Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Mainstream 9/11 Media Truth Equates To Propaganda Lies!, I'm just pointing out how they pull the wool over everyone's e

post Nov 9 2011, 12:04 AM
Post #1

Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 106
Joined: 5-October 10
From: Canada
Member No.: 5,337

I find it all rather coincidental then. That eight days ago now, there on November 1, 2011, ‘the Demon’ posted a video at [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542] and elicited broadly speculative assumptions about what he/she claims it proves.

By doing so that individual aided and abetted what amounts to a concerted conspiracy by fools and the mainstream media to disseminate false information about 9/11 and WTC7 specifically. One could argue it was done this time around in a desperate attempt to undermine and discredit the findings and expert testimony of the likes of Kevin Ryan and others. They recently spoke on the matter of 9/11 and at length in Toronto, Canada. Videos of that conference are available online at [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17217220] or simply Google search 9/11 – The Toronto Hearings and then select video. I highly recommend listening to the very telling testimony of those expert witnesses to better understand my point here.

My point being then I’m concerned people just now coming to know about the World Trade Center 7 controversy may be wrongly influenced by such nonsense as what some consider to be factual reporting. For that reason I’m compelled to pipe up here and set the record straight on the written comments ‘the Demon’ made online quite recently. Not only had that individual disingenuously deduced the “rare raw 9/11 footage” shows World Trade Center 7 was “partially consumed by fire, melting the beams which then resulted in its collapse” on 9/11. Unbelievably then he/she also concluded “a direct ground shot of a large portion of the building missing at the bottom - look closely and your 9/11 conspiracy theories should take a back seat - the building was severely damaged by collapse of the Twin Towers.” All of which is pure bullshit and I’ll certainly not take a back seat to anyone who’s disseminating any such claptrap!

I’ll assume the latter statement made by ‘the Demon’ is in reference to the heavily damaged World Trade Center 5, seen to the left in that video footage, and not WTC7 because clearly the only WTC site office towers shown therein are two distinctly separate structures and quite clearly WTC7 on the right is in no way, shape or form damaged at ground level. Not on its West or the North facing wall there at street level. Therefore, how ‘the Demon’ managed to arrive at that conclusion is anyone’s guess. But regardless then of whether or not they were implying the building on the left was part of WTC7 the fact remains they’d demonstrably proven they’re nothing shy of being an amateur menace to 9/11-Truth research, if not an agent provocateur, for having made all those patently false statements!

Aside from that, as well the fact the video footage in question has been public knowledge since 9/11, what raised my hackles even more is Meghan Keneally, an alleged freelance journalist now living in New York. Quite fortuitously then she’d happened upon that “Unseen 9/11 Footage” the same day it was posted online and promptly decided to write an article about it then. So entitled ‘Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire’ that utterly maleficent antithesis is a flagrant miscarriage of the truth that was picked-up and published by the ignoble rag ‘the UK Daily Mail’ newspaper on November 2, 2011. As posted online at [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html].

By it all I can’t help but wonder how one could be so very stupid and brazen to write such nonsense and think for a second expert witnesses dedicated to researching 9/11-Truth wouldn’t catch her out on that lie! In light of that fact it’s obvious to me she was put-up to the task, by the editorial board at ‘the Daily Mail’ whom for that reason never bothered to vet the claims she made therein that hit-piece. Nor did it establish the veracity of the source material underpinning her story. Those two facts alone say everything about the lack of ethics of the editorial board at the UK Daily Mail. Not to mention the mindset and modus operandi of those at its helm who steer the official 9/11 narrative and public knowledge of the matter in the direction they’ve done so from the onset of September 11, 2001. Had one of them a conscience and bothered to establish her background or vet the evidence so too they would have discovered the following qualities of Meghan Keneally.

First of all with respect to the overall WTC 7 issue she hasn’t a clue what she’s talking about and certainly not when it comes to the official record of intergovernmental agencies who investigated that crime scene. But more importantly then she’d either plagiarized, verbatim, at least some if not all of what she’d written therein her article. That or she’d planted the video to begin with then capitalized on doing so after the fact.

Quite frankly then I suspect the latter, due to the fact the entire first paragraph therein her article reads word for word the same as that of the commentary posted by ‘Kruz200’ on November 2, 2011 at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b-AfXkEvgs]. That suspicious “newly released video” footage mentioned therein having been sourced from ‘the Demon’ at [www.LiveLeak.com]. A fact confirmed by the “posted on LiveLeak” hallmark in the upper left corner in every online version of that particular video, including the one linked to ‘the Mail’ article in question.

It’s my opinion then either she or the editors at the Daily Mail planted the ‘Kruz200’ video. One or the other most certainly did, in a failed attempt to lend false credence to the official narrative “Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center – and not explosives, as the conspiracy theorists claim.” I believe it was Meghan Keneally’s job to put a freelance spin on that video and by doing so she’d curry scraps of favour from the powers that be down the road, hopefully. For all the aforementioned reasons then Meghan Keneally’s reporting is anything but that of a freelance journalist writing with an impartial view from an unbiased vantage point. If I’m proven right her reputation will be irreparably damaged as diminished for having been exposed as nothing better than a mainstream media “presstitute” akin to the likes of James Meigs, the consummate stooge, government apologist and editor of Popular Mechanics fame.

She’s welcome to rebut my accusations and even sue me in court over them but in the end you’re my judge and jury deciding who’s telling the truth here and that’s why I tell it like it is.

Her credibility and trustworthiness as a freelance journalist is shot all to hell then in my opinion! Therefore Mr. Watson was right and justified write and chastise her bizarre leap of logic, so too her opportunistic accusations levied against 9/11-Truth researchers in general therein his rebuttal ‘Footage That Kills 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Actually Validates Them.’ If you haven’t already read either article I suggest you begin with Paul Joseph Watson’s piece, posted there on Alex Jones ’Infowars’ at [http://www.infowars.com/footage-that-kills-911-conspiracy-theories-actually-validates-them/] followed by Ms. Keneally’s dubious extrapolation of the events and evidence shown therein the video footage.

It goes without saying I side with Paul Joseph Watson’s take on the matter. If for no other reason because that 2 minute video collage [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542] shows quite matter-of-factly then a maximum of four floors of the 47 storied Building 7 either aflame or having been damaged by fire. As a result only sections of the exterior aluminum panels nearest the open flames had melted away from the exoskeleton of that structure. That’s a far cry different from “beams” shown to be “melting” and massive structural support columns at the heart of the building giving way as a consequence of fire/heat induced failure.

In fact the design of WTC7 had no such structural beams designed into its exterior walls and even the NIST investigators only went as far as to claim in their final report the fires “weakened” the interior core columns of the building, not the “exterior metal beams” so imagined by ‘the Demon’ and Ms. Keneally. Obviously then what both individuals would have people believe is structural steel melted was away by the rather low intensity fires burning therein. Rather than the reality of the situation, which is ceiling tile support latticework and minor secondary structures above it have come adrift of their anchors. As evidenced when the camera zooms into the buildings shattered window openings for a birds-eye view.

All said and done I’m inordinately disgusted by both of their inept, incredibly unqualified and absurd conclusions. In fact their deeply incredulous opinions are impossible to ignore, especially when such stupidity emboldens others of like mind and ulterior motive to follow suit by weighing in and publicly with equally moronic conclusions.

For those not yet convinced I’m right to say there’s an ongoing, concerted campaign involving such fools and the mainstream media to plant stories and corrupt facts by fabricating evidence intended to veil the truth of 9/11 I suggest you Google the ‘Kruz200’ video at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b-AfXkEvgs] then open up the “read more” tab and compare the two descriptions of the same video.

Oh hell then I’ll save you the steps – what follows then is the commentary from the ‘Kruz200’ video footage headlined Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building consumed by fire:

“Footage that kills the conspiracy theories. Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories. Footage below to LiveLeak site.
Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.
But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center – and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.”

...and here’s the Headline, as well the full first paragraph of Meghan Keneally’s article:

“Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building consumed by fire
Its dramatic collapse hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories. Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims. But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center – and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.”

Now compare the original raw Vince Dementri video footage to the online version and finally the aired edited CBS2 video footage that was shown around the world on 9/11. The unedited Vince Dementri video footage is located in Release_14 of the NIST Cumulus dataset in file CBS-NET NIST Dub #7 and WCBS NIST Dub #2 ADDED CLIPS. An example of the complete, edited and aired Vince Dementri/CBS2 video is here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4] or alternatively then it. Alternatively then it can be downloaded at Youtube by searching “Vince Dementri - WTC7 Expected To Collapse CBS2 News – YouTube”.

Lastly then very telling photographs of WTC7 being constructed in 1985 are located in Release 32 and 36 of the NIST Cumulus datasets. For that reason their authenticity vis-a-vis their chain of custody is well beyond reproach. Revealing images in Release_32, files 42A0372 - G33D6 and 42A0373 – G33D7 (sub-files Mitchell, Paul-2 and Mitchell, Paul-3 respectively) as well as Release_36, 42A0516 – G37D3 (Paul MitchellTIF) show the the columns and beams that made up the perimeter, or exoskeleton, of Building 7 were exceedingly robust. Therefore it’s extremely unlikely they overheated, buckled and failed do to being what Meghan Keneally described as “the intense heat from glowing flames on the sixth floor” of WTC7. I will link those photographs when I’m able to successfully download them – they’re too large a format for Flickr, apparently.

Please stay tuned because there’s more to come here on this matter.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th December 2019 - 03:16 PM