Today, Kevin broadcasts his third ever LIVE radio broadcast in front of an audience on another jam packed Caribbean cruise ship! Find out how being “green” has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet and how foreign aid is causing the United States to fall deeper and deeper in debt.
Fizzy Drinks Cause Serious Harm To Unborn Children
Frankincense Gives New Hope To Cancer Victims
Animals That People Consume Eat Arsenic
Agriculture Chemical Linked to Serious Birth Defects
Amid Nanotech’s Dazzling Promise, Health Risks Grow
Drug Recalls Surged To More Than 1700 in 2009
Protests & Riots Create Chaos In Egypt
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
After filing a lawsuit that prompted NIST to release more than 3 terabytes of photographs and videos from their investigation into the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 on 9/11, the International Center for 9/11 Studies has obtained evidence that suggests NIST edited several videos of the collapse of Building 7 in order to hide evidence of a controlled implosion.
The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking production of “all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses.” Following several unsuccessful attempts to get NIST to even acknowledge receipt of the Request, the Center was forced to file a lawsuit on May 28, 2009. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Request was assigned a reference number, and NIST began periodically releasing batches of responsive records.
The Center has now begun posting some of those images and videos online, the first batch of which is from an external hard disk drive “NIST WTC Investigation Cumulus Video Clips.”
In one of the clips, the video of which has been in the public domain for years, a loud, low-frequency boom can be heard just before the east penthouse of WTC 7 falls. Once the support columns that held up the penthouse are taken out, the rest of the building falls almost within its own footprint.
However, in subsequent clips released by NIST, where the camera is located nearer to the building, the collapse of the penthouse is clearly edited out of the footage.
“Several clips from the Cumulus database show signs of editing. In the two video clips below, the collapse of the penthouse of World Trade Center 7 is cut out of the video. These videos happen to have been filmed from close to WTC 7, and have a high quality soundtrack that would have picked up explosion sounds from the charges that severed the columns supporting the penthouse, especially the explosion heard in the last video clip presented,” comments the International Center for 9/11 Studies.
In another clip, the entire collapse of the building is edited out, the audio is removed and only restored after the building has fully collapsed.
The Center also obtained videos of the collapse of the twin towers that had obviously been edited, with sections deliberately removed. “There are many video clips in the Cumulus database that do not show collapse initiation – the only event even purportedly explained in the final report from NIST on the Twin Towers,” states the Center.
Another new video shows Michael Hess yelling for help from the 8th floor window of WTC 7. The clip reinforces the fact that the building had not sustained any substantial damage before its free fall collapse within 7 seconds.
As we documented for several years, the collapse of WTC 7 is the smoking gun confirming that the official story behind 9/11 is bogus. The collapse of Building 7 was reported before it happened by several news stations, including BBC and CNN.
The International Center for 9/11 Studies is now in the process of reviewing over 300 DVDs along with several external hard disk drives that contain a plethora of unseen photographs and video footage from ground zero. Judging by the small amount of damning footage already released, it’s highly probable that this data will provide a myriad of new contradictions both to the official 9/11 story as well as NIST’s own investigation into the collapse of the three buildings.
December 18, 2009
By James Slack
The number of town hall-controlled Big Brother CCTV cameras has trebled in a decade, it emerged last night.
There are now 60,000 cameras trained on members of the public by council snoopers – one for every 1,000 people in the UK.
The huge increase has cost hundreds of millions of pounds, including at least £170million in Home Office grants – although there are doubts over whether the cameras actually help catch criminals.
Many images are so poor they cannot be used to identify violent thugs, while police have admitted as few as one crime is solved for every 1,000 cameras.
Privacy campaigner Big Brother Watch uncovered the scale of CCTV use by local authorities using Freedom of Information requests.
Director Alex Deane said CCTV was seen as a ‘cheap alternative to policing’ but its ‘ability to deter or solve crimes is sketchy at best’.
‘The quality of footage is frequently too poor to be used in courts, the cameras are often turned off to save money and control rooms are rarely manned 24-hours-a-day,’ he added.
‘We would all feel safer with more police on the beat, there would be fewer crimes and those crimes that do occur would be solved faster.’
The study, entitled Big Brother is Watching, found that 418 local authorities control 59,753 cameras.
Ten years ago similar research found the total was 21,000.
The councils with most cameras are Portsmouth and Nottinghamshire, which each control 1,454, the study showed.
And barely a part of the country has been left untouched by the rise of the surveillance cameras.
Even the remote Outer Hebrides has an astonishing eight CCTV cameras for every resident.
Big Brother Watch said CCTV is designed merely to appease neighbourhoods suffering from anti-social behaviour problems.
The group also warned that, as the number of CCTV cameras increases, so does the potential number of people being watched and the number of council officers watching – with implications for personal privacy and data security.