Monthly Archives: October 2008

David Gergen Explains ‘Esoteric’ New World Order In Confrontation

WeAreChange Ohio
October 20, 2008

Members of WeAreChange Ohio spoke with David Gergen, an editor of U.S. News and World Report, and political analyst for CNN. Gergen covered a range of topics from foreign policy to the Presidential race.

During an appearance at the Union Institute & University in Cincinnati, Gergen responds directly to a question about the New World Order, describing what George H.W. Bush meant when he called for a New World Order. He digressed some off the subject, but stated that both Bush and Clinton were trying to “define” what this ideology could become through out their presidency.

Similar to what Zbigniew Brzezinski has made a notion of in numerous publications, America is beginning to lose it’s place as a super power and our economy is sliding. He stated that many countries have seen a transfer of power from the west to Asia and that many countries are fed up with Americas “cowboy Capitalism” and that it “represents the past”, is “threatening to bring down the structure” and is “destroying the fabric of civilization”.

Gergen revealed that as an insider, he could predict the outcome of the current economic crisis. In response to a question about the New World Order, Gergen stated that the standard of living of the American people would fall by 40%, ushering in an era of austerity.

This plan in which he stated that the post-World War II prosperity of America was coming to an end. One must conclude that this is a coordinated plan by the governing class to restrict the resources of the planet to stunt the growth of the middle class.

In the political realm, Gergen revealed that Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the Democratic nomination, but was upset during the primary process by Barack Obama.

During his appearance, Gergen focused on the importance of Pakistan in foreign policy, a viewpoint that meshes with Zbigniew Brzezinski’s outline for world domination in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard.

With regard to the media, Gergen stated that it was healthy for networks such as Fox News to produce propaganda, since MSNBC and CNN could balance it with their own versions of the truth.

Gergen held up General David Petraeus as an example of an effective leader, and reveled his admiration for the nation of Singapore, which Gergen said was “authoritarian, to be sure.”

After the session, Gergen became agitated when confronted with documentation regarding his membership in the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group and his attendance at the Bohemian Grove.

Global Financial Regulatory Body On The Way?

Charles Scaliger
The New American Magazine
October 21, 2008

With the European Union leading the way, the internationalists are preparing to exploit the recent global financial turmoil to hold a “second Bretton Woods” and radically restructure the world’s entire international financial system. The first Bretton Woods international conference in 1944, lest we forget, ended up saddling the world with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank (known formally as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

This last was replaced in the mid-1990s by the WTO, a full-fledged global trade ministry — what the organizers of Bretton Woods wanted back in 1944, but found to be politically unfeasible. The Bretton Woods organizers, especially the British and American delegations, also wanted a single global monetary unit (John Maynard Keynes proposed calling it the bancor, and the Americans countered with the unitas). But what they got instead was the dollar as a de facto international currency to which all other currencies were convertible.

It’s likely that a Bretton Woods II will generate proposals for an international financial regulatory body, a counterpart to the WTO. A single world currency issued by a global central bank is another likely project, especially given that those agitating most forcefully for the conference, the EU leaders, have already successfully created the world’s first transnational central bank (the Frankfurt-based European Central Bank) and the world’s first transnational currency (the euro).

“The world must change,” French president Nicolas Sarkozy proclaimed shortly before arriving at Camp David along with EU Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso to confer with President Bush. The president is offering to host the proposed international conference, although, according to an AP report, he “warned … against reforms that threaten capitalism.”

As to a location for the conference, the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where the 1944 conference was held, does not appear to be on the short list. “Insofar as the crisis began in New York, then the global solution must be found to this crisis in New York,” Sarkozy said. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, unsurprisingly, wants to hold the conference at the UN headquarters in early December. This would “lend universal legitimacy to this endeavor and demonstrate a collective will to face this serious global challenge.”

As for possible agenda items, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in a surprisingly candid October 17 editorial in the Washington Post, called for the “boldest of global cooperation” in confronting the crisis:

This week, European leaders came together to propose the guiding principles that we believe should underpin this new Bretton Woods: transparency, sound banking, responsibility, integrity and global governance [Emphasis added.]…. To do this, we need cross-border supervision of financial institutions; shared global standards for accounting and regulation; a more responsible approach to executive remuneration that rewards hard work, effort and enterprise but not irresponsible risk-taking; and the renewal of our international institutions to make them effective early-warning systems for the world economy…. There are no Britain-only or Europe-only or America-only solutions to today’s problems. We are all in this together, and we can only resolve this crisis together…. If we do this, 2008 will be remembered not just as a year of financial crisis but as the year we started to build the world anew.

In short, world leaders are preparing to take care of unfinished business left over from Bretton Woods. A true international financial regulatory body, until now an elusive goal, is obviously going to be a top agenda item. Such an organization would effectively strip America of her financial independence, as the WTO has already done for trade. While a single global currency and world central bank may not be feasible right away, look for a treaty to emerge from the upcoming conference that will lay the foundation for such an organization down the road by committing the parties to further negotiations. This was how the euro was brought about in Europe, beginning with the Maastricht Accord that paved the way for a gradual phase-in of the international currency and the establishment of the European Central Bank.

Wherever and whenever the upcoming financial conference is held, it will be used to wage war on America’s (and the rest of the world’s) financial sovereignty, to bring to fruition the long-cherished schemes of Keynes and others for a utopian new world financial order.

NWO Books-on-Tape: World Government, Eugenics, Scientific Technique & Power

You Tube | October 24, 2008

Key New World Order quotes about the plan to condition and control human populations are conveniently read in a books-on-tape style to serve your informational needs.

Credit to Brent Jessop – and GatekeeperInvasion

Scientific Technique and Power
The Scientific Outlook Part 1

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872-1970) was a renowned British philosopher and mathematician who was an adamant internationalist and worked extensively on the education of young children.

The Task of Unifying the World Mind Part 1

The Task of Unifying the World Mind Part 2

World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Part One

World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Part Two

Eugenics Quotes: Population Control in their own words



//Random iframe content- © Dynamic Drive ( //For full source code, and Terms Of use, visit //This credit MUST stay intact for use var ie=document.all&&navigator.userAgent.indexOf(“Opera”)==-1 var dom=document.getElementById&&navigator.userAgent.indexOf(“Opera”)==-1 //Specify IFRAME display attributes var iframeprops=’width=588 height=158 marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ hspace=”0″ vspace=”0″ frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no”‘ //Specify random URLs to display inside iframe var randomcontent=new Array() randomcontent[0]=”” randomcontent[1]=”” randomcontent[2]=”” randomcontent[3]=”” randomcontent[4]=”” randomcontent[5]=”” //No need to edit after here if (ie||dom) document.write(‘‘) function random_iframe(){ if (ie||dom){ var iframeobj=document.getElementById? document.getElementById(“dynstuff”) : document.all.dynstuff iframeobj.src=randomcontent[Math.floor(Math.random()*randomcontent.length)] } } window.onload=random_iframe

Flashback: Zionist Joe Lieberman Said That ‘Our Enemies Will Test The New President’

Think Progress
October 21, 2008

Today, John McCain’s campaign is attempting to make an issue out of Joe Biden’s prediction that an international crisis will “test the mettle” of the next president. On a campaign press call yesterday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani attacked Biden’s statement, insisting that “it is not uniformly the case that the mettle of American presidents is tested…Senator McCain would not present that same risk that Joe Biden seems to be worried about.” Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of John McCain’s closest confidantes, apparently disagrees. Appearing on Face the Nation back in June, Lieberman predicted that “our enemies will test the new president early.”

The Wonk Room argues that the issue is not whether the president is tested, but how he responds.

Is Joe Biden A Fortune Teller Of Terror?

J.R. / Jones Report | October 23, 2008
Reader Submission

One could only wonder if Vice Presidential Nominee Joe Biden is a fortune teller?

In this video, Joe Biden is utilizing his highly effective “clairvoyant” abilities or his crystal ball back on September 10, 2001, one day prior to the 9/11 attacks.

He was at the national press club when he made an unbelievable prediction which ironically came only true hours later when he said, “we will have diverted all that money to address the least likely threat while the real threats come into this country in the hold of a ship, or the belly of a plane, or are smuggled into a city in the middle of the night in a vial in a backpack.”

Then, this past Sunday, Oct. 19, 2008, fortune teller Joe Biden not only predicted but “PROMISED” and “GUARANTEED” the following:

“Mark my words, mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did JFK. Remember I said standing here in your room if you do not hear anything else I said– watch, we are going to have an international crisis– a GENERATED CRISIS– to test the mettle of this guy and he is going to make some really tough–. I don’t know what the decision is going to be, but I will promise you that it will occur; I guarantee you it’s going to happen!

Biden also offered four or five scenarios that, according to ABC news, include the middle east, Russia, a nuclear capable Pakistan, and of course Osama bin Laden.

Is Biden a gifted clairvoyant individual or is he an elite insider with foreknowledge of astounding events before they occur? If an average American would have made these predictions with such impunity and certainty, then would an average American be arrested and interrogated for at least suspicion of terrorism or aiding a terrorism?

Structural Engineering Council Casts Doubt On NIST’s WTC 7 Report.

911 Blogger
October 15, 2008

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) has published comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report. The CTBUH questions critical points of the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory and also highlights problems with the writing NIST report itself.

The CTBUH criticisms focus on two technical issues The conjectured failure of shear studs and bolts on the supposedly critical Column 79:

Several conclusions drawn in the NIST report on the contribution of structural
components in failure initiation are unexpected and have raised concerns
within the Council. These conclusions involve the role of both shear studs and
local global buckling of the floor beams in failure initiation. The Council
believes that the local connection performance was a significant part of the
global failure and would like to have seen a more explicit analysis of the
connection failure. (See also comment on Chapters 11-13.)

The NIST analysis (p. 353), shows that shear studs and the bolts holding the
primary Column 79 failed before the temperature of the steel reached 200˚C.
This implies a fundamental weakness that would be picked up by a
conventional PBD analysis. These temperatures are very low compared to a
fire protection test that assumes that steel loses strength at 550˚C.

The failure of shear studs is surprising, and has been modeled in a very
simplistic way, which may overestimate the failure of this element. Prior
studies and real fire cases have not previously identified shear stud failure as
a significant possibility Page 5

It is difficult to understand why the top bolts of the girder would fail at
connection to Column 79 Page 5

The report does not describe the detail failure mechanism of the girder
connection to Column 79. Since this was critical to the failure we would
expect to see diagrams of it, in its deflected, deformed shape immediately
prior to collapse. Page 7

And NIST’s assertion that column buckling proceeded floor collapse:

We strongly believe that the initiating event was the
failure of the floor and the girder connections to the main column and that this
should be documented in Section 14.3.4. Page 7

The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of
the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then
buckling of internal columns. Page 10

However, the CTBUH also casts serious doubt on NIST’s entire thermal expansion fairy tale by suggesting that cooling was in fact taking place around the magical Column 79 at the time of failure:

It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column
79. Is it possible that failure occurred as part of the cooling cycle? Page 6

And questions NIST’s hypothesis about floor beams buckling both theoretically and with experimental data:

It is surprising to see in-plane buckling of the beam as being a key generation
of the initial failure, since it would be expected that the floors would bend out
of the way on their major axis, combined with a local buckling of the bottom
flange, like those found in the Cardington Fire Tests. Page 6

Finally, the CTBUH states that it finds the NIST report confusing and contradictory:

The report is rather confusing because the floor analysis is considered in
Sections 8, 11 and 12. It would be better if there was a complete
reconciliation of the analysis models. Page 6

In these sections NIST states that the initial failure was caused by the failure
of the floor system, in particular the connections to Column 79, that led to the
column becoming excessively slender and buckling. These statements
contradict the summary section 14.3.4 that identifies the initiating event as the
buckling of Column 79. Page 7

But don’t expect the CTBUH to come out and endorse 9/11 Truth either:

The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We
have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents
and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition
on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the
‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance
issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue
to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings. Page 4

So, on the one hand the CTBUH provides at least three good reasons to dismiss the NIST report as a blatant fraud: (a) phenomenal shear-stud and bolt failure at Column 79, (b) cooling around Column 79 at the supposed time of thermal expansive failure and (c) mystical floor beam buckling. But on the other hand, the CTBUH ignores the blatant evidence of controlled demolition in WTC 7 for no technical reason what-so-ever.

(I do not include the CTBUH’s insistence that floor failure proceeds column failure as a reason to disregard NIST because the idea that either could cause any kind of a collapse that could be confused with a controlled demolition is plainly absurd).

It should be note the CTBUH chairman and lead author of its NIST WTC 7 Comments, David Scott, has some interesting conflicts of interest (as apparently do his co-authors):

He was in New York on 9-11, 2001 and witnessed the attack on the World Trade Center and was part of the SEAoNY engineering team that worked at Ground Zero to assist with the search, recovery and clean-up.

Following 9-11 he was extensively involved in the industry review of design standards and procedures for tall buildings in extreme events. He has authored papers on Fire Induced Progressive Collapse, and was a reviewer of the US Governments (GSA) design requirements to mitigate progressive collapse, that were issues in 2002. He also worked extensively with Daniel Libeskind on the WTC masterplan and his design for Freedom Tower.

CIA’s Robert Baer Knows Guy Who ‘Cashed Out’ Day Before 9/11

We Are Change L.A.
October 20, 2008

On 9/11 prior knowledge, and perhaps a clue towards the put options on the day of 9/11: “I know the guy that went into his broker in San Diego and said ‘cash me out, it’s going down tomorrow.’”

He then went on to say that this man’s “brother worked in the White House.”


On October 16, 2008, Robert Baer, who was a CIA Case Officer in the Middle East over the course of almost two decades, participated in a discussion at the Hammer Museum entitled “A Third War: The Threat of War with Iran.” Dr. Trita Parsi was part of the discussion which was moderated by Ian Masters.

Baer was briefly interrupted during the discussion by Jeremy Rothe-Kushel for clarity’s sake, after he brought up 9/11 and reaffirmed his recently aired belief that Osama bin Laden is likely dead. That part went something like this-

Bob: The chances of Bin Laden being dead are very high. The question is are they going to drag him out in the next two weeks. Is he going to [laughter] out of cold storage and say “we finally got him.” I don’t know that he’s dead, but he probably is.

Jeremy: But he didn’t do 9/11 though.

Bob: Well, let’s put it this way, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind…

Jeremy: No.

Bob: …said he wasn’t working for Bin Laden, so…

Jeremy: Did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed put the Mossad assets in New Jersey to film?

Bob: …No he’s talking about the famous white van. It’s an intriguing story. It deserves a book…
After the event, Baer graciously granted WeAreChangeLA members Stewart Howe and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel an interview in front of the Hammer Museum on Wilshire Boulevard. Although he avoided dealing with the operational aspects of the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Baer appeared to affirm or suggest Israeli Mossad and White House foreknowledge of the attacks. Baer laid out his take on a benign scenario for the “famous white van” associated with Mossad agents detained on 9/11 after being seen filming and celebrating the attacks. Baer also said that it could mean something “worse.”

At the end of the interview Baer makes a very provocative statement:

“I know the guy that went into his broker in San Diego and said ‘cash me out, it’s going down tomorrow.’”

He then went on to say that this man’s “brother worked in the White House.”

He finally appears to confirm CIA involvement in the Iranian Revolution.

Here’s some interesting info related to Baer and this subject from the great resource —-

“Before Mid-January 2002: Top CIA Official Reportedly Describes 9/11 as Triumph”

According to former CIA officer Robert Baer, a high-ranking CIA official tells a reporter off-the-record that, “when the dust finally clears, Americans will see that September 11 was a triumph for the intelligence community, not a failure.” It is unclear why the CIA officer thinks this and the reporter who tells Baer this story is not named. However, Baer comments that if that is what the CIA thinks, “Im scared to death of what lies ahead.” [BAER, 2002, PP. XXIII]

Biden “Predicted” 9/11 Attack On September 10, 2001

Amy de Miceli
No One Needs to Die Tomorrow
October 21, 2008

Joe Biden the seemingly clairvoyant senator from Delaware, and vice presidential nominee was out making predictions, again. The last time Joe was using his crystal ball was on September 10, 2001, one day prior to the 9/11 attacks.

He was at the national press club when he made an astounding prediction, that came true hours later. “We will have diverted all that money to address the least likely threat while the real threats come into this country in the hold of a ship, or the belly of a plane, or are smuggled into a city in the middle of the night in a vial in a backpack.”

Just this past Sunday, while out fundraising in Seattle Washington, Biden spoke about what he saw the future looking like, and this time he was much more precise. He offers a timeline, a JFK comparison, and a crisis.

“Mark my words…It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy…Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

He also offers four or five scenarios that, according to ABC news, include the middle east, Russia, a nuclear capable Pakistan, and of course Osama bin Laden. Biden wants to remind you that al Qaeda is everywhere, “and its real”! Still, all that fear mongering was not nearly as concerning as his warning of our civil unrest, here we are only offered a McGuffin – but what he is saying is chilling.

“we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

“Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”

He is seriously asking us to just trust him, stick with us later no matter what, take whatever we give you, don’t question, “the one” because he will know better than you. He Promises that whatever is going to happen will probably make everyone so mad that the illusion may not hold; but look away, continue your quest for hope. Any type of event would be difficult to pull off, there is little trust for government in America right now, low approval ratings all around. In reality there will be no change from Obama, and at the very least, we will notice and six months into his presidency they will no longer be able to hide it.

“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision…Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

This is when they’ll begin to squeeze and we will not have any say because it is just too big for the non intellectuals to get,

“It’s so much more important than that. It’s so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it.”

Biden is outlining some kind of event that may lead to a sick dictatorship, where the eroded Constitution will come in handy, as will the new laws that the bush presidency put on the books, like PDD 51. We cannot just trust Biden, especially when he’s predicting “international crisis” , Biden was linked closely to the financiers of the 9/11 attacks. In the days following 9/11, he met with Pakistani ISI General Mahmood Ahmed, the man who gave the order to get one hundred thousand dollars wired to Mohammed Atta.

Biden claims to have met with Ahmed to pepper him with threats, but has offered no reason why he let them leave the US without any investigation at all. Although he has been confronted on these issues by the independent media, the main stream media has failed to cover this topic, and has been forgotten throughout his race towards victory.

We cannot forget, because warnings like the one he gave in the Emerald City on Sunday, must be drawn out and put on display. The line we are walking is fine, we are heading down an uncomfortable path. They have a grip on the children who will become men and woman during the Obama Regime. Children singing his praises, “we’re gonna change it, and rearrange it” . And young men dressing up in military gear, ripping out their individuality and self worth pledging to be“because of Obama”.

Biden was speaking in riddles but it is not too hard to figure out that it doesn’t sound very good. Within a year we will be questioning President Barack Hussein Obama. Bush had a rough first few months too, 9/11 changed that. There appears to be a definite plan here, as well as a message:

America will be changing, and your not going to like it.

Principal Censors 9/11 Truth Yearbook Photo

A victim of censorship comments on the principal who had his 9/11 truth t-shirt edited out of a yearbook photo– airbrushing in a plain black shirt.

Contact 218-643-2694 ask for Dan Bettin and politely give him your opinions

WeAreChange Debunks The BBC Part 2: A Call To Action

Brian Kenny
October 22, 2008

An open letter to Mike Rudin

Mike Rudin, producer of the BBC 9/11 Hit-piece ‘The Third Tower’, recently posted an article called ‘Caught up in a conspiracy theory’, in response to a video I put out – WeAreChange Debunks the BBC at Ground Zero 9/11/08. In the article, he does not deny (or even attempt to explain, in some instances), the glaring misrepresentations, distortions, and omissions that we called him out on at Ground Zero. He does not apologize (as many have called for) for repeatedly exhibiting poor journalistic ethics while covering the most controversial and important issue of our time. Instead he continues to dishonor the victims of 9/11 and insult the intelligence of the BBC audience by digging a deeper hole. Very well Mike Rudin, so be it.


Rudin writes “As I tried to explain to them at the time, we recorded a long interview with Barry Jennings. We also carefully considered other information and came to our own view based on all of that.”

No. What you actually did was cut and splice and alter the story the way you wanted it. The issue at hand is- why did the BBC imply that the explosion Barry felt on the 6th floor was the North Tower collapsing, when he clearly states beyond any doubt in his Loose Change interview (done months before the BBC film) that the explosion happened before either tower had collapsed? Mike Rudin does not ask him to specify on camera whether the towers were still standing when he felt the explosion. A rather important question to miss.

This begs the question – did Mike Rudin watch the Loose Change interview (hereby refered to as LC)? If he had he would have surely noticed that Jennings makes perfectly clear multiple times that the towers came down after the explosion in Bldg. 7. Here are some quotes from the LC interview which the BBC viewers were not afforded the privilege of hearing:

“When we reached the sixth floor… there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging and I had to climb back up and I had to walk back up to the 8th floor… it was dark and very very hot. I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone. I was trapped in there for several hours. I was trapped in there when both buildings came down. The firefighters came. I was going to come down on the fire hose, because I didn’t
want to stay there because it was too hot; they came to the window and started yelling ‘do not do that, it won’t hold you’. And then they ran away. I didn’t know what was going on. That’s when the first tower fell. When they started running, the first tower started coming down. I had no way of knowing that. And then I saw them come back with more concern on their faces. And then they ran away again. The second tower fell.”

Dylan Avery: “So it’s safe to say that that explosion on the 6th floor happened before either tower fell?”

Barry Jennings: “It definitely happened before either tower fell and I’ll tell you why…” (Chopper

D.A.: “Because the whole official story, the whole reason that Bldg. 7 collapsed, allegedly, is because the North Tower fell onto it and caused damage, and what people are gonna say is, they’re gonna say, well, Barry was hit by debris from the North Tower.”

B.J.: “No. What happened was, when we made it back to the 8th floor, as I told you earlier – both buildings were still standing. Because I looked two… I looked one way and looked the other way, now, there’s nothing there. When I got to the 6th floor before all this happened… there was an explosion. That’s what forced us back to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. Keep in mind, I told you the Fire Dept. came and ran. They came twice. Why? Because Bldg Tower 1 fell, and then Tower 2 fell.”

So Jennings specifies twice that both towers were standing when he felt the explosion, yet the BBC chose not to ask him to specify on tape, but instead speaks for him with a smug voice-over: “early reports of explosions were just debris from a falling skyscraper.” This is the extent of the BBC’s treatment of this critical issue. One line. How do we even know if you asked him this question, Mike Rudin? You surely didn’t include it in your film. Are we supposed to take your word on it? Not only does Rudin fail to resolve these discrepancies, but he does not even let
the viewer know they exist. What “other information” factored into your decision to misrepresent Jennings’ timeline (besides Michael Hess, as I will cover shortly)?

Rudin also poses the question “If our timeline is wrong then why didn’t Barry Jennings and Michael Hess see and hear the moment of impact when Tower 1 fell. It must have been very loud.”

This is a strawman argument. Who says that Barry Jennings’ didn’t hear the moment of impact? He never implies such. Just because he wasn’t asked about it specifically and didn’t describe it in detail does not mean he didn’t hear the North Tower hitting the building. He does make clear, however, that both towers were still standing, as already demonstrated.

Also kept from the BBC audience is the fact that Jennings made clear in his LC interview that he was not convinced by the official explanation of the WTC7 collapse, but more importantly, that he coincidentally died a few days prior to the release of the NIST report, which couldn’t be confirmed until approximately 1 month later.

Small wonder Hess reversed his position then, don’t you think Mr Rudin? (as Steve Watson put it).

This is a call for Mike Rudin and the BBC to release their entire, unedited interview with Barry Jennings to the public. If you have nothing to hide then put it out for all to see. Readers of this article should contact Mike Rudin and the BBC and demand it’s immediate release.


The BBC skews Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” statement, cutting “and then we watched the bldg. collapse” out of the following quote:

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

You do not deny skewing the quote nor do you give an explanation for the omission. Instead you explain why “pull it” does not necessarily mean demolish the building, which may be true, but
that is not the issue. Why didn’t the BBC present the entire quote in it’s full context and let the viewer decide? Why the omission? Another “cock-up”? Or was this on purpose? Your insinuation that this omission does not distort the context of the quote is not only ludicrous, but it is downright offensive. On this point alone, you owe the BBC viewers and the 9/11 family
members a public apology. Simply including the full quote in future hit-pieces will not suffice. This issue is too important for these types of unwarranted omissions (or dirty tricks).

You mention Fire Chief Daniel Nigro but fail to mention that, according to some sources, Nigro denied having that conversation with Silverstein. Nigro’s ‘Third Tower’ interview raises more questions then provides answers. He says “we don’t need to ask permission from the owner, no. When we’re in charge of the bldg. we’re in charge, and that decision would be the fire cheif’s and his alone.” Then why does Silverstein claim to have been a part of that decision and who exactly was he speaking to? Why didn’t the BBC ask Nigro weather it was he who had the “pull it” conversation with Larry? More stellar investigative journalism by the BBC!


Not only do you misrepresent key eyewitness testimony and skew quotes, but you also lie by omission. I find it very telling that you did not address the videos of First Responders on the day of 9/11 walking back from WTC7, using such language as “the building is about to blow up” and “seven’s exploding”. This can be found in our video at 5:48 in. Maybe it’s because you know that regardless of the language being used, foreknowledge of the collapse in itself is entirely inconsistent with a “new phenomenon” (NIST’s thermal expansion theory). Maybe it’s because you know that the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC7 26 minutes in advance is especially inconsistent with a “new phenomenon”. I ask the reader – does this pass the smell test?

Again, how about presenting all the evidence and let the viewer decide? Will you at least include these videos in your future films?


Despite the many shortcomings in your track record as an investigative journalist thus far, we are given yet a new eyewitness who has changed his mind about the explosion he heard and now confirms the timeline you contrived. You mention that Hess used to work as Giuliani’s chief
lawyer. You fail to mention, however, that he has since been awarded a lucrative position as Vice Chairman of Giuliani Partners, a company notorious for banking in on the 9/11 tragedy. Not to mention that Rudy Giuliani has quite a few 9/11-related questions to answer himself, and is widely despised by Firemen and First Responders alike.

Also, Michael Hess’ UPN9 interview from the day of 9/11 contradicts your contrived timeline.

Will you include this in your upcoming hit-piece?


Mike Rudin, representing the BBC, does not deny misrepresenting Barry Jennings’ timeline, nor has he adequately explained why they did this. Nor does he deny skewing Larry Silverstein’s quote, nor does he even attempt to explain this omission, and further implies that this omission does not distort the context of the quote. Rudin also ommits key video testimony, and then ignores it when addressed to him. These are only a few of many dirty tricks demonstrated by the BBC in both of their 9/11 Hit-pieces.


Did you ask Barry Jennings to clarify whether the towers were standing when he felt the explosion?

If so, what exactly did he say, and why wasn’t that critical segment of the interview included in your film? Why did you speak for him?

Why didn’t you address these discrepancies to the BBC audience rather then omitting them?

What “other information” besides Michael Hess lead you to misrepresent Jennings’ timeline?

Why did you skew Larry Silverstein’s statement? Was this more “cock-up, not conspiracy”?

Will the BBC publicly apologize for this?


Readers should contact Mike Rudin and the BBC and demand the immediate release of the full, uncut Barry Jennings interview, as well as a public apology for the other distortions and omissions.

For a full debunking of the ‘Third Tower’ Hit-piece, read this great article

« Older Entries