Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.

Archive

Archive for July, 2010

By ANDREW MIGA and DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writers Andrew Miga And David B. Caruso, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – A bill that would have provided up to $7.4 billion in aid to people sickened by World Trade Center dust fell short in the House on Thursday, raising the possibility that the bulk of compensation for the ill will come from a legal settlement hammered out in the federal courts.

The bill would have provided free health care and compensation payments to 9/11 rescue and recovery workers who fell ill after working in the trade center ruins.

It failed to win the needed two-thirds majority, 255-159. The vote was largely along party lines, with 12 Republicans joining Democrats supporting the measure.

For weeks, a judge and teams of lawyers have been urging 10,000 former ground zero workers to sign on to a court-supervised settlement that would split $713 million among people who developed respiratory problems and other illnesses after inhaling trade center ash.

The court deal shares some similarities with the aid program that the federal legislation would have created, but it involves far less money. Only the most seriously ill of the thousands of police officers, firefighters and construction workers suing New York City over their exposure to the dust would be eligible for a hefty payout.

But supporters of the deal have been saying the court settlement is the only realistic option for the sick, because Congress will never act.

“Ladies and gentlemen, you can wait and wait and wait for that legislation … it’s not passing,” Kenneth Feinberg, the former special master of the federal 9/11 victim compensation fund, told an audience of ground zero responders Monday in a meeting on Staten Island.

Democratic leaders opted to consider the House bill under a procedure that requires a two-thirds vote for approval rather than a simple majority. Such a move blocked potential GOP amendments to the measure.

A key backer of the bill, U.S. Rep. Peter King, a Long Island Republican, accused Democrats of staging a “charade.”

King said Democrats were “petrified” about casting votes as the fall elections near on controversial amendments, possibly including one that could ban the bill from covering illegal immigrants who were sickened by trade center dust.

If Democrats brought it to the floor as a regular bill, King said, it would have passed with majority support.

GOP critics branded the bill as yet another big-government “massive new entitlement program” that would have increased taxes and possibly kill jobs.

To pay the bill’s estimated $7.4 billion cost over 10 years, the legislation would have prevented foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S.

Bill supporters said that would close a tax loophole. Republicans branded it a corporate tax increase.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the vote an “outrage.” He said it was clearly a tactic designed to stall the bill.

“This is a way to avoid having to make a tough decision,” Bloomberg said, adding that the nation owes more to “the people who worked down at 9/11 whose health has fallen apart because they did what America wanted them to do.”

John Feal, a ground zero demolition worker who has lobbied extensively for the legislation, expressed disgust.

“They pulled the rug out from beneath our feet,” Feal said. “Whatever member of Congress vote against this bill, whether Republican or Democrat, should go to jail for manslaughter.”

The bill would have provided up to $3.2 billion to cover the medical treatment of people sickened by trade center dust and an additional $4.2 billion for a new fund that would have compensated them for their suffering and lost wages.

The potential promise of a substantial payout from the federal government had caused some ground zero workers to balk at participating in the proposed legal settlement, which would resolve as many as 10,000 lawsuits against the city.

Initially, the bill would have prohibited people from participating in the new federal compensation program if they had already been compensated for their injuries through a lawsuit, but a change was made in recent days eliminating that restriction.

Nevertheless, with the House rejecting the bill and no vote scheduled on a similar Senate version, it appears almost guaranteed that there will be no new federal law by Sept. 8, the date by which ground zero workers involved in the lawsuits must decide whether to accept the settlement offer.

Under the terms of the deal, 95 percent of those workers must say yes for the court settlement to take effect.

Link to the rest of the article House rejects bill to aid sick 9/11 responders

July 27, 2010

Many don’t know about tower 7, it collapsed in 6.5 seconds.
It’s routine to look for thermite after fire, the FBI didn’t.
World trade center collapse is a masterpiece demolition.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.” – Charles Dickens, A Tale of two cities.

…. on the morning of September 11, 2001, a great tragedy befell the city of new York, millions around the world watched- live- on their TV screens the tragic collapse of the world trade center twin towers in new York, and almost nine years has passed away, but still something seems amiss, we still feel as if we haven’t seen the end of this, as if we haven’t watched the true story yet.

We stand confused, divided by two stories, an official story that is growing feebler and more naïve, and a conspiracy theory that is getting stronger and more persuasive with every passing day.

Two contradicting and competing stories, of how and who did the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the city of New York, in what looks like the tale of two different cities.

The official story

Nine Years after Terror Attacks and the Public Still Doubts the 9/11 ‘Official Story’

Who brought down the Twin Towers?

A bunch of crazy Arabs, members of “Al Qaeda”, a fundamentalist group that no one has ever heard of before, that’s who.

This is the final cut of the official story of 9/11.

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an in-depth criminal investigation. The speedy and clumsy indictment of Al Qaeda, made the Bush administration looked guilty of knowing in advance that attacks were planned on or around Sept. 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.

So, according to the official scenario, Mohammed Atta and his fellow Arab supermen managed to evade detection by the mightiest intelligence agency in the whole world until the day they emblazoned their vengeance across the sky and pulled off the biggest terrorist attack in US history.

In the wake of 9/11, the public opinion and civil society had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country of 30 million people.

The more distance in time from the actual event, the odder such a scenario seems. Almost nine years to the day, the official account of 9/11 seems more vague –and inadequate – than ever.

By keeping this official theory intact and credible, the 9/11 remains the pretext and justification for waging a war without borders.
Only through this perspective the official story of 9/11 could make sense to a bewildered public.

That, at least, is the official story. As to what the real story is – well; only science and time will tell.

The conspiracy theory

9/11 conspiracy theories allege that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen or were a false flag operation orchestrated by an organization with elements inside the United States government.[1] A poll taken in 2006 by Scripps Howard and Ohio University showed that, “More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.”[2] The most prominent theory is that the collapse of the World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural weakening due to fire.

However, in short, and according to Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY , a retired firefighter who was on duty on the morning of September 11, he says, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the “smoking gun”. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn’t even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN’T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT.

But only scientists couldn’t leave it at this, they had to delve into this 9/11 affair and investigate it scientifically. With their critical minds, however, they will not be deterred, and will certainly home in on the many discrepancies and holes in the official version of events, as well as the central implausibility of the whole affair.
But only scientists couldn’t leave it at this, they had to delve into this 9/11 affair and investigate it scientifically. With their critical minds, however, they will not be deterred, and will certainly home in on the many discrepancies and holes in the official version of events, as well as the central implausibility of the whole affair.

The scientific theory

Niels Harrit is an Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. He wrote a feature article printed in the Danish Newspaper, “Information”, on 31 March 2007. It was titled “the seventh tower”. In his article he questions the 9/11 commission report regarding the alleged causes behind the collapse of the world trade center (WTC) towers especially the tower 7. And he elaborates on the subject as follows.

When tall buildings are exposed to extreme earthquakes, they tip over as they fall. If there is enough room, they sometimes tip right onto their sides. WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don’t have to be a woodcutter to grasp this.

It therefore wasn’t damage to the foundations that caused WTC7 to collapse.

In the final FEMA report, WTC7 is hardly mentioned. They note that there were fires in the building, but do not attempt to explain the collapse.

It is now more clear than ever that a culture of silence surrounds the science of 9/11 which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down in a way totally different from the one submitted in the official story.

Do the simple math, there were only two planes, but three skyscrapers collapsed.

We are not asking ‘why’, Neils Harrit continues. This is no conspiracy theory. There is no burden of proof on us. Some extremely simple observations have been made, and we want to hear an official explanation that is consistent with elementary physics and chemistry, and common sense.

WTC7 collapsed 7 hours after the twin towers. When you see a 47- storey tower, 186 meter high, collapse in 6.5 seconds, and if you are a scientist, you think “ what?”…I had to watch it again and again, I hit the button ten times, and my jaw dropped lower and lower. There was no visible reason why it should collapse in that way, straight down in 6.5 seconds. I had no rest since that day.

Explosives in World Trade Center

Neils Harrit has been hosted in a Danish TV interview to discuss his scientific theory of how WTC towers collapsed. On the interview he responded by affirming that the two airplanes- impacts did not cause the towers to collapse. And according to a newly published scientific article, researchers found Nano-Thermite explosive in the rubble of WTC collapsed buildings, that couldn’t have come from the planes. They believe large amounts of explosives were placed in the buildings in advance, Neil Harrits and eight other researchers conclude in this article that it was Nano-Thermite that caused these buildings to collapse.

Thermite itself dates back to 1893, it is a mixture of aluminum and rust- powder which react to create intense heat, this reaction produces iron heated at 2500c

Neils Harrit believe the intense heat melted the building’s steel support structure and caused the buildings to collapse like a house of cards.

Hundreds of thousands of people around the world, this is something unstoppable, have long suspected that the three buildings were demolished. This has been crystal clear. Our research is the last nail of the coffin, says Neils Harrit.

Neils Harrit`s conclusion

I think there is only one conspiracy theory worth mentioning, the one involving the 19 Arab hijackers.

Link to the rest of the article A Danish Scientist breaks the 9/11 culture of silence.

Read more on the Explosive Truth about the WTC Destruction

07/27/2010

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) held a major training exercise in October 2000 that included the scenario of a person stealing a large jet plane, which they planned to crash into the United Nations headquarters building–a 39-story high-rise in New York, just a few miles away from the World Trade Center. Furthermore, a NORAD exercise in June that year included one scenario in which a plane was hijacked with the intention of crashing it into the White House, and another in which a transcontinental flight was hijacked with the intention of crashing the plane into the Statue of Liberty, only a short distance from where the WTC stood.

The existence of these exercise scenarios was revealed in August 2004 by General Richard Myers, at that time the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) asked, “Did NORAD”– the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace–“conduct exercises or develop scenarios, prior to September 11, 2001, to test a military reaction to an aircraft hijacking which appeared destined to result in a suicide crash into a high-value target?” In response, Myers outlined “five exercise hijack events” that NORAD had practiced for between November 1999 and October 2000, which all “included a suicide crash into a high-value target.” [1] Yet the details of these chilling scenarios, which were like premonitions of the attacks on New York and Washington that lay ahead, failed to receive the public attention they deserved.

OCTOBER 2000 SCENARIO: STOLEN PLANE TARGETS UN BUILDING
The scenario that included an attempt to crash a plane into the UN headquarters was practiced for twice–on October 16 and October 23, 2000–as part of an exercise called Vigilant Guardian. This annual exercise was conducted by NORAD, and all of the organization, including its headquarters and its three air defense sectors in the continental United States, participated. [2]

The scenario practiced for on October 16 was that, “Due to recent arrests involving illegal drug trafficking in Maine, an individual steals a Federal Express plane and plans a suicide attack into the United Nations building in New York City.” The October 23 scenario, according to Myers’s summary, was almost identical. It was based around “weapons of mass destruction directed at the United Nations,” and in it, “an individual steals a Federal Express aircraft and plans a suicide attack on the United Nations building in New York City.” [3] (At the time of this exercise, Federal Express was flying mostly the MD-11 and the DC-10, both large jet aircraft. Presumably one of those planes was the type considered in the scenarios. [4])

The next Vigilant Guardian–for the year 2001–was actually being conducted at the time the 9/11 attacks occurred. [5] One can only imagine what NORAD personnel must have thought when the real-world events of September 11 so closely resembled a scenario they had encountered in the previous instance of that day’s exercise–a suicide pilot trying to crash a large jet plane into a New York skyscraper.

JUNE 2000 SCENARIOS: HIJACKERS PLAN TO CRASH PLANES INTO WHITE HOUSE AND STATUE OF LIBERTY
On June 5, 2000, the Continental United States NORAD Region (CONR) was conducting an exercise called Falcon Indian, in which its three air defense sectors in the continental U.S. took part. [6] Two scenarios were practiced for that day in which hijackers planned to crash an aircraft into a well-known, “high-value” target in New York or Washington.

One scenario involved a Learjet being hijacked, and “maintaining tight formation with [a] Canadair airliner, loaded with explosives,” according to Myers’s summary. (It is unclear from that summary whether it was the Learjet or the Canadair plane that had explosives on board.) The hijackers “planned to crash” the Learjet “into the White House.” In the other scenario, a “Communist Party faction” hijacked an aircraft bound from the western to the eastern United States. The hijackers had “high explosives on board,” and intended “to crash into the Statue of Liberty.” [7]

NOVEMBER 1999 SCENARIO: TERRORISTS PLAN TO CRASH HIJACKED PLANE INTO UN BUILDING
The fifth scenario Myers described was from an earlier Falcon Indian, held in November 1999. Again, NORAD’s three air defense sectors in the continental U.S. took part in the CONR exercise. And, again, the exercise included a scenario based around the hijacking of a transcontinental aircraft flying from the western to the eastern United States. In the simulation, a China Airlines plane bound from Los Angeles to JFK International Airport in New York was “hijacked east of Colorado Springs by five terrorists.” If the plane was not intercepted by the U.S. military, the hijackers intended “to crash into [the] United Nations building.” [8]

OTHER PRE-9/11 PLANE-INTO-BUILDING SCENARIOS
Just a few months before Richard Myers revealed the existence of these five exercise scenarios, USA Today and CNN reported that NORAD had conducted exercises in the years before 9/11 that simulated hijackers crashing aircraft into buildings in the United States. Some of the scenarios that had been practiced for were described. It is unclear whether any of them correspond with the five later outlined by Myers, although, from what has been reported, it appears they were separate scenarios, additional to those in Myers’s list.

USA Today reported that “in the two years before the September 11 attacks,” NORAD conducted exercises simulating “hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” In one exercise, “One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center.” Another exercise involved fighter jets performing “a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States.” These two scenarios were included in “regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises,” according to NORAD, and the planes in the simulations were coming from a foreign country, rather than from within the U.S. [9]

CNN reported, “Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of [a] training exercise scenario.” That scenario involved the airliner “being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad.” The exercise “was conducted at one regional sector, and was not conducted at the [NORAD] headquarters.” The identity of the building hit by the aircraft was classified, but military officials said that it “would be recognizable if identified, but was not the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.” [10]

How could it have happened that the organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace repeatedly practiced scenarios that so closely resembled the 9/11 attacks in the years leading up to those attacks? And considering that the existence of these plane-into-building training scenarios has largely gone unreported, might there have been other, similar scenarios practiced for by NORAD–or other U.S. military organizations–that we do not yet know of? A new investigation into 9/11 is clearly urgently required. And the role of these training scenarios is one of many aspects of the attacks that must be thoroughly examined.

NOTES
[1] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community. 108th Cong., 2nd sess., August 17, 2004.
[2] Ibid.; William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 545.
[3] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community.
[4] Greg Schneider, “FedEx to Buy 10 Airbus Super-Jumbo Jets.” Washington Post, January 17, 2001.
[5] William M. Arkin, Code Names, p. 545.
[6] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community; William M. Arkin, Code Names, p. 362.
[7] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, “NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons.” USA Today, April 18, 2004.
[10] Barbara Starr, “NORAD Exercise Had Jet Crashing into Building.” CNN, April 19, 2004.

Source of article 911 blogger.

Menzies Campbell: Iraq was always wrong. Now we have proof

25 July 2010
The Independent

It was almost exactly eight years ago that the public beat of the Washington war drums became so loud and insistent that it could no longer be ignored. But we now know that for quite some time before July 2002 Tony Blair and George Bush had been engaged in a dialogue of the determined with regime change in Iraq at the top of their agenda.

Before Chilcot, we had to rely on leaked documents such as telegrams from diplomats, accounts of meetings held round the sofa at No 10, and, for lawyers, the crown jewels of the Attorney General’s written advice to the Prime Minister. The Hutton and Butler inquiries helped to fill in some of the blanks, though qualified by their restricted remits and security considerations. But slowly and with only occasional fanfare the whole sad, sorry story is being systematically laid out in evidence before the Chilcot inquiry. Chilcot has not been about surprises but rather about confirmation, less about revelation and more about corroboration of what we thought we knew.

Sir John Chilcot has made it clear that his committee is not a court of law and that no findings of legality will be made but just by exposing to public scrutiny the process by which legal advice was tendered and disregarded, he has provided more than enough evidence in support of the proposition that military action against Iraq was illegal.

Click to read the rest of the article Menzies Campbell: Iraq was always wrong. Now we have proof

July 26, 2010

(PressTV) – Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad has once again stated that the September 11 attacks were a staged event, rejecting claims that his comments are a publicity stunt.

“What do I gain from a publicity stunt? I am merely going by a public statement. I am not going to be a Prime Minister anymore unless you (pointing to a journalist) want me to …” the former Malaysian prime minister told reporters on Friday.

After watching a three-hour video of the attack on the World Trade Center buildings, Mohamad, had suggested earlier in his blog that the twin towers had collapsed “demolition style.”
Later on Friday, Mahathir also called on local television stations to show the three-hour video.

“It sounds logical to me. Until today, you cannot even find scraps of the plane that crashed into the World Trade Centre and there is no picture of the other plane, which was supposed to crash.”

“The way the tower came crashing down was also funny. People who saw it were also not ordinary people. They were professional engineers and what they say is quite credible.”

“I wish some television stations would consent to show the video as it is not long and only three hours. You can then see what I saw.”

Mahathir also said some people were afraid of saying anything critical about the governments of powerful countries or accusing them of doing something wrong.

“But the government of powerful countries said lies to go to war,” he added

“I have great respect for the Arabs but for them to hijack four planes is not very Arab. Just imagine the amount of planning that would be involved.”

Rejecting claims that he was being insensitive to the victims, Mahathir stressed that he was “being more sensitive to the victims” as he was saying the attacks were carried out “deliberately.”

The former Malaysian prime minister also said that his views about how 9/11/2001 attacks were carried out would not affect Malaysia’s chances of attracting foreign investment.

“I have said this many times even when I was the prime minister. But we still have the foreign direct investment. However, we cannot rely on foreign direct investments alone. We must build on our own system,” he said.

Mahathir made the comments at a debut held for a book titled Civilizations, Nomadic Migrations, Empires and The Trail of Islam, at the Islamic Arts Museum in Kuala Lumpur.

The book which entails the history of mankind, origin and commonality of major religions, is authored by Syed Salem Albukhary.

Source : Ex-Malaysian Premier still says that 9/11 an inside job

“9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK” analyzes the events which took place in New York City on the morning of the 11th of September 2001. Analysis includes Black Box Recovery, Radar and Speed data analysis, Aircraft Control, and “Hijacker” Pilot Skill. Interviews with 757/767 Captains from United and American Airlines who have actual Command time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 are featured.

The film was prepared by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Below is a trailer for the film.

OFFICIAL TRAILER – 9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK from PilotsFor911Truth on Vimeo.

The entire DVD can be ordered from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Read more on the Explosive Truth about the WTC Destruction

Former NASA aerospace research engineer, Dwain Deets, a member of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and leader of its writing team, launched a new web site in July that focuses on circumstances surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (the Salomon Building) on September 11, 2001.

Deets explains why he created the site, “7problemswithbuilding7” which devotes itself exclusively to building 7 rather than the two, more widely known towers: “I started it because I think just presenting a limited but well-rounded portion of the Building 7 story is easier to be understood and less intimidating. I hope people will give it a chance to be understood, rather than taking the easy route and rejecting it without even giving it a read,” he said.

He also said the site complements the decision by the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) to focus on Building 7 and David Ray Griffin’s suggestion for a “Building What?” campaign.

The seven problems with the official story regarding why WTC Building 7 fell are:

One

No plane struck the 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper (Building 7). More on no plane.

Two

No evidence of fires in Building 7 for the first 100 minutes after being struck by debris from Tower 1. (Yet fire from the debris is the official explanation for building collapse.) More on no fires.

Three

A free-fall drop of 2.25 sec. is finally officially acknowledged. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) lead investigator explained months earlier that, had there been free fall, there would have been no structural components below. More on freefall.

Four

Mainstream media quickly transitioned coverage of the building collapse to a “feel good” spin, focusing on the building being vacant when it came down. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings were more candid with their immediate comments, relating it to the familiar demolition of buildings we all well know.

Five

No mention of the collapse of Building 7 in The 9/11 Commission Report.

Six

The New York Times characterized as “perhaps the deepest mystery in the investigation,” a FEMA-report appendix about a steel specimen recovered from Building 7, rather like Swiss cheese, a product of extraordinarily high temperatures. More on FEMA.

Seven

No mention in the NIST Building 7 Final Report of this mysterious steel specimen.

For updates and more information, click on the link to go the website7problemswithbuilding7.

Read more on the Explosive Truth about the WTC Destruction

An unbelievable lineup of speakers is coming to Utah for a three day event, July 30 – August 1st…

With the final addition of Stewart Rhodes (Oathkeepers.org), the Axiom 2010 Conference is shaping up to be an unprecedented event. With the confirmation of our extraordinary panel of truth-tellers, including Prof. Steven Jones and rounding out the event with Alan Watt, live (via-satellite), Salt Lake City should be your destination July 30th through August 1st.

Our other confirmed special guests include: Sheriff Richard Mack, Luke Rudkowski, Dr. Tim O’shea, Walter Burien, Gary Franchi (with Camp FEMA movie screening), Daniel Estulin (via-satellite), Jake Shannon, Dr. Robert M. Bowman (head of the Star Wars program under Nixon and Reagan), Marc Stevens, Dr. A. True Ott, Byron Dale, and Dr. Ann Blake Tracy.

Click here to read more about the speakers at the upcoming Axiom 2010 Truth Teller’s Conference In Salt Lake City.

Seating is limited to 300, and tickets are going fast!

The event will also be streamed live over the internet by our friend and sponsor George Butler at the GCN Network here: www.liveonlocation.tv

We Are Change is also planning a mass 9-11 bannering of the Salt Lake area during the event to really wake the sleeping masses here in Utah, and asks that groups bring their banners and signs to the event.

Please join us at the Salt Lake Community College conference center in Sandy, Utah.

Press and vendor info contact: Clint Richardson (introspector48@yahoo.com)

Better Tag Cloud