Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
July 8, 2008

	The bottom line is that there were news reports stating that WTC-7 had collapsed before the event took place meaning that the most likely explanation is that the building was brought down in a controlled demolition.

The BBC which just recently aired a hit piece on people asking questions about the events of 9/11, also posted an editorial by Mike Rudin on their web site attempting again to rationalize how they managed to report that WTC-7 had collapsed before the building actually fell. WTC-7 is the third building that collapsed on September 11th, 2001 at approximately 5:20 PM EST despite the fact that no plane crashed into the building. Amazingly, BBC reporter Jane Standley reported on the building’s collapse even though WTC-7 clearly stood in the New York City skyline while she gave her report. The editorial claims that the BBC received incorrect information from Reuters which lead them to report this news in advance of the collapse. Rudin doesn’t even question how this supposedly erroneous news report from Reuters managed to accurately predict a future event. As a professional journalist, Rudin should know full well that this warrants further investigation. A statement Rudin quotes from Reuters has them citing a local news story as the original source of information but he doesn’t even bother to follow up and find the original source. According to Rudin, it is enough just to say that Reuters incorrectly reported the story even though this fails to answer a ton of questions. The bottom line is that there were news reports stating that WTC-7 had collapsed before the event took place meaning that the most likely explanation is that the building was brought down in a controlled demolition. It is impossible to predict that a building is going to collapse before it does unless it is brought down intentionally. Not only that, but the building came down in 6.5 seconds at close to the speed of gravity, had light fire damage prior to its collapse and there is no historical precedent for a building to collapse in its own footprint due to fire damage. Considering that it is impossible to load up a 47-story building with explosives in 7 to 8 hours for the purposes of demolition, explosives had to have been planted in advance indicating certain people had foreknowledge of what was going to happen on that day. Of course, the conspiracy theorists at the BBC are going to do everything in their power to make sure that all information they report fits in line with their 9/11 conspiracy theory that they blindly support.

What’s really interesting about this whole situation is that right when this news came out, the BBC claimed that they lost the video footage of Jane Standley’s report.

Here’s what Richard Porter from the BBC said about the missing tapes back in 2007.

I should also mention the missing tapes. As you’ll see from the details above, the absence of the BBC World tapes hasn’t made much difference to our ability to look back at what happened. We have all the tapes of other BBC channels (and I now know that quite a few of you have your own copies of BBC World, which is an interesting discovery… ).

And just to be clear, the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days (in line with the Broadcasting Act in the UK). After that we are obliged to keep a representative sample - and we interpret that to mean roughly one third of all our output. We also keep a large amount of individual items (such as packaged reports or “rushes” - ie original unedited material), which we use for operational reasons - such as when we come to broadcast fresh stories on the subject. We do not lack a historical record of the event.
Amazingly a year later they have managed to find the tapes.

The following is taken from Rudin’s editorial talking about how they finally found them.

The mystery of the missing tapes didn’t last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They’d just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.

These people are a bunch of liars. How could Porter say that they didn’t have copies of the original material and a year later, Rudin makes an entirely different excuse saying that the tapes had been misplaced and put on the wrong shelf? Not only that but how does video footage of one of the most important events of the 21st century get misplaced on a shelf designated for 2002 rather than 2001?

The BBC has pretty much admitted that they were being dishonest about the whereabouts of these video tapes, so how can they be trusted to give an unbiased view on the events of 9/11? If they are not being dishonest, than they must be incompetent, take your pick.

Here’s what Rudin said about Reuters being the source of the information they used in Standley’s news report.

It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

“On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen.”

Rudin doesn’t even think that it is worth following up on this to find the real source. What sort of journalist would stop there and not dig deeper? The most ridiculous thing about this is that Rudin proves what many have accused the BBC of doing which was reading off of a pre-packaged media script. He admits that the BBC retrieved this information from Reuters which gives validity to what many were saying about this news being planted in advance of the event.

This is just one aspect of the BBC engaging in an incredible amount of deception. As hard as this might be to believe, this is nothing compared to the insane amount of lies and deceit that is packaged in their new documentary “The Third Tower” that attempts to prove the insane conspiracy theory that WTC-7 was brought down due to fire damage. It is so incredibly biased and misleading that several articles if not a small book would be necessary to fully analyze the pathetic debunking attempts. Look for my complete analysis of the documentary shortly.

Nick Juliano / Raw Story | July 8, 2008

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is sticking to his drive to impeach President Bush.

Few in the House of Representatives have any intention of doing anything with the last 35 articles of impeachment Kucinich set before them last month, so the former presidential candidate appears to be lightening the load. Kucinich sent a letter to colleagues Tuesday asking them to support a single article of impeachment, to be introduced Thursday, which accuses President Bush of leading the country to war based on lies.

"There can be no greater offense of a Commander in Chief than to misrepresent a cause of war and to send our brave men and women into harm’s way based on those misrepresentations," Kucinich wrote in the "Dear Colleague" letter.

"There has been a breach of faith between the Commander in Chief and the troops. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda’s role in 9/11. Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States," he continued. "Iraq did not have weapons of Mass of Destruction. Yet George W. Bush took our troops to war under all of these false assumptions. Given the profound and irreversible consequences to our troops, if his decision was the result of a mistake, he must be impeached. Since his decision was based on lies, impeachment as a remedy falls short, but represents at least some effort on our part to demonstrate our concern about the sacrifices our troops have made."

Last month, Kucinich presented 35 articles of impeachment. Those have since been referred to the Judiciary Committee, where they are expected to die. Kucinich threatened to double the number of impeachment articles if the Judiciary Committee did not act.

In a video message, Kucinich thanked supporters for responding to his Independence Day call for Bush’s impeachment. In the video, Kucinich said his threat for more articles was still operative and promised an update later this week.

———————————-

Kucinich’s full letter to his colleagues is reprinted below:

Dear Colleague,

During the Fourth of July holiday a WWII veteran stood ram-rod straight in his crisp dress uniform and saluted our flag as it passed in a parade. His silent reverential stance was a powerful reminder of the love of country that is reflected in our veterans of all generations and all services.

It is also a powerful reminder of the responsibilities of the President of the Untied States in his capacity as Commander in Chief.

It is worse than heartbreaking that George W. Bush, as Commander in Chief, caused this country to go to war based on information which was false, and which he knew to be false. The consequences for our troops have been devastating. We have lost 4,116 of our beloved servicemen and women since the war began, with over 30,000 physically wounded and countless others emotionally wounded. The toll on the service persons and their families will be felt throughout their lives.

There can be no greater responsibility of a Commander in Chief than to command based on facts on the ground, and to command in fact and in truth. There can be no greater offense of a Commander in Chief than to misrepresent a cause of war and to send our brave men and women into harm’s way based on those misrepresentations.

There has been a breach of faith between the Commander in Chief and the troops. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda’s role in 9/11. Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States. Iraq did not have weapons of Mass of Destruction. Yet George W. Bush took our troops to war under all of these false assumptions. Given the profound and irreversible consequences to our troops, if his decision was the result of a mistake, he must be impeached. Since his decision was based on lies, impeachment as a remedy falls short, but represents at least some effort on our part to demonstrate our concern about the sacrifices our troops have made.

This Thursday evening I will bring a privileged resolution to the House with a single Article of Impeachment of President Bush for taking our nation and our troops to war based on lies. We owe it to our troops who even at this hour stand as sentinels of America because they love this country and will give their lives for it. What are we willing to do to match their valor and the valor of their successors? Are we at least willing to defend the Constitution from the comfort and security of our Washington, DC offices?

Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich

Member of Congress

Huffington Post
July 8, 2008

The town hall is symbolic of intelligent discourse between leaders and their constituents, a place where citizens can go to get their voices heard.

John McCain is utilizing this great American tradition in his 2008 presidential campaign, holding ‘town halls’ all over the country.

At a July 7th town hall meeting in Denver, 61-year-old Carol Kreck brought a "McCain=Bush" sign with her to the event, an attempt to point out the many perceived similarities between McCain and current President George W. Bush.

She was promptly ejected at the ‘request of the secret service.’ She was also ticketed for trespassing. The astute Kreck points out, "Why would Republicans who voted for Bush find it offensive that a sign says ‘Bush equals McCain’ or ‘McCain equals Bush?’ Why is that offensive?" A man with a similar view can be seen in the background wearing a costume depicting Bush and McCain as ‘peas in a pod’.

Ahmed Rasheed and Mohammed Abbas
Reuters
July 8, 2008

Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government’s national security adviser said on Tuesday.

But the government’s spokesman said any timetable would depend on security conditions on the ground.

Their differences underscore the debate in Baghdad over a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to remain when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

But Washington played down calls from Baghdad for a firm withdrawal deadline, saying both sought greater Iraqi security.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday he expected to pull more U.S. troops from Iraq and stressed any decision to withdraw would be based on the ability of Iraqi troops to take responsibility for security and combat.

Read article

DAVID STRINGER
Associated Press
July 8, 2008

LONDON (AP) - The ex-head of Britain’s MI5 domestic spy agency said Tuesday she opposes Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s plans for tougher new anti-terrorism laws.

Making her first speech to the House of Lords since being appointed to Britain’s upper legislative chamber last month, Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller said the government’s plans were unnecessary.

Manningham-Buller was the head of the domestic security service from 2002-2007 and spent more than 30 years working in British intelligence.

Brown wants to increase the time police can hold terror suspects without charging them from 28 days to 42 days.

He argues that police officers need the extra time because of the complexity of scouring computers, trawling phone records and following up leads across the globe.

Read article