11/01/2012 Totalitarianism: The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Latest Chapter In the Road towards “Police State USA”

Enactment of the Patriot Act of 2003, rushed through Congress after 9/11 and since renewed at leisure, opened the spillways of totalitarianism to flood an entire nation.

Britain has it’s own version of the Patriot Act- one of Blairs parting gifts’.

Totalitarianism: The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Latest Chapter In the Road towards “Police State USA”

by Sherwood Ross

“I believe,” warned James Madison in a speech to the Virginia Convention on June 16, 1788, “there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Surely, this is the story behind the New Year’s Eve, 2011, signing by President Obama of the National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA). While they were merry-making and tootling horns, NDAA stripped Americans of the last vestiges of their liberties. Now that President Obama can order the military to arrest and imprison you indefinitely on suspicion without trial, your First Amendment rights of speech, press, assembly, and petition have no meaning. Who are you going to assemble with from your jail cell?

NDAA is only the most recent chapter in a creeping totalitarian horror story going back decades. President Harry Truman vetoed the Internal Security Act of 1950 that codified indefinite detention without trial but his veto was overturned by Congress. Truman called the Act “the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798, a “mockery of the Bill of Rights” and a “long step toward totalitarianism.”

That Act, a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act, was aimed at the Communist Party of the United States and authorized incarceration of those who would “probably engage in espionage or sabotage.” At the time it would have been difficult to think of any example of any known U.S. Communist Party member anywhere engaging in sabotage. By contrast, it was about the same time the CIA was getting off to a jump start at overthrowing foreign governments by force and violence.

Under the Act, prominent individuals considered subversive were barred entry to the United States, limiting the free speech of American citizens. Among them: Argentine novelist Julio Cortazar, Colombian novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, and British novelist Graham Greene, Wikipedia recalls.

Totalitarianism continued its creep despite the objections of Senator George McGovern of South Dakota in 1970, who vainly blasted the “no knock” ordinance Congress pressed down upon that occupied territory known as the District of Columbia. This law allowed police to bust into any dwelling without a court order. McGovern referred to it as the Big Brother Act, pointing out that “your home is no longer your castle and your liberties are no longer your own.” That was but one small foretaste of today’s police state powers.

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(FISA) that violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It set up the FISA Court, and later the FISA Court of Review, true “Star Chambers” that international law Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois says “are nothing more than rubber stamps for government requests for unconstitutional surveillance on U.S. citizens.”

“With the FISA Amendments Act approved by Obama,” Boyle continues, “there is nothing left of the Fourth Amendment that protects ‘The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ I do not understand how any self-respecting U.S. Federal Judge can serve on the FISA Court and the FISA Court of Review and actively participate in the interment of the Fourth Amendment.”

According to Boyle, “After the “draconian Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act(AEDPA) passed by Congress in 1996 in reaction to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, there was no legitimate law enforcement need for the Patriot Act.” Among other things, the AEDPA drastically limited the right of inmates to appeal their death sentences.

Enactment of the Patriot Act of 2003, rushed through Congress after 9/11 and since renewed at leisure, opened the spillways of totalitarianism to flood an entire nation. “From the gagging of our nation’s librarians under the national security letter statute to the gutting of time-honored surveillance laws, the Patriot Act has been disastrous for Americans’ rights,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU’s Washington office.

“In the panic following the events of 9/11, our nation’s lawmakers hastily expanded the government’s authority to a dangerous level and opened a Pandora’s box of surveillance,” she cautioned in a statement on ACLU’s web site.

Amazingly, there has been scant public outcry condemning these government actions. Few Americans objected when President Obama in March, 2011, by executive order decreed Guantanamo detainees could be held indefinitely—a policy that NDAA now applies to American citizens under the NDAA.

“No president,” said the ACLU, “should have the power to declare the entire globe a war zone and then seize and detain civilian terrorism suspects anywhere in the world—including within the United States—and to hold them forever without charge or trial.”

“By signing this defense spending bill(NDAA), President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

“This amounts to the repeal of the U.S. Constitution,” Roth said, adding, “We have a Republican Party that is a Gestapo Party—to arrest American citizens and put them in concentration camps.” (Author’s note: NDAA could not have passed without the strong support of Democratic lawmakers.)

Roth goes on to say: “The (NDAA) law replaces an effective system of civilian-court prosecutions with a system that has generated the kind of global outrage that would delight recruiters of terrorists.”

With the NDAA, America has now returned to the disgraceful Korematsu Era, when President Roosevelt ordered the military to round up law-abiding Japanese-American citizens and stick them in concentration camps for the duration of World War II.

“By comparison,” Boyle says, “there is no end in sight to the bogus U.S. war on terrorism. The United States Supreme Court has never overruled the Korematsu case. And as a teacher of constitutional law, President Obama is fully aware of this loaded-gun that he now has in his hands waiting to fire on the American people by means of the NDAA.”

Boyle also warns that the NDAA, coupled with the notorious Pentagon and CIA “murder lists,” means President Obama could now start CIA and Joint Special Operations Command(JSOC) death squads and/or disappearance squads to render American citizens to Guantanamo Bay prison or abroad “for torture and murder.”

If most Americans are unfamiliar with JSOC, perhaps that’s because it operates in secret. That this menacing terror law has been enacted, like the unconstitutional laws that preceded it, with barely a murmur of outrage, speaks volumes about the manner in which the repressive aspects of these laws have been hidden from the general public. It also reflects on the indifference of the American people to the incineration of their once cherished civil liberties on the bonfires of totalitarianism.

You can’t say James Madison didn’t warn us in 1788.

Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations consultant for good causes. He formerly worked for civil rights groups, major dailies and wire services. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com; Professor Francis Boyle is the author of “Tackling America’s Toughest Questions” from Clarity Press.

Sherwood Ross is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Sherwood Ross




3 responses to “11/01/2012 Totalitarianism: The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Latest Chapter In the Road towards “Police State USA”

  1. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28611

    The Patriot Act

    The U.S. Congress has just passed a law that fundamentally changes the rights and protections afforded people under the U.S. Constitution. The law is called the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S.3930).

    Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he knew the law violated the Constitution, as did others. That didn’t stop them from voting for it. What is the significance of this new law?

    Essentially, it provides legal cover for the executive branch of government to violate the rights of the people in the U.S. The law says that if the government suspects that someone is an enemy of the U.S. or gives material aid to someone who is an enemy, that person can be taken into custody and held indefinitely with no way of challenging his or her detention.

    Only if the government decides to carry out a military trial — a trial that is held in a way that is different from normal military trial procedures — only then would that person have the ability to respond to being held in detention. This ability is also seriously limited by the way the new law modifies the processes and procedures that a person accused of a crime would have available.

    The new law essentially gives the executive branch of government the ability to create its own processes and procedures for how it will behave. And it removes any oversight processes from the other two branches of the government.

    This new law has been compared to the “Enabling Act” that Hitler used to consolidate fascism in Germany in March 1933.

    Hitler was appointed Chancellor in Germany in January 1933. In February, there was a fire in the Reichstag (the German parliament building). There are many who believe the fire was set by the Nazis.

    In March, using the fire as an excuse, Hitler had the Enabling Act passed by the Reichstag. The Enabling Act gave the executive branch of government in Germany the right to make the laws, bypassing the Reichstag. This required a change in the Constitution, and by using intimidation and force, Hitler got the two-thirds majority of votes in the Reichstag needed for a constitutional amendment. Hitler used the legal authority this gave him to outlaw opposition to the Nazis and fascism.

    The events in Germany in 1933 strike a discomforting parallel with recent events in the U.S.

    Bush was put into the presidency with the fraudulent election in 2000, which saw massive voter fraud and many people denied the right to vote.

    On Sept 11, 2001, the World Trade Center was destroyed and the Bush administration opposed an investigation into the government’s role in the events. When a commission was finally established to investigate what had happened, Henry Kissinger, an advisor and confidant to the president, was appointed as the head. When there was criticism that this was a crony appointment, Philip D. Zelikow, who had been on Bush’s 2000-2001 transition team was made the executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, aka the 9/11 Commission. He is now a top aide to Condoleezza Rice at the State Department and serious questions remain unanswered about what responsibility U.S. government officials may have had regarding 9/11.

    Now, on Sept. 29, 2006, Congress has passed a law with characteristics similar to the Nazi Enabling Act. Both laws take legislative power and transfer it to the executive branch of the government.

    In Germany, the Enabling Act required an amendment to the Constitution. In the U.S., the Military Commissions Act also requires a constitutional amendment, which requires that two-thirds of the Congress consider and approve the amendment and then a vote by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to approve the amendment. An alternative means for seeking an amendment is to have two-thirds of the states call a constitutional convention, approve the amendment, and then vote in favor of the change.

    Unlike Hitler, Bush didn’t seek a constitutional amendment. Instead, he asked Congress to pass this fundamental change to the Constitution as a normal bill, and they complied.

    The actual bill passed by Congress was 50 pages long.

    It is doubtful that many of those in Congress who voted for the bill read or considered it with any seriousness. The bill also overrides a number of provisions in an earlier law passed by Congress, the Detainee Treatment Act, passed in 2005. This law limited what the government could do with regard to those who are being held at Guantanamo Bay.

    On the day the Military Commissions bill was passed, discussion on the floor of the Senate went on for several hours and took up 276 pages in the Congressional Record, which reports on the actions and discussions in the Congress.

    The passing of a bill by Congress that takes away significant rights from a whole group of people with so little attention to the seriousness of the event demonstrates the great weakness of the minimal democratic structures remaining in the U.S.

    The trouble this new law can cause before the Supreme Court can rule on its constitutionality is great. If the Supreme Court ignores its obligations, as Congress has just done, then the continuing damage that the law can do will be very great.

    During the discussion of the bill in the Senate, a discussion that the Congressional Record reports went on for 10 hours, several Senators spoke of serious problems with the bill.

    One Senator, Russ Feingold from Wisconsin, explained how the bill invests unchecked power in the hands of the president and thereby undermines the foundation of the government. He explains:

    “The rule of law is something deeper and more profound than the collection of laws that we have on paper … The rule of law tells us that no man is above the law — and as an extension of that principle — that no executive will be able to act unchecked by our legal system. Yet by stripping the habeas corpus rights of any individual who the executive branch decides to designate as an enemy combatant, that is precisely where we end up — with an executive branch subject to no external check whatsoever, with an executive branch that is king.”

    In general, media coverage of the passing of the law focused on the politics involved, not on how the law represents a fundamental change in the Constitution.

    Another important aspect of the law is that it undermines the oversight functions of the three branches of government, taking away the power of the judiciary and the legislature to oversee the executive, thereby inappropriately establishing an executive with a form of unbridled power.

    The passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (1) raises a serious challenge to those who are concerned about the present and future of democratic institutions in the U.S.

    While few of the traditional media reported on the serious nature of the challenge to the Constitution represented by the passage of the law, some online comments about the law recognized the serious danger it represents to democracy and the threat it poses in the spread of fascism in the U.S.

    In one online discussion, several commentators expressed the view that the passing of this law signaled the rise of dictatorship in the U.S. Others were amazed at how little attention the law has aroused. The one aspect of the law that drew some public attention has been the fact that the law denies the right of habeas corpus to people the government calls alien enemy combatants. (2) How the government determines this designation is left up to the president and so violates the fact that there must be procedures for government processes and oversight over those procedures.

    Congress is specifically prohibited by the Constitution from suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. With this new law, Congress has put aside that part of the Constitution. In addition, it has increased the powers of the presidency, also in violation of constitutional checks and balances. These violations by Congress are setting the U.S. further along the road to a dictatorship of the executive branch of government, a hallmark of Fascism and Nazism. (3)


    1. Passed by a vote of 65-34 in the U.S. Senate with 12 Democrats joining Republicans to support the bill, and accepted by the House, which had previously passed its own version, it awaits President Bush’s signature to become law. Bush has said he will happily sign it.

    2. The writ of habeas corpus in Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, a section that pertains to the duties of the U.S. Congress, says that the U.S. Congress cannot take away the writ of habeas corpus except under circumstances of rebellion or invasion.

    The actual language reads:

    “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.” No case of rebellion or invasion exists and thus the U.S. Congress does not have the power to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. A serious debate was held over this part of the law in the Senate but an amendment to take this out of the bill did not get enough votes to pass.

    3. See for example, “Steve Jonas: The US Enabling Act” and John Steinberg, “The New Enabling Act.”

    Jonas describes fascism:

    “Fascism in its simplest terms can be defined as: unitary executive branch control of government; the abrogation of any inherent human and personal rights; the repression and then punishment of any dissent; in support of complete corporate domination of the economy. Sort of like the Cheney dream of a “Unitary Executive” in fact.”
    SOURCE: http://www.terryneal.com/PATRIOTACTVSENABLINGACT.htm


    Evils in Government

    Communism and Moral Decay


    Britain prepares its own version of US Patriot Act
    By Richard Tyler
    21 January 2004
    The Civil Contingencies Bill, published on January 7, is meant to serve as a legal veneer for the Labour government of Prime Minister Tony Blair to defend its own existence during an “emergency”. It grants ministers draconian powers to remove fundamental civil liberties.

    According to the government, existing legislation is inadequate to deal with the threats posed to Britain post 9/11. The new law will replace earlier Emergency Powers Acts and Civil Defence Acts, drawn up mainly to deal with industrial unrest and a possible Soviet attack.

    The bill enables the government to declare a state of emergency without a parliamentary vote. Moreover, ministers are empowered to introduce “emergency regulations” under the Royal Prerogative, again without recourse to parliament. The scope of such regulations is virtually unlimited. They contain the power to “give directions or orders” including the destruction of property, prohibiting assemblies, banning travel and outlawing “other specified activities”.

    Failure to comply with the regulations or an order made under them becomes a criminal offence that can be punished by up to three months in jail or a hefty fine.

    The new legislation enables the Defence Council—a body comprised of ministers, senior civil servants and military top brass—to deploy the armed services without prior parliamentary debate or approval. Most ominously emergency regulations may be passed “protecting or restoring activities of Her Majesty’s Government” effectively allowing the Defence Council absolute power.

    Tony Bunyan, from the civil liberties organisation Statewatch, dubbed the legislation “Britain’s Patriot Act”. He warned, “At a stroke democracy could be replaced by totalitarianism …

    “The powers available to the government and state agencies would be truly draconian. Cities could be sealed off, travel bans introduced, all phones cut off, and web sites shut down. Demonstrations could be banned and the news media be made subject to censorship. New offences against the state could be ‘created’ by government decree.”

    Although the threat of terrorist outrages is being employed to justify the proposed measures, past experience indicates that the concerns of the government are more to do with suppressing domestic opposition to its pro-big business policies.

    Since World War I, a state of emergency has been declared in Britain less than a dozen times, the last being in 1974, in each case because of strikes or other industrial action. Most recently, Home Secretary David Blunkett declared a “technical” state of emergency in order to suspend parts of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting detention without trial, to be able to intern foreign “terrorist” suspects.

    A state of emergency was not called once as a result of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, despite the 1979 assassinations of former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Mountbatten and shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Airey Neave at the House of Commons and the attempted assassination of almost the entire Conservative cabinet in the 1984 Brighton bombing.

    The powers granted to government ministers under existing emergency legislation were already draconian and wide-ranging, including imposing travel bans, food rationing and cutting off communications. Many of these powers are simply transferred to the new legislation.

    But as Statewatch notes, earlier legislation like the 1920 Emergency Powers Act was concerned with preserving the “essentials of life” in an emergency, such as the food supply, utilities and transport. In contrast the original draft of the Civil Contingencies Bill, first published last summer, sought to extend the government’s emergency powers to preserve “the political, administrative or economic stability of the United Kingdom or of a part or region.”

    This paragraph came in for heavy criticism from many civil liberties organisations, and even from the Labour-dominated parliamentary Joint Committee, since it provides a blank cheque for a government to pass legislation to preserve its own existence in the absence of any real emergency.

    The Joint Committee expressed its disapproval in their report on the Bill: “We have grave reservations about allowing enabling legislation to contain exploitable opportunities that could give the government of the day the power to protect its own existence when there may be no other threat to human welfare.”

    In its response to the Joint Committee, published at the same time as the redrafted Bill, the government has agreed to remove the specific wording that caused objection. However, the ability to enact emergency laws to preserve “political, administrative or economic stability” remains, according to the government, since any threats to such stability “if they were serious enough to justify use of emergency powers, [would] be captured within the definition of human welfare” set out in the new bill.

    The Cabinet Office minister in charge of the legislation, Douglas Alexander, said the government had made some “small changes” to the bill ahead of its passage through parliament and praised many of those who had made submissions: “I am very grateful for the work of the Joint Committee, the Defence Committee and others involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny process. I am also pleased that so many practitioners took time to contribute to the policy development process. The bill has benefited significantly from their contributions.”

    Scandalously, the human rights organisation Liberty said of these superficial amendments, “The government has taken a step in the right direction.”

    Liberty’s director, Shami Chakrabarti, told BBC Radio 4, “There has been a real listening and very detailed engagement. There may be further work to be done as the bill goes through parliament, but there is cause to welcome it. I have to give a certain amount of credit to Mr. Alexander and his colleagues.”

    Far from being a “step in the right direction”, the Civil Contingencies Bill creates a legal framework for the most far-reaching assaults on basic democratic rights. Since it came to office in 1997 the Labour government has introduced a raft of legislation attacking civil liberties: allowing the indefinite internment of alleged foreign terrorists, ending the right to jury trials for some offences, limiting the “double jeopardy” rule, legalising the mass surveillance of email, to name but a few.

    One section of the Civil Contingencies Bill could have been lifted directly from the programme of Ariel Sharon’s government in Israel, one of the world’s most repressive regimes. In permitting ministers or other officials to order the destruction of someone’s property, the new law enshrines a power that has been used with terrible results in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where those deemed to be opponents of the state can have their homes and businesses raised to the ground by armed bulldozers.

    * * *

    Statewatch: UK Civil Contingencies Bill published – Britain’s “Patriot Act”





  2. Tony Bunyan, from the civil liberties organisation Statewatch, dubbed the legislation “Britain’s Patriot Act”. He warned, “At a stroke democracy could be replaced by totalitarianism …

    “The powers available to the government and state agencies would be truly draconian. Cities could be sealed off, travel bans introduced, all phones cut off, and web sites shut down.





    Since it came to office in 1997 the Labour government has introduced a raft of legislation attacking civil liberties: allowing the indefinite internment of alleged foreign terrorists, ending the right to jury trials for some offences, limiting the “double jeopardy” rule, legalising the mass surveillance of email, to name but a few.

    One section of the Civil Contingencies Bill could have been lifted directly from the programme of Ariel Sharon’s government in Israel, one of the world’s most repressive regimes. In permitting ministers or other officials to order the destruction of someone’s property, the new law enshrines a power that has been used with terrible results in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where those deemed to be opponents of the state can have their homes and businesses raised to the ground by armed bulldozers.

    * * *


    Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security

    codepinkaction on 9 Dec 2011

    On December 8, 2011 members of CODEPINK, Progressive Democrats of America and World Can’t Wait confronted former Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, at the World Affairs Council in San Francisco. MIC CHECK: “Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security is complicit in the commission of war crimes, torture. He gave the green light on waterboarding. He co-authored the U.S. Patriot Act; Initiated the second largest racial profiling operation in the U.S. He violated protection and rights of domestic detainees. Michael Chertoff should be arrested for crimes against humanity; for war crimes!

    Non-profits & Activism

    THANK YOU CODE PINK. Michael Chertoff loves the “war on terror” because it meant he could sell “his” $Million Dollar” airport scanners. He is guilty of crimes of against humanity.

    WanaCare2 1 month ago

    my FAVE moment(because it SO reveals the Chertoff fans mindset) is when one of ’em i the audience snaps “That’s disgusting”and she doesn’t mean waterboarding torture, she means speaking out against it!!!!! Carry on, y’all & do NOT stop.

    hopesnopes 1 month ago

    just gotta love the angry old white guys trying to repress the citizens’ right to free speech…yeah they really LOVE the Constitution and the bill of rights, only for themselves apparently…ALL Repugnants are lying, hypocritical, corrupt, criminal scum who HATE America but LOVE the Corporation…fuck them

    oneirishpoet 3 days ago

    I am NOT being antisemitic here, but when Chertoff was asked the following question while he was a US Attorney, his answer was quite disturbing. The Question was “Being that you have a dual citizenship with the US and Israel, hypothetically, if the US and Israel ever went to war with each other, where would your allegiances be?” His answer was a quick “Israel of course”. That alone should have disqualified him from being our DHS Secretary. His sympathies should be AMERICA FIRST!!!!

    aat2bd 10 months ago


  3. Wake up America ! Yesterday the major Zionist organizations told us whom we may or may not criticize in Middle East, today they tell us whom we may criticize in the United States, tomorrow they will tell us to bend our heads and submit to their lies and deceptions in order to engage in new wars of conquest at the service of morally repugnant colonial regime. Where is our liberty? when we criticize Zionists, were labeled as “anti-semite”, I called that bullshit. Wake up America, stop zionists.

    southernman1905 4 months ago in playlist More videos from IamTheWitnes


    Alexander Solzhenitsyn, reached safety. In his book, “The Gulag Archipelago”, he informed an incredulous world that the blood-maddened Jewish terrorists had murdered sixty-six million victims in Russia from 1918 to 1957!

    Solzhenitsyn cited Cheka Order No. 10, issued on Jan. 8, 1921: “To intensify the repression of the bourgeoisie.” It was this order on which the establishment of the terrible Siberian camps, Kolyman and many others was based. .

    Fonyod2008 4 months ago

    oreillywatch on 29 Mar 2008

    Lee Scott of Walmart, Michael Chertoff and Senator Lindsey Graham vie for tonight’s top honors.
    Everyone needs to complain/boycott Wal-Mart. The Debra Shank debacle is shameless and dispicable.
    “Always low prices, always low humanity.”
    Go to this site to help change and wake-up Wal-Mart


    News & Politics


    NanoThermite911 on 3 Mar 2009

    Who’s Lying? NIST and conspirators eager to cover-up their crimes or the FDNY?

    Smoking Gun Proof :
    Peer Reviewed Primary Article confirms Thermite was Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

    Primary Article Source : http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7T

    Marvin Bush sat on the Board of Directors for Stratasec/Securacom which ran electronic security at the World Trade Center during the 9 month elevator renovation that was done on the buildings by Ace Elevator Co.

    During this time it was not only conceivable but also reported that there were strange noisy workers inside the buildings operating on the empty maintenance floors. Look up William Rodriguez, Ben Fountain, and Scott Forbes if you need witnesses to this as well as the power down and evacuation drills being conducted the weekend before 9/11.

    Rudy Giuliani’s FEMA Command Bunker covers the “reconstruction” in WTC 7 and Barry Jennings is our Star Witness for what happened there.

    Through the elevator shafts access can be gained to 4 foot crawl spaces between floors where explosives could have been planted without workers in the buildings realizing it or seeing what was going on. They also shifted tennants around often enough that they could hide the work from the occupancy (which was an all time low)

    Technical Papers on 9/11 collapse up for peer review @ AE911truth.org

    Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2 Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007

    9/11 Physics Problems:
    WTC 7: A Short Computation Prof. Kenneth L. Kuttler

    The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
    By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti

    NIST Report on WTC 7 dissected by Engineers:

    Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
    Kevin Ryan – U.L. whistleblower – former Site Manager

    A useful 9/11 collapse simulator:

    The NIST WTC Investigation — How Real Was The Simulation?
    Eric Douglas, Architect

    NIST in their own words admits free fall speed:
    “Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)”

    NIST admitting Free Fall On Video
    1. watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
    2. watch?v=XtKLtUiww80
    3. watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4

    Law of Conservation of Momentum

    Laws of Kinematics:

    News & Politics



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s