larry Silverstein’s infamous pull it remark.

So, you see, the big holes in the official story are still agape, despite BBC’s claim that “the definitive official explanation of what happened to Tower Seven is finally about to be published in America.” We will judge its definitiveness ourselves, thank you.

“Last week, Michael Reagan outrageously called for the murder of 9/11 truth activists and specifically Mark Dice. On Reagan’s nationally syndicated radio show he told more than four million daily listeners, ‘I will pay for the bullets’ to murder truth activists. Later during his rant he said, ‘How about you take Mark Dice out, and put him in the middle of the firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.’ After a conciliatory interview with Mark Dice yesterday, Reagan failed to retract his order for listeners to shoot truth activists or Mark Dice.”

Read more from nationalexpositor.com

SEE ALSO:
-Canadian MP Libby Davies reads 9/11 petition in Parliament
-Truth Rising, part 1

There’s an important, controversial and (surprise, surprise) under-reported effort underway to legitimize our military occupation of Iraq past this coming December’s expiration of the UN mandate.

In Debate Over Permanent Bases In Iraq, U.S. Seeks Authorization For War In Iran
The ongoing negotiations between Iraqi leaders and the Bush administration over the future role of the military occupation “have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate.”

The Bush administration’s demand for 58 permanent bases in Iraq — a near doubling of the current 30 bases — are causing Iraqis to warn that the status of forces agreement would be “more abominable than the occupation.” The administration is reportedly holding hostage “some $50bn of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement.”

The reason the White House is so hell-bent on signing a long-term agreement may have less to do with Iraq and more to do with Iran. According to press reports of the ongoing negotiations, the Bush administration is seeking the “power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.” Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party, confirmed:

The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq…if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.

The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant to a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement. Read more from thinkprogress.org

Iraq takes a turn towards Tehran
[Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki] is torn between appeasing the United States, which brought him to power and kept him there despite all odds, since 2006, and pleasing his patrons and co-religionaries in Tehran.

The Americans tell him to sign a long-term agreement between with the US, maintaining 50 permanent American military bases in Iraq. The Iranians angrily order him not to, claiming this would be a direct security threat to the region as a whole, and Iran in particular. The Americans reportedly are pressing to finalize the deal by July 30, 2008, upset that no progress has been made since talks started in February. Iran has carried out a massive public relations campaign against the deal, calling on all Shi’ites in Iraq to drown it. Read more from Asia Times Online

Baghdad insists on right to veto US operations
Iraq is insisting on the right to veto any US military operations throughout its territory under a “status of forces” agreement currently being negotiated between Baghdad and Washington, according to a senior member of the Iraqi government.

The agreement will last for a maximum of two years and can be terminated by either side with six months’ notice, Hussain al-Shahristani, Iraq’s oil minister, told the Guardian yesterday.

His remarks come amid intensive closed-door negotiations between the Iraqi and US governments which have led to complaints in the US Congress as well as Iraq that the Bush administration is tying the next US president’s hands by seeking to maintain long-term bases in Iraq for possible attacks on Iran and other neighbouring states.” Read more from prisonplanet.com

Legalizing occupation: Bush’s last manoeuvre in Iraq
Now the Bush administration is ready to crown its Iraq travesty with a long-term strategy that would turn Iraq’s occupation into a lasting one. The US is ‘negotiating’ a treaty with the Iraqi government, one that would replace the UN mandate and legalise the US occupation of Iraq permanently.

Basically, time is running out for Bush. If no treaty is reached by the end of the year, his administration could find itself pleading to the Security Council for another extension of the mandate. This would be an embarrassing and dangerous scenario for US diplomacy because it would allow Russia and China to re-emerge as important players wielding fearsome veto powers. Read more from onlinejournal.com

SEE ALSO:
-Bill Presses Iraq to Recognize Israel from forward.com

By Elie Peter - Sept 15, 2006, BLICK newspaper, Zurich, Switzerland

(translated from German into English, but not yet published online in English)

2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. “Bin Laden” and “Al Qaeda”, the Bush clan cried. The world believed themm. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version. Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel and Daniele Ganser raise new questions.

“Something is not correct”, says strategy expert Stahel in “World Week”, and here he refers to the “incomplete” official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004.

The university professor confirms his criticism in BLICK: “Osama Bin Laden cannot be ‘the large godfather’ behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication”.

Dr. Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon: “For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World Trade Center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear.”

Raising questions along with Stahel is historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich. Dr. Ganser also calls the official US version “a conspiracy theory”.

“There are three theories, which we should treat equally”:

1. “Surprise theory” - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.

2. “Let it happen on purpose” - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars.

3. “Made it happen on purpose” - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services.

Ganser: “3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation in 1962 [Operation Northwood] that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for the government’s own interests.”

As for Ganser and Stahel: “We only ask questions.”
————-
German Version on blick.ch
This post is relinked, cut and pasted from www.whatreallyhappened.com. See their 9/11 archive.

Watch video clip

What an asshole.

(Read More from Haaretz)

“John Bolton: ‘This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council.’

An official in the newly formed UN Human Rights Council has called for a fresh investigation into the events of 9/11 in order to examine the possible role that neoconservatives may have played in the attacks. . . .

Last month Japanese member of Parliament Yukihisa Fujita told the Alex Jones Show that a potential new investigation of the 9/11 cover-up may be coordinated by individuals within the United Nations.”

(Read More from infowars.net)