Wednesday, 16 May 2018

9/11 Truth Event- London May 2018

Richard Gage and Barbara Honegger are touring the world at the moment and so I was keen to go and see their live show in London. I travelled there with my good friend and comrade Colin Woolford. It was a hot and sticky evening as we made our way to the venue, the Seven Dials Club. We had a quick pint at a pub called, amazingly, The Freemason's Arms, beforehand. The venue was a large stuffy chamber with a bar. There were about a hundred people there and, as I hoped, I met up with a few more friends who had chosen to attend as well. I picked up some merchandise, including a bootleg recording of a lecture by a 9/11 official story believer, Prof Colin Bailey. Ian Henshall opened the event and then Richard Gage spoke first. He described how he founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in 2006, see: https://www.ae911truth.org/; and gave a list of facts that explain how the third building, World Trade Centre 7, could not possibly have been destroyed in the way the official story said it was: structural damage caused by falling debris from the Twin Towers and the subsequent fire damage. In his view, WTC 7 collapsed by controlled demolition. He talked about the Twin Towers and how pieces of the structure flew out sideways over fourteen hundred feet away. He also believes thermite was used to cut the steel girders. As I have said before, for instance in the background links below, I don't believe explosives or thermite was used at the World Trade Centre. The destruction of the skyscrapers was not a conventional demolition. Instead a directed energy weapon was used based on the Hutchison Effect. Dr Judy Wood's book, videos and website give details: http://www.drjudywood.com/. Richard Gage pointed out the pieces of the Twin Towers that fell off the main edifice and left behind a trail of dust; and he claimed this is evidence of the thermite reaction, but I think it is instead the material "dustifying" from the Hutchison Effect. In fact some of these fragments dissolved before hitting the ground. He claims there are hot spots in the rubble where molten steel lingered; however we see this glowing molten and, supposedly, hot material being moved around by bulldozers powered by hydraulic rams. If this was molten steel then the radiated heat would cause that kind of machinery to malfunction. Gage also points to other pieces of data: steel beams full of holes like Swiss cheese and iron microspheres, but these are just more evidence of the Hutchison Effect and have nothing to do with thermite or demolition charges. The principle piece of data that has been tabled to support the possibility that thermite was used in the attack are red-grey chips found in the fragments of the buildings that look like partly-ignited thermite, according to Dr. Neils Harrit. However this has been identified by 9/11 official story-believers as a product of the gypsum wall panelling and the steel supporting columns. As I've said before, the effect of this falsehood will be that people starting out along the path towards questioning the official story, that it was just nineteen hijackers and planes hitting the buildings to start fires, will see this strawman explanation easily debunked and so may then begin reconsidering if the official story is true after all... Perhaps that's the idea.

The second speaker of this double feature was Barbara Honegger, a lawyer involved in a 9/11 justice Grand Jury petition that she plans to use to make the United States Supreme Court prosecute the Bush and subsequent administrations for the 9/11 attacks. This right emxists in the US Constitution, a Federal Grand Jury, "people's fourth branch of government" as it's called. She is supported by some of the 2997 9/11 victims' families, individuals such as Bob McIlvaine and Matt Campbell, see: https://www.911tap.org/ and: https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/. Ms Honegger was very moved and wept as she spoke about these relatives. Some interesting people are helping her such as Judge Ferdinando Iposimato, who is a former head of the Supreme Court of Italy and was instrumental in exposing Operation Gladio, a massive false flag terrorism project in Europe during the Cold War, see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/alternative-view-ii-part-2.html. Danny Sheehan is also on their side. He has been involved in several high-profile cases to do with UFO's and spoke at the Citizen Hearing on ET Disclosure in 2013, see: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/programme-45-podcast-citizen-hearing.html. He also defended Dr John Mack at his disciplinary hearing when Harvard University endeavoured to sack him for daring to conclude that UFO abductions were... real. Another character assisting Ms Honegger is Senator Mike Gravel, who also took part in the Citizen Hearing. It turns out that Senator Gravel was a lynchpin in the downfall of President Nixon; the "Watergate" scandal. That's something new I learned. Ms Honegger has managed to pass many productive laws through the US Congress preventing future foreign wars and also the repeal of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force act of 2001, a piece of emergency legislation, that was only supposed to be temporary, that allowed the mindless destruction of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. I wish Ms Honegger and her colleagues luck; I really hope they can achieve their legal outcomes. However, could there some landmines buried in the foundations of their lawsuit? I don't know if Ms Honegger is aware, but hers is not the first legal case to be filed against the government. In 2009 Dr Judy Wood sued the National Institute of Standards and Technology for their flawed and deceptive report to the 9/11 Commission. Her case was based on the evidence she had discovered, see: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml. If Ms Honegger and her team do not take the details of Dr Wood's Qui Tam case into consideration, and instead rely on the bogus evidence from A&E 9/11, then the entire process could fall apart. This would waste a huge amount of time and money; and, as I've said before, this is exactly what the promoters of the official story of 9/11 want. I enjoyed the May 2018 9/11 Truth event, and it was good to catch up with a few friends, old and new, but the ideas of this tendency are built upon a bogus revelation of what really happened on 9/11; what's more a lot of these people are very hostile to Dr Judy Wood and her own study. The principle slogan for this 9/11 Truth group is "Reinvestigate 9/11!" Well 9/11 has already been reinvestigated, by Dr Wood, and these people refuse to accept her findings.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

It does concern me that elements of these 911 investigations are, by accident or design, involving individuals also associated with UFOs, Abduction and Disclosure. The two areas of study should be kept completely separate, as should the witnesses, researchers and investigators - to fail to do so is, rightly or wrongly, only going to weaken the case against 911 truth, particularly in the eyes of the general public who will thus be given the reason to dismiss it as just another of 'those crazy conspiracy theories by those wackos who believe in UFOs and Alien Abductions'

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

I totally disagree. 9/11 and the UFO issue are inextricably linked, partly over the free energy and antigravity issue and also over the general information relationship with the media and population. Ironically Bryce Zabel, the screenwriter of the UFO-themed TV series Dark Skies and co-author with Richard Dolan of AD- After Disclosure, wrote an article called "UFO's and 9/11 Truth should not Mix" in which he said the exact same thing as you from an opposite perspective. He said effectively that 9/11 Truth issues should not be associated with UFOlogy because it would weaken the case against UFO Disclosure, particularly in the eyes of the general public who will thus be given the reason to dismiss it as just another of "those crazy conspiracy theories by those wackos who believe 9/11 was an inside job".

Anonymous said...

Ben - leaving aside that we'll have to agree to disagree about whether 911 is or should be connected to the UFO issue, there is something else seemingly very odd here. Is that quote above you have attributed to Bryce Zabel accurate? Are you sure he said that? I ask you this because please believe me, I had never heard of him, never ever seen or read that quote before and certainly had no idea that it existed when I wrote my comment! That it was almost word for word what Zabel said is very strange indeed, particularly as I wrote my comment on the spur of the moment without really debating about choice of words, except for my inclusion of 'wackos' - not a word I usually use, but I originally wrote 'crazies' and then almost immediately changed it for some reason. I have to admit to being just a little freaked out by this apparent weird coincidence.

Anonymous said...

An interesting synopsis Ben, thanks.

I've swayed back n forth on the Energy weapon Vs Controlled demo multiple times over the years. Both arguments have issues. I have Dr. Woods book, and attended one of her talks in Northampton. My issue with Dr. Woods position is that she relies on photo and video evidence, some of that was very clearly faked (see letsroll for a very good argument from that position), you've already pointed out your argument against controlled dem in the article so I won't rehash it.


But then we get to building 7, clearly controlled dem, if they could do it on 7 they could do it on the towers IMO.

I don't believe there's enough to go on for the definitive truth of the matter regarding the towers, so I would refrain from calling either position "bogus info" I can see how it could have been done conventionally (all be it top down rather than bottom up).

BZ for keeping the discussion going tho.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Anon 1. What Zabel said was not a word for word quote. The point he made was that one though. The article was originally posted in the UK exopolitics group on Facebook and is no longer present.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

No problem, Anon 2. The book by Dr JW contains far more than just video evidence though. Having looked at it, I'd call it conclusive.