Thursday, May 19, 2011

Bitcoin Grows, FBI Abuse Continues, ICC Questions, 911 Questions And American Disintegration Continues




bitcoin-flag-continuous.gif

Bitcoin Grows, FBI Abuse Continues, ICC Questions, 911 Questions And American Disintegration Continues


WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ANONYMOUS GETS A BANK?
Dominic Basulto on May 18, 2011, 9:34 PM






The same people who brought you Wikileaks are back, and this time, they've created a virtual currency called Bitcoin that could destabilize the entire global financial system. Bitcoin is an open-source virtual currency generated by a computer algorithm that is completely beyond the reach of financial intermediaries, central banks and national tax collectors. Bitcoins could be used to purchase anything, at any time, from anyone in the world, in a transaction process that it is almost completely frictionless. Yes, that's right, the hacktivists now have a virtual currency that's untraceable, unhackable, and completely Anonymous.

And that's where things start to get interesting. Veteran tech guru Jason Calacanis recently called Bitcoin the most dangerous open source project he's ever seen. TIME suggested that Bitcoin might be able to bring national governments and global financial institutions to their knees. You see, Bitcoin is as much a political statement as it is a virtual currency. If you think there's a shadow banking system now, wait a few more months. The political part is that, unlike other virtual currencies like Facebook Credits (used to buy virtual sock puppets for your friends), Bitcoins are globally transferrable across borders, making them the perfect instrument to finance any cause or any activity -- even if it's banned by a sovereign government.

You don't need a banking or trading account to buy and trade Bitcoins - all you need is a laptop. They're like bearer bonds combined with the uber-privacy of a Swiss bank account, mixed together with a hacker secret sauce that stores them as 1's and 0's on your computer. They're "regulated" (to use the term lightly) by distributed computers around the world. Most significantly, Bitcoins can not be frozen or blocked or taxed or seized.

Think back to the very peak of the Wikileaks Affair, when financial institutions were blocking payments to and from bank accounts controlled by Julian Assange and Wikileaks. This then precipitated a wave of hacktivist attacks on financial institutions ranging from Bank of America to Mastercard to Visa. Anybody who attempted to stop Wikileaks was slammed with massive denial-of-service attacks that had people seriously concerned about the fate of the world's financial system. That was just the amuse-bouche.

Theoretically, you could start generating Bitcoins right now on your laptop by putting a sophisticated computer algorithm to work. (Watch this video segment from Jason Calacanis for all the details) Right now, there are six million Bitcoins in circulation, trading at an average value of $6.70 each. $40 million is a lot of money, but a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. After all, trillions of dollars trade hands each day in the spot FX markets. However, remember that computer algorithm I mentioned earlier? Well, it controls the value of all those Bitcoins in circulation.

The greater the demand, the higher the value of the Bitcoins. Within years, we could be talking about billions of dollars' worth of Bitcoins in circulation. Money might not grow on trees, but now it grows on your laptop.

There are so many fascinating angles to this that even the digitally-savvy folks at Boing Boing have had a hard time wrapping their heads around Bitcoin. Quite frankly, it sounds like something out of a James Bond movie: a group of shadowy individuals attempt to bring the world's financial system to its knees. The founder of the Bitcoin open source project, Satoshi Nakamoto, hasn't been heard from in months, but other leaders of the open source movement have taken over. (People really aren't sure if a Satoshi Nakamoto really exists -- he's more like a Keyser Soze figure right now). What's fascinating is that anybody can download an 8-page PDF explaining this P2P virtual currency system and judge for themselves if it makes sense -- just be prepared to work through some differential calculus and probability theory.

Can any government do anything about Bitcoin? Well, the hacktivists like to point to the example of P2P distributed systems like Bit Torrent or The Pirate Bay. What happened then? Nobody has been able to consistently shut them down. So... back to our original question: What happens when Anonymous gets a bank? Well, it's worth re-reading the final chapter of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, where Swedish hacker Lisbeth Salander single-handedly re-routes hundreds of millions of dollars around the world and brings down a huge billion dollar corporation, all without leaving an electronic fingerprint. Truth, it seems, may soon be stranger than fiction.


By Stephen Lendman

Established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on July 1, 2002, it's mandated to prosecute individuals for genocide and aggression, as well as crimes or war and against humanity. Much earlier, the UN Charter was ...

http://jurist.org/images/s.gifWednesday, May 18, 2011
http://jurist.org/images/s.gif
http://jurist.org/images/s.gif
ICC warns Libya regime against covering up possible war crimes
Julia Zebley at 1:58 PM ET
http://jurist.org/images/s.gif
http://jurist.org/images/s.gif
[JURIST] The International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo[official websites] declared on Wednesday that any authority attempting to cover up crimes in Libya will be held accountable. In a letter sent to Libyan Foreign Minister Abdelati Obeidi [AFP report], Ocampo warned against diplomats covering up crimes for Libyan leaderMummar Gaddafi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. Further, Ocampo alleged that cover-ups in Libya go so far that any trace of a crime is destroyed [Middle East Online report]. Ocampo announced Monday that he is seeking arrest warrants [JURIST report] for Gaddafi and two others in his "inner circle" on charges of crimes against humanity. Libya's government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim dismissed this, stating the court has no jurisdiction over Tripoli and denied that any war crimes had occurred.

Ocampo had previously said that his office was planning to seek five arrest warrants [JURIST report] in connection with Gaddafi's administration. He indicated that there was strong evidence of Gaddafi's involvement in various crimes against humanity, including the shooting of civilians, massive arrests, torture and forced disappearances. Ocampo revealed in April that his office had uncovered evidence [JURIST report] that Gaddafi planned to attack civilians to forestall regime-toppling revolution. Ocampo indicated that the plans were made in response to the conflicts in Tunisia and Egypt and included shooting civilians. In March, Ocampo told the press that he was 100 percent certain his office would bring charges [JURIST report] against Gaddafi. Also in March, the ICC launched a probe into allegations of crimes against humanity [JURIST report] by the Libyan government.




Rightwing scholars brag how Christianity answers precisely to immutable economics of Milton Friedman (what, another Jewish prophet?). Which says a great deal methinks about both paradigms. The Bible stands foursquare alongside powerful CEOs, .


It is led by anti-American traitors and war criminals who would prefer America to be a dictatorship than a free society. This phase speaks for itself. Professor Peter Dale Scott and others have written about the plan by Dick Cheney and the treasonous ...

http://www.salon.com/news/middle_east/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/16/obama_outreach_middle_east

MONDAY, MAY 16, 2011 08:30 ET
  
What the Muslim world needs to hear from Obama
BY NADIA HIJAB

Barack Obama's decision to deliver a speech   this Thursday on the "events in the Middle East and North Africa and U.S. policy in the region" is baffling as much for its timing and venue as for its purpose.


The speech, planned for a while, is now the day before Obama meets Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom relations have been cool since the two squared off over Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the president blinked first.

Perhaps the decision on timing was made to preempt Netanyahu’s effort to set the terms of the debate. The Israeli leader clearly aims to flood the nation with Israel’s message when he addresses a joint meeting of Congress on May 24 as well as the annual conference of AIPAC. This, according to members of Netanyahu’s Likud party quoted in Haaretz  , is: No to an Israeli return to the 1967 lines; no to a compromise on Jerusalem; no to more construction freezes of the settlements. Instead, look for excoriation of the Fatah-Hamas unity deal. And expect no mention of how the ballooning of Israeli settler numbers to over half a million today dealt a body blow to peace.

The timing of the news of George Mitchell's resignation as Obama's Middle East envoy is also puzzling. Mitchell actually left in early April, but the announcement was only made Friday, and the resignation takes effect the day Obama is due to meet Netanyahu.

What stark, surely unintentional, symbolism of the failure of U.S. policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict since the first Bush administration. That policy has been based on two faulty foundations: That a people living under occupation can negotiate the terms of freedom with an occupying military force that controls everything from movement (including that of the Palestinian negotiators themselves), to tax revenues, to the population registry; and that the U.S. can still insist on being the lead mediator even as it sustains Israel’s occupation through military aid and diplomatic cover.

The steep trajectory of failure is spotlighted by the choice of venue for the president’s speech. What a contrast Obama's visit to the State Department on Thursday will be to the second day of his presidency, when he used that same backdrop to appoint Mitchell as his envoy amidst soaring global hopes of a different approach.

And what a far cry the State Department setting is from the "timeless city of Cairo," as Obama described it in the opening of his warmly welcomed first speech to the Arab and Muslim worlds in June 2009. Those great expectations were soon deflated.

A poll   conducted in six Arab countries last summer showed that only 16% of respondents felt positive about U.S. policy, as compared to 51% at the start of his administration. Perhaps the return to the State Department is an attempt to signal a more modest agenda, and acknowledge the limits of his presidential powers.

Finally, what is the purpose of the speech? There is no shortage of issues to address, including the U.S. position on the contours of a final Middle East settlement, the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and the Arab Spring. But it is hard to see what Obama could say to make a difference to the region's perceptions of U.S. policy -- if the speech is indeed intended for foreign rather than domestic consumption.

The Arab Spring? Viewed from the Arab street, the administration supported the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes and only switched when the people’s determination to stay the course became clear. The West is seen to serve its own agenda, as illustrated by the conflicting responses to Libya, where it is taking military action against the dictatorship, and Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is headquartered and where the regime has had a free hand against citizens demanding rights and dignity. And there are other gaps between what the U.S. says and what it does: reluctance to fully withdraw from Iraq, including "trainers," contractors, and bases; ramping up the war in Afghanistan; and backtracking on closing Guantanamo.

The killing of Bin Laden? Had this taken place in the heat of war soon after the attacks of September 11, the region’s sympathies would have been with the U.S. Now, the prevailing view is summed up by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader interviewed in The Washington Post  : "For us, Osama bin Laden never represented Islam… Even though it was war, it didn’t give America the right to kill a person while the forces could capture him."

A U.S. vision of Middle East peace? Administration officials have continued to insist -- despite all the evidence to the contrary -- that only direct talks will bring peace. They have opposed the Palestinian leadership's plan to seek full membership of the United Nations, even though they have left it no other recourse.

Obama faces a yawning credibility gap on Middle East peace. If he was unwilling to pressure Israel to even freeze settlements, few will believe he can swing an actual withdrawal of Israeli soldiers and settlers at a time when he is actively seeking re-election. And people will continue to hold America responsible for Israel’s actions, knowing full well Israel could not sustain its occupation were it not for U.S. military aid and diplomatic cover.

What, then, are Obama’s options? Since he has decided to speak, he could consider three things. Avoiding any hint of arrogance by recognizing America's minimal role in supporting the Arab uprisings and its major role in sustaining dictatorship. Announcing a credible timeline of concrete measures for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, trainers, contractors, and bases from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the region. And providing evidence of a willingness and ability to deliver on Middle East peace and stop subsidizing Israel’s occupation.

Anything else will be greeted with disdain by peoples now determined to take their destiny into their own hands.

Nadia Hijab is Co-Director of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network  , and a writer, public speaker and media commentator. She authored "Womanpower: The Arab Debate on Women at Work" (Cambridge University Press) and co-authored "Citizens Apart: A Portrait of Palestinians in Israel" (I. B. Tauris).

Secret FBI documents reveal attack on democratic rights of anti-war and international solidarity activists


Documents Released on May 18th (PDF format):

Committee to Stop FBI Repression Statement (May 18, 2011)

Secret FBI documents reveal attack on democratic rights of anti-war and international solidarity activists

 

FBI agents, who raided the home of Mick Kelly and Linden Gawboy, took with them thousands of pages of documents and books, along with computers, cell phones and a passport. By mistake, they also left something behind; the operation plans for the raid, “Interview questions” for anti-war and international solidarity activists, duplicate evidence collection forms, etc. The file of secret FBI documents was accidently mixed in with Gawboy’s files, and was found in a filing cabinet on April 30. We are now releasing them to the public.
The raid at the Kelly/Gawboy home was one of the many coordinated raids at Minneapolis homes and the offices of the Anti-War Committee on September 24, 2010. Two additional homes were raided in Chicago. To date, 23 anti-war and international solidarity activists have received subpoenas to appear in front of a Chicago Grand Jury headed by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
Taken as a whole, the secret FBI file shows the willful disregard for the rights of anti-war and international solidarity activists – particularly the first amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. The documents make it clear that legal activity in solidarity with the peoples of Colombia and Palestine is being targeted. The documents use McCarthy-era language, which gives one the feel that the 1950s red scare has returned. And finally, the documents show the chilling plans for the armed raid that took place at the home of Kelly and Gawboy on September 24, 2010.
The documents show that public advocacy for the people of Colombia was the genesis of the FBI investigation. The ‘Operations Order’ for the FBI SWAT Team states “The captioned case was initially predicated on the activities of Meredith Aby and Jessica Rae Sundin in support of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a U.S. State Department designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO), to include their travel to FARC controlled territory.”
While we have no way of knowing if it was speaking tours or educational events on Colombia that got them so riled up, there is something we can state with certainty: There is nothing illegal about traveling to Colombia, or visiting the areas where the FARC is in charge. This is something that journalists, including U.S. journalists, do, and we have yet to hear of their doors being broken down. Upon returning from Colombia, Aby and Sundin spoke at many public events about their experiences.
The FBI interview questions for Meredith Aby ask “1) Have you ever met Lilia [sic] Obando? 2) Where? 3) When? 4) Why?” Liliana Obando is a well-known Colombian trade unionist who spoke in the Twin Cities at an event organized by the Anti-War Committee. She received a visa to travel in the U.S. from the U.S. government.
She spoke about the sickening human rights violations that were being carried out by the Colombian government and its paramilitary allies. While we understand that the Colombian government is the third largest recipient of U.S military aid, and that government officials would prefer that that people here in the U.S. don’t get a chance to hear about human rights abuses committed with their tax dollars, the fact remains: there is nothing criminal in trying to learn the truth. The FBI is attacking the right of anti-war activists to speak out against U.S. foreign policy.
Likewise, the “interview questions” make a big deal about delegations that visited Palestine. The Israeli authorities try to disrupt these trips because people return from them and expose the gross human rights violations that are carried out in the context of the military occupation. But once again – this is a legal activity that activists have every right to engage in.
The documents show how the FBI investigation expanded outwards, starting with Colombia and soon focusing on Palestine. How did the FBI get involved? The most likely explanation is that a undercover police officer going by the name “Karen Sullivan” infiltrated the Anti-War Committee shortly before the 2008 Republican National Convention. Among the first people she met were Meredith Aby and Jess Sundin, who often spoke at public events about what they saw in Colombia.
Karen Sullivan - the professional liar - then gave her reports to the FBI, paving the road to the September 24 raids.

The New McCarthyism

When Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy went on a red-baiting witch hunt in the 1950s, communists, socialists and progressives of all stripes were hounded out of jobs, housing, the entertainment industry and institutions of higher education. More than a few people were jailed for their ideas. The secret FBI documents indicate an investigation is underway that takes its cues from this shameful past.
The FBI documents include 57 interview questions about Freedom Road Socialist Organization, the organization that some of those who were raided or subpoenaed to the Grand Jury are members of. The questions include; “Are you a member?” “How many members are there?’’ “Who are the leaders?” And on and on and on. It is like pages of the calendar have been turned back 60 years.
In the United States there is a constitutional right to association. Like-minded people are allowed to form groups and political parties that promote their views. FRSO members, along with others, were very active in organizing the massive anti-war protests at the Republican National Convention. They participate in the labor movement, community organizing, and the anti-war movement too. And they advocate that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with socialism. Given the bank bailout, continuous wars and the economic crisis it is not unreasonable to see these activities and views as a breath of fresh air.

“Dangerous” raid

In the documents, the “Operations order” for FBI SWAT for “Operation Principal Parts” the raid on the Kelly/Gawboy home has the word “DANGEROUS” in underlined bold type at the top of the page. FBI agents were told to bring assault rifles, machine guns and two extra clips of ammunition for each of their side arms. Two paramedics were to stand by in the event of causalities. Other documents include photos of Kelly and Gawboy, as well as pictures of stairs leading to their front door and the front door itself.
What transpired on September 24 was this. Gawboy was awoken by the FBI pounding on the door. When she stated she wanted to see the search warrant, agents used a battering ram on the door, breaking the hardware and shattering a fish tank in the process. Gawboy was taken down the front steps in her nightgown while the FBI swat team entered her home.
The justification for this armed home invasion is given in the “Operations plan” - “Kelly is believed to be the owner of an unknown number of firearms which may be at his residence...”
Kelly, who learned to shoot while in Boy Scouts, owns guns – just like a lot of Minnesotans. The “Operation Plan” also claims that Kelly “offered to provide weapons training” - an outright lie that originated with the police infiltrator “Karen Sullivan” or a fiction writer at the FBI office.
The bottom line is this: there can be no justification for the raid in the first place, and still less for it to be done by agents smashing doors and wielding machine guns. This is a recipe for people getting hurt or killed. The events of September 24 and the ongoing grand jury are not about “material support of terrorism,” as any normal person would understand it. What is happening is this: anti-war and international solidarity activists are being targeted for practicing our rights to speak out and organize. We have done nothing wrong. Our activism is making this world a better place.
 

Attachment-Size

Scientists Find Explosives in World Trade Center Dust


By Matt Sullivan / RCFP

Scientists have detected flecks of undetonated explosives in four samples of dust from the World Trade Center catastrophe. A paper just published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal describes the findings of nine scientists after 18 months of work.

The paper is titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”. The primary authors are Niels Harrit, professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, and Jeffrey Farrer, professor of Physics at Brigham Young University (BYU), Provo, Utah.

The research was initiated when Dr. Steven Jones, then also at BYU, observed small red/grey chips in the magnetic fraction of dust he was analyzing from the WTC disaster. The scientists studied four independently collected samples of dust. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC tower, two samples were collected the next day, and a fourth was collected about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC).

After careful study of the material the scientists concluded that the red component of the bi-layer chips is a high-tech explosive nano-material known as super-thermite. The material is composed of ultra-fine grains of iron oxide intimately mixed with nano-sized aluminum metal in a matrix of silicon and organic compounds. While these chips are very small (typically less than a millimeter) tests show that the material is highly energetic and can be ignited to produce a micro-explosive effect. The observed properties and composition of the thermitic material appears to match the published descriptions of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere. These high-tech explosives were relatively new at the time of the disaster, with some of the first published descriptions appearing in the literature in the late 1990s.

The scientists begin the paper with an explanation of their motivation for pursuing the research. “The destruction of three skyscrapers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001 was an immensely tragic catastrophe that not only impacted thousands of people and families directly, due to injury and loss of life, but also provided the motivation for numerous expensive and radical changes in domestic and foreign policy. For these and other reasons, knowing what really happened that fateful day is of grave importance.”

While several government agencies, including NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) produced reports on the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings, they pointedly did not analyze the debris for the presence of explosives. This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.

NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…
ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….
And NIST cannot claim that it is unfamiliar with the nano-thermitic materials. Several of the lead 9/11 investigators at NIST collaborated with Lawrence Livermore National Lab, in the late 90s, to test and characterize sol-gel preparations of high-power thermitic materials. Arden Bement, the former deputy secretary of defense who was appointed director of NIST by President Bush immediately after 9/11, was a metallurgist and expert on fuels and materials and former director of DARPA’s office of materials science and a former executive at TRW. He would be expected to be familiar with nano-thermite since DoD and DARPA are lead agencies in its development and TRW supplies NASA with advanced propellants including nano-gelled thermite.

[In an interesting side note: Bement was also a director of Battelle Corporation which was most likely the source of the weaponized anthrax spores used in the anthrax attacks of 2001.]

Some of the same individuals and organizations contracted by DoD and DARPA to develop nano-thermitic materials were selected by the Bush administration to investigate the collapse of the towers and Building 7. What the Scientists Found

The red/grey chips were found to be present in all samples of fine WTC dust analyzed to date. While the grey layer is the subject of ongoing investigation, the current paper focuses on the red layer. Very high magnification electron microscopy of the layer reveals a sponge-like structure composed of very small particles of several types. By using XEDS, researchers were able to map the elemental composition of the material. Iron oxide particles, shown as white in the image above, are fairly uniform in size and shape and about 100 nanometers long while the metallic aluminum appears as plate-like structures about 50 nanometers thick and up to a micron (1000 nanometers) in length. Other elements such as silicon and carbon were also detected in the red layer. This is significant because the presence of carbon in the material would supply the hot gas reaction products needed to turn the thermitic material from an incendiary into a low explosive. The authors avoided describing the material as “explosive” because the flakes studied are too small to assess the bulk properties of the material.

To test the power of this thermitic material, small samples were heated in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter, a very sensitive device for detecting the heat generated by a chemical reaction. The samples ignited at about 430ºC and generated as much or more heat than an equal mass of high explosive such as TNT. They also produced, as a reaction product, tiny metallic iron microspheres, just like the iron microspheres found in abundance in all samples of WTC dust as previously reported by USGS, FEMA and NIST.

Conclusions

“The chips are clearly a nano-engineered material with two types of extremely small particles, each highly consistent in shape and size, held in close stable proximity by a durable matrix which is laminated to a hard homogeneous material. The student of energetic materials will appreciate that this description matches exactly that of a super-thermite in which the reactant particles are suspended in a sol-gel matrix applied to a substrate.” (Jim Hoffman, 2009)

Sol-gels of nano-thermites are described in the literature as being very stable and safe to handle in liquid form. They can be applied to surfaces by spray or even paintbrush. It is entirely possible that the explosives were applied to the building disguised as a paint or as a spray-on fireproofing.

Researcher Kevin Ryan has previously published a paper (Journal of 9/11 Studies) noting the extreme coincidence that the floors in the towers where structural failure was initiated exactly correspond to the floors where fireproofing had recently been “upgraded” in 1999 and 2000. (See diagram)

Researchers have estimated, based on the weight of red/grey chips found in the four samples tested, that these chips make up as much as 0.1% of the mass of the fine dust produced on 9/11. While it is difficult to estimate the total mass of fine dust produced that day, the dust did cover Manhattan from river to river and for several miles in all directions. The dust mass was certainly at least several thousand tons (estimates range as high as 30,000 tons) which would mean several tons of the red/grey material is involved.

How did several tons of unexploded super-thermite end up in the dust of the World Trade Center disaster?


View Open Chemical Physics Journal article here.



Posted By: Lance Ciepiela
To: Members in Law Enforcement For 9/11 Truth
DNA Verified Three Controlled Demolitions on 9/11 - WTC Towers 1, 2, 7
Explosives planted and detonated on the inside, and not the office fires or two planes like they said, destroyed the two Twin Towers 1, 2, and Building 7 on 9/11 Mayor Bloomberg.

Letter to Mayor Michael Bloomberg

IQE@cityhall.nyc.gov

Fax: (212) 312-0700

Mayor Michael Bloomberg
City of New York
City Hall
New York, NY 10007

RE: DNA Verified Three Controlled Demolitions on 9/11 - World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, 7

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

Noted scientists have published their scientific paper indicating the discovery of explosive residues [DNA] in the dust from 9/11.

This discovery proves with absolute scientific certainty that highly sophisticated demolition explosives had been placed in the Twin Towers and Building 7 before the two planes struck them on 9/11.

Those persons with security access authorized by the landlord and building security then detonated the three towers on 9/11 by controlled demolitions causing the universal destruction of all three towers and the deaths of 2,801 victims, who were not given any advance warning to stay clear before they brought towers down.

The landlord, Larry Silverstein, apparently was referring to bringing Building 7 down by controlled demolition on 9/11 when he added "the smartest thing to do is [pull it]" and "we watched the building collapse" in only 6.5 seconds - truly Mayor Bloomberg, a perfect example of controlled demolition, so precise, so sure, so quick, and the total universal destruction resulting certainly not caused by any office fires or a plane crash.

In view of this information, commence an Independent 9/11 Inquiry to determine WHO planned and executed the demolitions at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Sincerely Yours,


Reference:

1. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in the Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Castastrophe" (PDF)..read more
http://tinyurl.com/3xqz6tu

2. "Scientists Find Explosives in World Trade Center"..read more
http://tinyurl.com/cqbw7v

Copy to:

New York City Council -

cquinn@council.nyc.ny.us

gbrewer@council.nyc.gov

fcabrera@council.nyc.gov

chin@council.nyc.gov

comrie@council.nyc.ny.us

ecrowley@council.nyc.gov

dickens@council.nyc.gov

Edilan@council.nyc.gov

ddromm@council.nyc.gov

mathieu.eugene@council.nyc.gov

jferreras@council.nyc.gov

LFidler@council.nyc.gov

foster@council.nyc.gov

garodnick@council.nyc.ny.us

jgennaro@council.nyc.gov

vgentile@council.nyc.gov

Sgonzalez@council.nyc.gov

dhalloran@council.nyc.gov

Ignizio@council.nyc.ny.us

rjackson@council.nyc.gov

ljames@council.nyc.gov

pkoo@council.nyc.gov

okoppell@council.nyc.gov

koslowitz@council.nyc.gov

lander@council.nyc.gov

lappin@council.nyc.ny.us

slevin@council.nyc.gov

mviverito@council.nyc.gov

darlene.mealy@council.nyc.gov

rmendez@council.nyc.gov

joddo@council.nyc.gov

apalma@council.nyc.gov

drecchia@council.nyc.gov

Joel.Rivera@council.nyc.gov

yrodriguez@council.nyc.gov

jsanders@council.nyc.gov

cmseabrook12@yahoo.com

eulrich@council.nyc.gov

jvacca@council.nyc.gov

vallonejr@council.nyc.ny.us

jvanbramer@council.nyc.gov

avann@council.nyc.gov

MWeprin@Council.NYC.gov

Ruben.Wills@council.nyc.gov 



No comments: