Please sign the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition


InvisionFree gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to the July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:

SSL Search:  

Pages: (37) « First ... 34 35 [36] 37  ( Go to first unread post )

 J7: The first 911 Thread, Discussion of the facts and fictions
Wildwood
Posted: Mar 13 2011, 08:39 AM





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 2,785
Joined: 4-October 09



The Challe putsch was launched in late April 1961, not 1958:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_putsch_of_1961

US hostility to De Gaulle originated during WWII, when the latter was widely - and ludicrously - dismissed as a puppet of the British. Nor was it merely the fate of Algiers which moved the CIA and its Pentagon allies to move against him: De Gaulle terminated Franco-Israeli co-operation on "the bomb"; opposed US intervention in south-east Asia; repeatedly rejected the planting of the British trojan horse within the Common Market; and viewed NATO, entirely accurately, as the establishment of US military protectorate over Europe.

The CIA's decision to move against De Gaulle at that particular time was almost certainly no accident. While the attention of the world - and, more importantly, the White House - was focused on the Bay of Pigs, the prestidigitators of Langley moved to displace its most implacable opponent in Europe.
Top
amirrortotheenemy
Posted: Mar 13 2011, 11:07 PM





Group: J7 Forum Team
Posts: 6,702
Member No.: 235
Joined: 6-November 06



QUOTE
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 4257

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:39 pm    Post subject: A Beavis & Butthead red herring?
1994 Beavis & Butthead Fly Planes Into Twin Towers
http://www.uaff.info/1994_2001.htm

Hmm anyone know how to limit the size?

http://www.uaff.info/beavis_and_butthead.jpg


CODE
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=20344


user posted image

More by Johnny Ryan:

QUOTE
user posted image

Source


QUOTE
user posted image

Source
Top
The Antagonist
Posted: Sep 7 2011, 09:48 PM


Antagonista


Group: Admin
Posts: 9,933
Member No.: 1
Joined: 25-November 05



Charlie Veitch not filming himself for a change. He's woken up now and has realised that governments and intelligence agencies always tell the truth. Comedians are the perfect medium for channelling narrative government truths to the masses.
QUOTE
9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip
Tomorrow, 21:00 on BBC Three

Synopsis

user posted image
Episode image for 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip

This September marks the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, one of the biggest terrorist atrocities of the 21st Century. Nineteen hijackers, all members of Al Qaeda, crashed four planes on American soil, leading to the deaths of 2,973 innocent people.

This horrific event has generated a multitude of conspiracy theories that contradict the official findings of the US government's investigation into the events of that day.

Andrew Maxwell, a comedian, believes in the findings of the official investigation, which claim the responsibility for the attack lies with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He thinks the conspiracies theories are unsubstantiated nonsense. So in this film he offers to take five young Brits, who believe some of these conspiracy theories, on a road-trip from New York to Washington. They visit Ground Zero where two planes hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, home of vast American defence HQ and Shanksville in Pennsylvania where United 93 crashed.

Each of them believes different elements of the conspiracy theories. Charlotte, a North London nanny who witnessed the attacks, thinks the American government is responsible. She can't believe the hijackers, barely out of flying school, could have steered jetliners into the Twin Towers with such deadly accuracy. Rodney a health worker who studied biochemistry suspects the collapse of the towers was not caused by the planes that went in to them and he wants to get to the bottom of the science. Student Emily, an active member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, thinks the US government was forewarned of the attacks and yet ignored the intelligence allowing it to happen. Shazin, a qualified surveyor, wants to find out how the passengers on United 93 could have made phone calls to loved ones from a plane. And Charlie, an ex-banker thinks 9/11 was an excuse for the US Government to go to war with Iraq.

Andrew Maxwell thinks all five of them are wrong and wants to change their minds by confronting them with the facts. So as the bus criss-crosses the east coast of America he tries to convert them to his point of view. He wants to prove to them that 9/11 was no conspiracy and that sometimes the truth, whilst not easy to accept, is staring you right in the face. In order to do so, he takes them to meet experts, the chief air traffic controller on the day, demolition specialists, voice morphing engineers and he gets them to conduct scientific experiments and even fly an aeroplane.

Finally they meet a mother who tragically lost her son, to listen to her account of what it was like to live through this monumental tragedy. Andrew believes it is easy to judge world events from the safe distance of a computer screen in your bedroom but not easy when you are brought face to face with the real human stories behind them

Andrew Maxwell fights an exhausting battle for the truth and in his mission to convert his fellow travellers there are rows, falling-outs and tears. But there are also moments of tenderness, empathy and warmth.

Incidentally, Iraq has had over 333 times the number of reported deaths that occurred on 9/11 over the course of a decade.

In terms of precedents for the greatest number of deaths 'achieved' by a single terrorist attack, the U.S. probably still holds that record with their 'heroic' efforts, in the region of 200,000 dead, split between Nagasaki and Hiroshima and surrounding areas.
Top
Bridget
Posted: Sep 13 2011, 11:43 AM





Group: J7 Admins
Posts: 15,272
Member No.: 2
Joined: 26-November 05



An excellent 5 minute piece by James Corbett that smashes the 9/11 narrative, on Stef's blog:

Famous for 15 megapixels: Reasons why I (for the moment anyway) love James Corbett pt.22
Top
Bridget
Posted: Sep 20 2011, 05:32 PM





Group: J7 Admins
Posts: 15,272
Member No.: 2
Joined: 26-November 05



QUOTE (The Antagonist @ Sep 7 2011, 09:48 PM)
Charlie Veitch not filming himself for a change.  He's woken up now and has realised that governments and intelligence agencies always tell the truth.  Comedians are the perfect medium for channelling narrative government truths to the masses.
QUOTE
9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip
Tomorrow, 21:00 on BBC Three

Synopsis

user posted image
Episode image for 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip

This September marks the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, one of the biggest terrorist atrocities of the 21st Century. Nineteen hijackers, all members of Al Qaeda, crashed four planes on American soil, leading to the deaths of 2,973 innocent people.

This horrific event has generated a multitude of conspiracy theories that contradict the official findings of the US government's investigation into the events of that day.

Andrew Maxwell, a comedian, believes in the findings of the official investigation, which claim the responsibility for the attack lies with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He thinks the conspiracies theories are unsubstantiated nonsense. So in this film he offers to take five young Brits, who believe some of these conspiracy theories, on a road-trip from New York to Washington. They visit Ground Zero where two planes hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, home of vast American defence HQ and Shanksville in Pennsylvania where United 93 crashed.

Each of them believes different elements of the conspiracy theories. Charlotte, a North London nanny who witnessed the attacks, thinks the American government is responsible. She can't believe the hijackers, barely out of flying school, could have steered jetliners into the Twin Towers with such deadly accuracy. Rodney a health worker who studied biochemistry suspects the collapse of the towers was not caused by the planes that went in to them and he wants to get to the bottom of the science. Student Emily, an active member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, thinks the US government was forewarned of the attacks and yet ignored the intelligence allowing it to happen. Shazin, a qualified surveyor, wants to find out how the passengers on United 93 could have made phone calls to loved ones from a plane. And Charlie, an ex-banker thinks 9/11 was an excuse for the US Government to go to war with Iraq.

Andrew Maxwell thinks all five of them are wrong and wants to change their minds by confronting them with the facts. So as the bus criss-crosses the east coast of America he tries to convert them to his point of view. He wants to prove to them that 9/11 was no conspiracy and that sometimes the truth, whilst not easy to accept, is staring you right in the face. In order to do so, he takes them to meet experts, the chief air traffic controller on the day, demolition specialists, voice morphing engineers and he gets them to conduct scientific experiments and even fly an aeroplane.

Finally they meet a mother who tragically lost her son, to listen to her account of what it was like to live through this monumental tragedy. Andrew believes it is easy to judge world events from the safe distance of a computer screen in your bedroom but not easy when you are brought face to face with the real human stories behind them

Andrew Maxwell fights an exhausting battle for the truth and in his mission to convert his fellow travellers there are rows, falling-outs and tears. But there are also moments of tenderness, empathy and warmth.

Incidentally, Iraq has had over 333 times the number of reported deaths that occurred on 9/11 over the course of a decade.

In terms of precedents for the greatest number of deaths 'achieved' by a single terrorist attack, the U.S. probably still holds that record with their 'heroic' efforts, in the region of 200,000 dead, split between Nagasaki and Hiroshima and surrounding areas.
Top
The Antagonist
Posted: Sep 21 2011, 12:51 AM


Antagonista


Group: Admin
Posts: 9,933
Member No.: 1
Joined: 25-November 05



The Paul Zarembka book that is a compilation of academic writings in which Professor David Macgregor's notion of September 11 as "Machiavellian state terror" was posited is The Hidden History of 9-11-2001.
QUOTE
The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 (Research in Political Economy)

Product Description

This important volume brings together rigorous scholarship on the events of 9-11-2001, and assesses whether the truth has been told by the U.S. government.

The lead chapter shows that eleven of FBI-named Arabic hijackers could not have been on the planes, while the Dulles airport videotape -- essentially being the case that hijackers boarded flights -- has very serious authentication problems.

The next three chapters examine insider trading beforehand and the 9-11 flights themselves, then the evidence -- based partly upon newly-released reports of more than 500 firefighters -- permitting a conclusion that three buildings in the WTC complex were brought down by demolition, followed by discussion of scheduled military drills which confused standard operating procedures, and concluding with a surprising connection to the death of Senator Wellstone, leading critique of the Bush administration.

The third part opens with a chapter examining the connection between Al-Qaeda and Western covert operations, showing how Al-Qaeda is inseparably connected to the latter.

The following chapter shows that Machiavellian state terrorism is rather common and not at all unlikely for 9-11, while the following examines how the 9-11 Commission wrote its own history, rather than reporting and analyzing true history. The rise of Islamophobia as an ideological force to sustain U.S. imperialism is then introduced. The final chapter, while not explicit, offers a possible connection to the process of undermining pensions in the U.K.

The volume can be seen as a definitive, scholarly explanation of 9-11 as a world-changing event.

Source: The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 Research in Political Economy: Amazon.co.uk: Paul Zarembka: Books

The book can be read and downloaded here: The Hidden History of 9-11-2001
Top
justthefacts
Posted: Apr 8 2012, 07:00 PM





Group: J7 Forum Team
Posts: 2,613
Member No.: 598
Joined: 5-July 07



David Davis MP has used Parliamentary privilege to highlight this "state secrecy" case which suggests the CIA interfered with an FBI/NSA plan to tap all phone communication inside/out of Afghanistan prior to 11/9.

QUOTE
Robbed and ruined by a British court on the orders of the CIA... and we couldn't tell a soul: The chilling story of how secret justice cost a couple their £5m home - and £700m business

By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 22:43 GMT, 7 April 2012 | UPDATED: 17:14 GMT, 8 April 2012


Silent ordeal: Margaret Bentham and her husband Stuart lost their £5m home - but could not tell their friends why

Despite the years of cruel reality, Margaret Bentham still seemed incredulous as she told her story, a story she once thought she could never share.

But with quiet dignity she summed up the ordeal she and her businessman husband Stuart, a former British Army officer, have endured at the hands of the CIA.

‘We were robbed of a business worth millions,’ she said. ‘We were plunged into financial ruin. But the worst thing was, not only were we deprived of justice, we couldn’t tell a soul.’

In an exclusive interview, Mrs Bentham told The Mail on Sunday how the CIA decided a civil court case about the Afghan mobile phone company he had helped to establish was too ‘sensitive’ to air in public.

It used draconian legal powers to shut down the case – so destroying not only the Benthams’ livelihood, but any prospect of redress after Mr Bentham alleged the company had been stolen from him.

‘We lost our £5 million flat in Belgravia,’ said Mrs Bentham, 50. ‘We’d had a thriving telecoms business in London employing 23 people, and we lost that too.

The gagging order imposed by a US court meant I couldn’t even tell our friends what was wrong or Stuart could have gone to prison. It was  absolutely Kafkaesque.’ Even now, Mr Bentham could be extradited and jailed if he gave an interview.

The Benthams’ nightmare was made possible by a US legal procedure known as the State Secrets Privilege.

But as Tory MP David Davis disclosed last month when he set out the Benthams’ story in the Commons, an alarmingly similar system will soon exist in Britain, if the Coalition’s  current Green Paper on Justice and Security becomes law.

The public part of the court judgment that destroyed Mr Bentham’s fortune is two words long: ‘Case dismissed.’ The reasons remain secret, while he is subject to an indefinite legal gag.

Such secret judgments have never been permitted in Britain. Under the Green Paper, they would become routine.

Last week, comments by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and a joint letter to MPs by Home Secretary Theresa May and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke together suggested that the Government is preparing a partial U-turn on the proposals.

In an apparent concession to critics, it may water down plans for secret inquests, and restrict secret hearings to a ‘tiny number’ involving national security. Unfortunately, that is exactly the category responsible for the Benthams’ ordeal.

‘The security services are still feeding Government Ministers with misleading claims to justify abhorrent and unjust proposals,’ Mr Davis said yesterday. ‘They are still seeking to bolster their collapsing argument  for undermining centuries of British judicial rights.’

Partners: Mr Bentham, left, Mr Bayat, centre, and Lord Michael, far right in Taliban-ruled Kabul in 1998

Even if the Green Paper is changed in the way suggested last week, he added, its proposed closed hearings, secret evidence and vetted ‘special advocates’ would allow security agencies to cover up incompetence and embarrassment by citing national security.

As Mr Davis revealed in the Commons, that is exactly what happened with the Benthams. In their case, the embarrassment could hardly have been greater: what the use of the State Secrets Privilege did was to conceal evidence of a massive CIA failure that stymied a real possibility of preventing the 9/11 attacks.

The background to the alleged fraud against Mr Bentham, 63, and his business partner Lord Michael Cecil, 52, a brother of the Marquess of Salisbury, goes back to 1998, when they went into business with Ehsanollah Bayat.

Mr Davis described him in the Commons as ‘a Kabul-born American citizen on friendly terms with the highest echelons of the Taliban government and particularly its leader, Mullah Omar’.


Mr Bayat had the connections to acquire the licence to build Afghanistan’s first mobile phone, internet and international call system – Mr Bentham and Lord Michael the business expertise.

But, as Mr Davis said, Mr Bayat had a secret: he was an informant for the FBI, the main US domestic counter- terrorism force. The link made an opening for Operation Foxden, a scheme the FBI planned to run jointly with the National Security Agency (NSA), the US electronic eavesdropping organisation.

The NSA offered $30 million and technical assistance, said Mr Davis. The plan was to build extra circuits into all the equipment installed, enabling the US to ‘record or listen live to every single landline and mobile phone call in Afghanistan’ and ‘monitor the telephone gateways channelling international calls in and out of the country – gateways already being used by Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their associates, thanks to the satellite phones given by Mr Bayat to Taliban ministers as gifts’.


Spy games: The US National Security Agency wanted Mr Bayat's firm, to tap Afghanistan's phone network which was being used by Osama bin Laden

By the beginning of 2000, after all the main partners had made several visits to Afghanistan, the project was at an advanced stage, and could have been fully functional within months – 18 months or more before 9/11.

Recently, Mr Bayat has claimed he never had connections with US security agencies or the pre-9/11 Taliban government. But Mrs Bentham said that in the Nineties he seemed to make no secret of such links.


‘I remember one time when we flew in to Newark, New Jersey, and Bayat met us off the plane,’ she said. ‘He was with two FBI agents. We went to their office. Then they took me to the station so I could go shopping in New York while they had their meeting.’

But just as the project seemed to be on the brink of coming to fruition, it was wrecked by what Mr Davis termed a ‘turf war’ between the FBI and NSA on one side, and the CIA, which wanted to control it.

The consequence, as the agencies bickered in Washington, was that nothing happened for 20 months. By the time these bureaucratic obstacles had been cleared, it was too late.

A meeting to get the scheme going again, attended by Mr Bentham and Lord Michael, took place in New York in a hotel overlooking the World Trade Centre on September 8, 2001 – three days before the attacks.


Mr Davis commented: ‘Of course, we cannot say for certain that if US intelligence agencies had managed to tap the Afghan phone network sooner, we would have intercepted evidence in time to stop the 9/11 attacks, but it seems quite likely.’

After 9/11, the Taliban were toppled by US-led forces. Very soon after that, Lord Michael, Mr Bentham and their colleagues, working with Mr Bayat’s company Telephone Systems International (TSI), installed the very network that had been planned two years earlier. The Britons ordered and paid for most of the equipment and ran the project out of London.

Once operational in April 2002,  the firm became a licence to print money and is now said to be worth about £700 million.

The Mail on Sunday has copies of official US documents, signed by Mr Bayat in May 2002, stating that Mr Bentham and Lord Michael each were entitled to 15 per cent of the shares: their holdings, in other words, should now each be worth more than £100 million.

Instead, said Mrs Bentham, she and her husband are in straitened circumstances, and live in a rented house, dependent for holidays on hospitable friends.

‘We were living  a very comfortable life. And then it changed completely. We had no idea what we were dealing with, and the terrifying thing is what happened to us could happen to anyone.’

Home Secretary Theresa May and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke together suggested that the Government is preparing a partial U-turn on the proposals to hold more trials in secret

In the autumn of 2002, having offered to buy out Mr Bentham and Lord Michael for a ‘derisory’ sum that did not even cover the cost of the equipment they bought, Mr Bayat sued them for ‘deceit and  conspiracy’, and, simultaneously, simply denied they had any legal entitlement to shares in TSI.

They had copious documentation, and, their lawyers believed, a cast-iron case. But as Mr Davis told MPs, this was no ordinary commercial squabble: ‘The US intelligence agencies feared the consequences if the truth about their infighting emerged and they were determined to stop that truth from emerging.’

First, they offered Bayat $1 million for his legal fight – part of a more general plan to exclude British citizens and British agencies from the ongoing phone intelligence operation. Then, when the Britons’ lawyers refused to back down, ‘CIA officers threatened them, warning the whole case would be shut down if they continued’.

Finally, in November 2004, came the use of the State Secrets Privilege. The effect was not only to close down the case immediately, but to expunge all trace from court records.

Lord Michael and Mr Bentham were subject to a gagging order so severe that when they tried to reopen the case in London, they were forbidden on pain of contempt of court from discussing any aspect of the intelligence background with their own lawyers.

Although there were hearings in London, which the Britons lost for technical legal reasons, the British courts had little idea of what had actually happened. ‘The State Secrets Privilege meant that the US agencies were restricting what could be said in court in England,’ Mrs Bentham said.

‘I couldn’t speak to friends, and I felt pretty sure our phone calls  and emails were being monitored. Meanwhile, legal fees meant we were facing a colossal drain on our cash. Imagine: you have to sell your home, but you can’t tell anyone why.

‘So we just stopped going out socially, because people would ask, “How are things?” and we couldn’t even begin to answer. It’s only now, after the parliamentary debate, that at last people know.’

The worst moment, she recalled, was when the State Secrets Privilege was deployed. ‘They showed the judge some kind of statement that we couldn’t see, and he shut down the case next day for reasons we weren’t allowed to read. And that’s the kind of thing that’s going to happen here if the Green Paper becomes law.’

Later, she said, the Benthams’ American lawyers asked a US judge whether their British lawyers could see the secret judgment and gagging order in strict confidentiality, so that at least they could advise them whether they should try to pursue the case in London. The judge refused.

They also tried to get the State Secrets Privilege reversed in a  federal US appeals court. They lost again – and the appeal court’s 17-page decision is also strictly secret.

Mrs Bentham said: ‘The lesson is that the US legal system is perfectly willing to condone the theft of our assets. What gets me is that one of the main reasons the British Government has justified the Green Paper is to protect American secrets.’

At the end of the Commons debate, Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne gave the Benthams a glimmer of hope. He said the Prime Minister had been aware of their plight for months and would in due course respond to their representations.

Meanwhile, Mr Davis said the case highlighted a fundamental inequality between Britain and the US: that American agencies could apparently dictate what British citizens could talk about in British courts  – even the very use of the State Secrets Privilege which had enabled such secrecy in the first place.

‘It’s just not good enough to say that restricting the Green Paper proposals to national security cases will make them less obnoxious,’ Mr Davis said yesterday. ‘Once you let security trump the rule of law, injustice such as this is inevitable.’

CODE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126696/Margaret-Stuart-Bentham-Robbed-British-court-orders-CIA.html?ICO=most_read_module


Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.

Topic OptionsPages: (37) « First ... 34 35 [36] 37 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1015 seconds | Archive
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike2.5 License.
Comments on this forum do not necessarily represent the views of the July 7th Truth Campaign, the July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum, or even the position of their author. J7, the July Seventh Truth Campaign, the July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum, nor its administrators or contributors are liable for any of the forum content. Any and all information is reproduced on a 'fair use' basis which allows reproduction of material for research and study purposes, criticism and news reporting.