NOTES AND COMMENTARY ON 9/11 VIDEO: "CORE OF CORRUPTION: IN THE SHADOWS," BY JONATHAN ELINOFF

My last post was about Jonathan Elinoff saying that he has new never-before released information about the "art students" who had been in the World Trade Center. He is to do an hour-long show on the subject today (Saturday, October 17, 2009) at 5 PM U.S. Central Time on Truth Jihad Radio

His new info builds upon his documentary, "Core of Corruption: In the Shadows," by Jonathan Elinoff, which you may watch in its entirety:

Jonathan shows at the beginning of that video that he is part of TurthAlliance.net.

Now, I've just finished watching the video and making copious notes for a number of reasons. I want the info written down and posted for search results to help the cause for one.

So here are my notes (with much personal commentary), which are rough notes (so don't hold me to some extreme and unnecessary standard):

The 9/11 Commission Report claims there was no state-sponsorship of the 9/11 attacks or any cover-up.

Jonathan Elinoff says foreign intelligence agencies (spies) were involved.

David Graham, D.D.S., Shreveport, Louisiana

He wrote his information in what is called, "The 9/11 Graham Report."

From: http://www.sanderhicks.com/Documents/Book-Graham%20Report.doc
Size: 1.5 MB (1481216 bytes)
Scanned and clean

Sander Hicks (investigative journalist, GNN) http://www.sanderhicks.com/graham.html

"The 9/11 Graham Report is published here under the provisions of Fair Use."

A year before 9/11/2001, Graham met a Pakistani man, Jamal Khan, who housed 3 supposed 9/11 hijackers (Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, and Fayez Banihammad) who turned out highly likely to be Saudi spies or intelligence agents.

Graham may have died due to foul play. His family believes he was poisoned.

He warned the Shreveport Field Office (Agent Steve Hayes) of the FBI in Shreveport, Louisiana, and the U.S. Secret Service (Agent Ron Lewis), but according to Graham, they did next to nothing.

Graham notified Congressman Jim McCrery (R-LA).

McCrery informed Saxby Chambliss, now the Republican senator from Georgia, who was at the time a member of the Joint Select Committee on Intelligence.

Chambliss wrote Graham that Chambliss had given Graham's information to Representative Porter Goss (R-FL), the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. [Goss, as with many, is a member of the Good Old Boys network, and ended up as the director of the CIA, and while such, he engaged in all sorts of strange riotous behavior (gambling and partying hard, etc.).]

Let me say that Graham's Report is biased by his political ideology. He falls into the trap of the imperialists and fascists who seek to consolidate all power. Graham believed that a failure within the intelligence community to share information contributed to 9/11.

...inefficient computer network coupled with stymied communication between intelligence agents and criminal investigators ~ essentially blocking the sharing of information already in the hands of the CIA, NSA, FBI, and U.S. Secret Service.

His Report was submitted to the 9/11 Commission (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States). Jonathan Elinoff says that the Graham Report was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Let me say that what Graham didn't seem to understand (or we are asked to believe he didn't understand) is that 9/11 was used as a pretext for increasing the police state for evil purposes. He didn't know who would eliminate him. He didn't understand the good work of the Frank Church Committee. Graham was apparently not thinking that 9/11 was an inside job (with the Empire spread around the globe, which it is). What's not inside? The Church Committee was not designed to further the Empire but rather to further civil liberties. There are those who used it though against itself. To further Empire, attacks were designed to break down walls designed earlier to strengthen civil liberties.

Back to Jon's video:

Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar lived openly in San Diego, California, in a property of an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=alhazmiAndAlmihdhar&startpos=100&timeline=complete_911_timeline

They had CA driver's licenses, bank accounts, credit cards, open telephone listings, all in their own names and even, according to Michael Isikoff of Newsweek Magazine, while they were on the Terrorist Watch List due to their having attended a supposed al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia but not on the FAA No-Fly List (do you actually believe that was just a dumb mistake or a cock-up, as the Brits call it?). Does the government "drop balls" intentionally when doing so sets up the circumstances where the common people will be easily misled into wars for profit for those at the top of the upside-down pyramid (of greed)?

Let us not forget that al Qaeda was the tool of the U.S. CIA in its war against the Soviet Union by Afghani and Arab proxies. The U.S. deliberately used the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and others to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Exactly how many links still existed and what they were all up to before 9/11 remains covered up by the plutocrat dictators.

Isikoff speaks as if the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing in the intelligence community, as if the agencies involved actually abided by publicly stated laws. As the world has seen though, those agencies did not abide. It's been the pattern all along. They do just enough to continue duping the masses. The Pentagon Papers mentality never went away. Please understand that Newsweek is part of the huge corporatism running the globe under the plutocrats.

The FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, we are asked to believe, never informed the FBI about his house "renters." Abdussattar Shaikh's American resume is all fake. He didn't teach at San Diego State University. His diploma came from a diploma mill in Florida with CIA connections. The CIA is notorious for using front organizations and shells. There is no American Commonwealth University. Its mail drop belonged to William Lyon University started by former Air Force General William Lyon with deep connections in the California GOP as chairman of Team California's Victory 2004. Jonathan Elinoff is correct that this all raises huge questions that should have been thoroughly investigated and exposed to the public.

Omar Al Bouhami is allegedly of the GID (General Intelligence Directorate), the Saudi's CIA. He was working out of the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Los Angeles. He was the one who met Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar at the air port when they flew into the U.S.

Bob Graham wrote a book, "Intelligence Matters," in which he discusses how the intelligence community protected the "terrorists." Sander Hicks, mentioned above concerning David Graham, asks how this connects with Able Danger.

Able Danger was a Pentagon intelligence operation that protected the terrorists as if the terrorists had the rights of U.S. citizens. The Able Danger documents were all supposedly destroyed even after Able Danger was "investigated" by the U.S. Congress.

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer told congressional staff members about the secret DoD, DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) operation, "Able Danger," had identified two of the three terrorist cells including Mohamed Atta, the supposed ring-leader. As with Graham Report, the 9/11 Commission didn't include anything about Able Danger in the 9/11 Commission Report. Of course, they were not allowed to include it because so many people in the U.S. as elsewhere were waiting to read that report and finally did. The information was left out to send it down the Orwellian "memory hole."

Shaffer says that Atta was connected to al Qaeda. Well, sure he was if we understand that networks include U.S. intelligence itself.

Former Major Erik Kleinsmith, was the Pentagon Chief of Intelligence at the time and testified to the Senate that the cells had been identified.

The executive branch at its top, namely the President, receives all the briefings from all the agencies. There really is no wall and never has been between those agencies. The executive can spread whatever information it wants from the bottom up in any organization from the top down via the White House. The CIA, FBI, and DIA all culminate in the President. What he knows is inherently and always has been shared regardless of anything the Church Committee led anyone to believe otherwise for decades. It's all staged. It's drama.

Jonathan Elinoff presents the information as if he buys into the "wall" theory, which I don't buy at all for the reasons I just cited.

Erik Kleinsmith claims that he deleted all Able Danger documentation. If you believe that, well...you don't understand that Erik Kleinsmith, as Pentagon Chief of Intelligence, was highly trained and remunerated to lie. Therefore, just because he said he destroyed the records does not mean that the records were in fact destroyed everywhere or even at all. The point is that you cannot believe a paid, admitted liar. His job description includes lying. It's part of his chosen profession. He was and remains (since he won't tell all the truth he knows) a professional liar. It's inherent, by definition.

All Able Danger members were gagged by the Pentagon from even testifying to Congress. It's some sort of executive privilege thing really, but consider that the people's representatives charged with congressional oversight were prevented from hearing from the intelligence community about matters concerning which the Congressional branch must create law. It's a complete mess. Checks and balances simply do not work and never have.

If you read the Wikipedia article on Able Danger as of the date of this post, you see that "intelligence" has worked to discredit Anthony Shaffer in particular, who, along with others, says that Able Danger did have the information about the cells and was blocked from sharing it. It's his word against those higher up in "intelligence" who stand to keep more if Shaffer is censored, punished, ostracized, etc. What is going on in the deep recesses of the minds of the wicked is known by God however. Nothing is hidden, absolutely nothing. It's all known, and God can remember it all. It's God's choice as to who will be "rewarded" and for what — who will be given over to the spirit "Satan" and Satan's demons to torture in Hell. Don't be evil for your own sake. Better yet, don't be evil for righteousness' sake that includes for the sakes of others.

Jonathan Elinoff goes into the bin Laden family being allowed to fly out of the United States after 9/11 while all commercial and private flights were disallowed. Of course, the bin Laden family has huge financial dealings with the Bush family. Enough said.

J. Michael Springman reported that the CIA was allowing travel visa for Saudis that the Saudi government said shouldn't be granted such visas. One wonders how the Saudi government couldn't just block such travel on its end. Did/does the Empire have that much authority over the Saudi Royal Family? Considering all the U.S. petrodollars and other financial aspects involved, no doubt.

Now, even though Able Danger, per Shaffer had identified al Qaeda members and even though that claim is denied by the Pentagon, three of the visas issued supposed to "terrorists" of 9/11 reportedly stated that they were suspected al Qaeda. That certainly weakens the Pentagon's anti-Shaffer cover a great deal.

Let me say that so far in the video, there isn't even a hint of a Zionist connection. So far (up to 38:02 of the video), one would get the impression that it's a propaganda hit job against the Arabs especially of Saudi Arabia.

Now it turns to Pakistan. In April of 2000, a member of a cell in the U.S., a Pakistani Brit, supposedly turned himself in to the FBI and admitted the whole plan for the coming 9/11. This guys name is Kahn (sp?). The local Newark, New Jersey, FBI believed him after polygraphs, etc., but he was sent back to the U.K. and nothing came of it. Was this a set up so that after 9/11, he would be pointing in a deceptive direction? People can be programmed to pass polygraphs.

Randy Glass is another person who claimed advance knowledge. Glass was a criminal working for the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) and FBI. Glass claims that R. G. Abbas, a Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) agent, attempted to buy stolen U.S. military weapons from him. Glass then says that he wrote to then Senator Bob Graham that terrorists were planning to bring down the World Trade Center Twin Towers.

Per Sander Hicks, Francis X. Taylor (Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism of the US State Department) told Randy Glass that the plan to bring down the towers and to fly planes into them was already known. Glass faxed the info to then Senator Graham two months before 9/11. Randy Glass says he was threatened by the FBI, he said, not to reveal anything about what he had learned.

At this point, Jonathan Elinoff reminds the viewer that the 9/11 Commission Report said there was no foreign intelligence behind or involved in 9/11.

This all of course screams out for a new and this time thorough and open investigation, as there are clearly grounds for reasonable suspicion and probable cause for investigating treason in the form of violence against the American people in general, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and many other such extremely serious charges. The lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq are sufficient, but it has become hugely obvious that the Empire is being completely controlled by moneyed interests hell bent upon the destruction of the people's ability to have any say over global affairs whatsoever. If left unchecked by righteousness, it will translate down to zero say over even the minutest details of everyday life.

Getting back to the Pakistani connection, at least as it has been leaked, Mohamed Atta supposedly receive a $100 thousand wire transfer from ISI's Omar Saeed Sheik on orders of the General in charge at the time, Lieutenant General Mahmud Ahmed. Ahmed was having breakfast with Bob Graham and Porter Goss, joint chairs of the Joint Inquiry on 9/11, and the often overlooked Senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl, on 9/11. Mahmud Ahmed was shortly later replaced as head of the ISI but certainly was not punished in any way.

Goss says he is looking for solutions, not scapegoats. "A lot of nonsense," he calls this week's uproar about a CIA briefing that alerted President Bush, five weeks before Sept. 11, that Osama bin Laden's associates might be planning airline hijackings. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO308C.html

John O'Neil is the next subject. On August 22, 2001, John quit the FBI because the higher-ups continually blocked his investigating al Qaeda. He was then hired as security at the Twin Towers. He died in the attacks, his first day on the job. He knew too much.

Now, Jon refers to Presidential Directive or executive order W199I by George W. Bush specifically targeted preventing John O'Neil's investigation. Bush outlawed the investigation. However, Greg Palast calls it something different, but it still came out from the executive branch:

This document is marked "Secret". Case ID - 199-Eye WF 213 589. 199 is FBI code for case type. 9 would be murder. 65 would be espionage. 199 means national security. WF indicates Washington field office special agents were investigating ABL - because of it's relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, WAMY - a suspected terrorist organisation. ABL is Abdullah Bin Laden, president and treasurer of WAMY. http://propagandamatrix.com/newsnight_greg_palast_report.html

John O'Neil was the top man in the FBI on counterterrorism. During an FBI-agent-only meeting, according to O'Neil, his briefcase with enough information in it to tip off the opposition as to what he knew was stolen while he had stepped out of the room to take a phone call. Imagine that. A fellow FBI agent stole John's briefcase possibly right in front of other agents in the room.

This is where "Israel" first comes up (1:11:17). So, we have the Saudis and Pakistanis taking huge hits. Obviously, Jonathan Elinoff isn't focused on blaming "the Jews" or Israel for all the evils in the world contrary to what many Zionist Internet trolls would have you believe.

Michael Dix (sp?) was also investigating al Qaeda and other "terrorists." He was taken off the investigation by Zionist Michael Chertoff when he started finding out too much about the Israeli connections.

The Israeli text messaging service, Odigo, contained messages to two of its employees of imminent attacks in New York City on 9/11 over two hours before the attacks. Odigo had offices two blocks from the WTC. It is owned by Comverse Infosys, which is a wiring-tapping firm, among other things.

"Odigo says workers were warned of attack," Haaretz.

Carl Cameron of Fox News was instrumental in blowing the lid off the Israeli spy ring in the U.S., but his piece on the subject was pulled by Fox after the Jewish ADL (Anti-Defamation League) and others lobbied Fox. Carl reported that there might be a backdoor in the Comverse Infosys system allowing Mossad to notify Zionist agents in the U.S. of legal wire taps on them. Carl reported that behaviors suddenly changed when wire taps were put in place on suspected Israeli spies.

Jon cites James Bamford's book, "The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America," stating that the system is Mossad's handiwork. Why would the United States be so incredibly stupid as to outsource it's high-tech spying equipment to the Zionists unless Zionists within were making that switch for the sake of Israeli Zionism over the needs of America?

Yeah. There's two major-or not major, they're small companies, but they service the two major telecom companies. This company, Narus, which was founded in Israel and has large Israel connections, does the-basically the tapping of the communications on AT&T. And Verizon chose another company, ironically also founded in Israel and largely controlled by and developed by people in Israel called Verint.

So these two companies specialize in what's known as mass surveillance. Their literature-I read this literature from Verint, for example-is supposed to only go to intelligence agencies and so forth, and it says, "We specialize in mass surveillance," and that's what they do. They put these mass surveillance equipment in these facilities. So you have AT&T, for example, that, you know, considers it's their job to get messages from one person to another, not tapping into messages, and you get the NSA that says, we want, you know, copies of all this. So that's where these companies come in. These companies act as the intermediary basically between the telecom companies and the NSA. - James Bamford http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/14/james_bamford_the_shadow_factory_the

(1:15:11) This is where the Israeli spy ring info begins. Carl Cameron reports the some 200 Israeli were arrested or questioned about possible spying on the U.S., 140 of them before 9/11. Cameron reported that the DEA, INS (now ICE), ATF, U-SSS, FBI, CIA, DOD, Secret Service, Customs, the State Department, and IRS were all part of the investigations.

As I wrote in my previous post on the subject, the Israelis included so-called "art students" who were shadowing Mohamed Atta and the others of 9/11. The Israelis illegally entered some highly secret facilities and homes. The General Accounting Office reported that the Israelis are the most aggressive spies against the U.S. of any U.S. "ally."

Jonathan Elinoff then mentions Amdocs, an Israeli company that has the contract for billing documentation for the 25 major U.S. telecoms. Amdocs can see who's calling whom. It's not difficult from that to connect the dots, so to speak, on crime and spy investigations and to tip off whomever of the Zionists. The NSA announced that Israel was using calling records of Americans.

In addition to the "art students" there was also a group of "movers" (Urban Moving Systems) in and around New York. Some of the members were Israeli military intelligence and experts in electronic surveillance and explosive ordinance. Dominic Sutar was the group leader.

Jonathan Elinoff reports that the "art students" were filming the Twin Towers before the first plane attack. Robert Baer (CIA) said this was confirmed.

In New Jersey, there were five Israelis in a white van who were celebrating when the WTC was hit. Combine that with the text messaging, the art students, and all the rest of the 9/11 happenings not able to be covered in the one video, and one has reason to conduct a new investigation without its hands tied.

(1:22:21) This is where the five white-van Israelis are discussed in more detail. They were jumping and cheering and taking pictures of themselves with the smoking, burning towers in the background. See them at 1:24:01.

Also, Jonathan Elinoff reports that vans packed with explosives were confirmed to have been at the WTC on 9/11. Why is that not repeated to the American people by the mainstream news media over and over and over until a new investigation is forced into being by what used to be known as the Fourth Estate, the watchdogs of democracy, a free press? Well, that press is censored by corporate America and internationalists who own the news departments, which is why the Carl Cameron report about the Israeli spy ring was pulled from Fox's online accessible, news-video archive.

Apparently, there was a van nearing or under the Washington Bridge over the Hudson between New York and New Jersey that was full of explosives. Two in the van were arrested by the FBI.

Now, most of us will have heard about the numerous explosions that occurred in the towers before they fell. People in the basement levels and on the ground floor and elsewhere where so thrown off by the blasts that they were barely able to stay on their feet and some people actually were knocked down. Debris came off the wall and ceilings apparently. People in the basement sustained broken limbs and other major injuries and burns. How could planes hitting dozens of stories above cause such violent explosions in the basement? Also, we hear reports of explosions in the basement even before the planes hit (1:38:43).

The witnesses were never heard by the 9/11 Commission. Why not? The answer is because it wouldn't fit with the plan that those who are covering up want to succeed against the common people.

Those numerous explosions might explain some of the seismic readings that may not have jibed with the timing of when the buildings actually were hit or collapsed.

Well, we hear that possibly another van packed with explosives was in the basement strategically placed to help weaken the building to bring it down in a controlled demolition.

One wonders though what material caused the molten metal to flow and to pool and remain superheated for weeks after the attacks. A regular jet fuel fire and other building fire could not produce such molten iron and steel that would remain red hot for weeks (more on that below). Yet, the government has so far refused a new investigation.

Jack Kelley, a war correspondent, is then interviewed. Jack confirms that the FBI suspected additional explosives in the basement. It confirms their belief that all the firsthand witnesses, from office workers to custodians to firefighters and police, experienced the secondary and other explosions that were not from above where the planes hit. [There are issues about Jack Kelley's honesty: http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=%22Jack+Kelley%22+%22USA+TODAY%22+fired; however, his reporting on this jibes with the firsthand witnesses, many of whom have captured on audio-video themselves on the issue. The video "Core of Corruption" is loaded with clips about the explosions.]

The police radio recording has a police officer saying that a van had exploded. Of course, vans can explode from accidents and fires that have nothing to do with deliberate explosives. We can't draw any final ideas from this one report, but it should be verified with the officers involved to rule out a cover-up.

Now, many of these stories sound disjointed because they were happening when people were confused and dazed. They could only be made full sense of via highly professional and determined forensic, criminal investigations by the best criminal investigator team the U.S. can muster.

1:32:56 is where more explosion info is given.

This video has more about other explosions then any others I've seen. It discusses the explosions in the subway before the building collapses. It discusses the numerous reports that police and others firmly believed that there were other "terrorists" planting bombs even while the Twin Towers were smoldering.

The regular American public does not have the impression that there were nearly as many if any other explosions other than the fire balls from the planes hitting and then the buildings collapsing. That's because the mainstream corporate news media were ordered to go dark on the issue for the most part and to turn their attention to revving up the war effort against those who hadn't even been shown to have had anything to do with the attacks at all: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Pashtunistan, etc.

Also, certain people were warned in time that the buildings were going to collapse. The mayor at the time, Giuliani, was told to leave due to the coming collapse, which came shortly after the warning but before he could get out of where he was. He had to leave by a different exit.

Then there were the reports of the rapid-fire light flashes and sounds that accompanied them. A number of people reported this string of smaller explosions right before several (perhaps three) much larger explosions. Now that makes one seriously consider controlled demolitions. What else might account for such? That question hasn't ever even been posed in a formal investigation at the highest levels. The only reason that it hasn't is because there is an on-going, massive cover-up of what really happened, what really caused the events of that day. The official explanation is just pathetically incomplete to the point of being ridiculous to swallow as even remotely satisfactory. Bombs went off or something else blew up, but something did blow up. What could it have been if not deliberately set bombs? What does an office high-rise contain that would blow up as so many bombs? I'm listening, but the silence is deafening from the powers that be.

We heard often about he squibs of smoke and saw them, but the flashes are all the more suspicious. People said it sounded like rapid gun fire before the larger explosions. Then the building started to come down. Is that what they reported? Is that what they meant? We don't really know because they were never called to testify in public, recorded in open court for posterity and as evidence for a complete investigation and to raise answers and more questions to finally lead all the way to what happened and who all planned it, carried it out, and why, so we can know who the enemy of God and humanity is among us.

1:54:33 Then there's Building 7. Building 7 is impossible to match with the official version even with the wildest imagination. The fires were nothing compared with fires in other steel buildings that burned for hours and hours and still didn't fall. Yet, Building 7 came down exactly on cue and exactly the way a controlled demolition occurs. All the documentation in that building concerning all the criminal wrongdoing being investigated by the numerous federal agencies that were housed there was destroyed. The FBI, SEC, and CIA were all housed there.

Don't forget that the WTC was a dinosaur. It was not renting well. It had asbestos problems. It was recently bought and reinsured for billions right before it was brought down. Plus, the U.S. needed an excuse to invade the Middle East to steal control of the oil, which it has done partially and is still working on.

Building 7 was also easier to level than to fix. It came down at nearly freefall speed (6.5 seconds) and right into its footprint in a manner that controlled-demolition experts have said could never happen in any other way given today's technology. I believe them about that. Only intervention from vastly more technologically advance source could make it happen absent today's controlled demolition techniques and materials. Only God could do it without any technology. It was a controlled demolition that the federal government knew about in advance and has covered up ever since.

Jonathan Elinoff mentions the group, "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth." He correctly states that this group has received virtually no coverage by the mainstream media. One thinks of Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! who asked early on which engineers believe there was a controlled demolition. Now that they have a group on the Internet, she hasn't invited them on to my knowledge. Why not?

Then there is Dr. Steven Jones, who is a physicist and was a professor at Brigham Young University. He was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave for speaking out against the official version of the 9/11 tower collapses. Maybe he was forced into early retirement. That's just the wrong way to treat people. He did not agree that the yellow-orange molten metal showing on the outside of the towers was aluminum. Aluminum doesn't turn that color when it reaches the melting point is his answer. It remains grey/silver but just hot liquid. Rather than being aluminum, Jones believes the yellow-red-orange flow from the building is melting steel or molten iron possibly from nano-thermate having been used to sever columns as part of a controlled demolition. Here's a video to explain: . The audio is unfortunately weak, but you should be able to follow enough of it to get the point.

Remember, expert workers on site have reported that there were large pools of red hot molten iron under the building even weeks after 9/11. The jet fuel fires and building collapses alone do not explain those pools of molten iron from the steel in the buildings. Also, the same pools were under Building 7 if the reports have been accurate. There was no jet fuel there. There was other fuel, but not enough to generate enough heat to cause the steel to melt and to stay molten. Perhaps the reports on this have been wrong, but the questions haven't been formally asked or answered, as they would be if the government were on the up-and-up.

Then Jonathan Elinoff states that CNN and the BBC (2:07:49) both reported that Building 7 had collapsed before it had happened. Someone garbled the message "will collapse" into "has collapsed." CNN and the BBC ran with the error. Who knew 30 minutes before the building collapsed that it would definitely collapse even though it had sustained very little damage? The people who had paid for the building to be rigged for a controlled demolition is who. The people who wanted to destroy all the agency records, the people who wanted to clear the land for new construction, the people who wanted a larger pretext for wars, the people who wanted to shock the people all the more, the people who stood to be rewarded financially, that's who.

In addition, one witness, Kevin McPadden, testifies that there was an actual countdown. There is no way that there was a countdown if there wasn't a planned and controlled demolition. Anyone who believes otherwise is insane. Is Kevin lying? Well, more than one person would have heard it. They weren't call to testify in a proper, formal investigation, though. They weren't made to understand that the government would undergo a cleaning and that everyone would be okay telling the truth in open court or in an open commission hearing with real power.

Jonathan then plays clear audio of what Kevin had described: explosions before 7 started coming down.

Daniel Jowenko is a professional controlled demolitions expert with decades of experience. He said that the Building 7 video shows a controlled demolition. He came to that absolute conclusion before he was informed that it was begin called something else by the official U.S. mind twisters who have claimed that fire brought down Building 7.

2:12:50 The police say the building is about to blow up, as in explosions would be bringing it down, which happened shortly thereafter right on cue just as if someone push a button or pulled a lever after a countdown. That's what happened, and you know it.

So how does the federal government get so many first-line people to go along with this and also get the whole population to just accept it unless the god of their world is evil and they are going to more and deeper Hell as a result for not standing up for truth and righteousness? Think about it. Do you want to be a part of that and where it's heading? I don't.

2:16:49 Then, Jonathan wraps it up by airing some of the X Files spin off, "The Lone Gunman," from six months before 9/11 in which a full-sized commercial airliner is remote controlled to fly into one of the Twin Towers as a pretext to start a new war for the profits of the arms industry. Of course there's much more at stake than that, but the show does fly in the face of Condi Rice's statement that no one could have guessed that such an event might happen. We also have the photos of the airplane crashed in the middle of the Pentagon. Of course, there were six of seven war games on-going on 9/11 where at least one plane was war-gamed to fly into a building. The frontline military personnel responsible for protecting the U.S. from domestic enemies, such as those who planned and carried out 9/11, couldn't tell what was real and what was simulated. We also know that Bush was told that attacks by hijacked planes into building might happen around New York.

Even though all this is known, no one has done a thing except the 9/11 Truth Movement that has been speaking out and speaking out and being demonized for calling out the real demons.

The writers for the show, "The Lone Gunman," including Richard Haglund, have admitted that the CIA and NSA have been directly involved in giving and taking stories. This is typical, where "artists" are such that it is difficult for even them to know where fact and fiction separate. Art is an easy cover for a decadent spy.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.