Public Property is Private Property

I happen to disagree with this premise, but the fact remains, this is the law.

Even in a publicly funded property, it is still private property thanks to the incorporation of the UNITED STATES as a corporate entity. Explaining that subject area is too much for this article, but do some research on it, because that is the law of the land, in truth today.


An example though. I worked for a private company, contracted to New York State, as a security officer.  We housed sensitive material on engineering of bridges, buildings, and so forth. Blueprints and stuff. We even had a geological lab in the basement. Even though it was "public" property, photos were strictly forbidden, and other restrictions applied. And with good reason I might add. (When I worked at a nuke plant, we had license to kill.)

So even though this was technically "public" property, as a guard, I had the legal right to bar you from taking pics, and to confiscate your material if you violated the rules of the property. Short of that, I also had the right to eject you from the property, and to arrest you if you refused.

This is a premise that so many people fail to understand, even at their privately owned local shopping mall, or even a publicly funded educational institution. This is also the same premise by which police claim the right to search your bags an the quasi-public subway system of NYC.

So while I whole-heartedly disagree with the intrusion  of liberty here, the fact is, legally, the guard and the administrators reserved the right.

Now to put this on it's head a bit. What if that man was handing out bomb-making instructions? A lot of people would say "well, then the guard had a right to stop him."

I say bullcrap on that too tho. Free speech is free speech, after all.

The video that provoked my rant today:

Also see:

Mall Cop's Fight Highlights Public Misunderstanding of Authority


DC Navy Yard Shooting Reported a Day Before It Happened !

It almost appears sometimes, as if the powers-that-be are deliberately making fun of just how stupid the typical American really is, when we routinely see news reporting mishaps like this one.

Once again, we see another major news event related to guns, violence, and terrorism reported by major media outlets before the events are alleged to have actually taken place.

It has been reported incessantly through the mainstream media today, Monday, September 16 that a gunman opened fire and killed a dozen people at the Washington D.C. Navy Yard around mid-morning. The body-count started with just a few people injured and is now up to 13 dead the last time i looked. That is not the story we are reporting on here though.

The story we are telling you about this evening, is that the shooting was reported by the Associated Press roughly nine hours before it happened. Or allegedly happened anyway. Is this purely a media fabrication from start to finish? Pure propaganda?

The Daily Courier, a Canadian newspaper, published their article on Sunday, September 15, at 2331 hours according to their own website. Granted, the paper is based in British Columbia, a few time zones away from Washington DC, but not 9 hours apart. They also reported that it happened an hour earlier than it supposedly took place, stating that the shootings took place beginning around 8:20 a.m. rather than 9:20 a.m.

Keep in mind though, that this was not an original article by the Daily Courier, but something they picked up off the wires from the Associated Press. Even if the reporter happened to be sending the report from the other side of the planet, that still would not account for the pre-dating of the article. Now some might say that the newspaper's webpage timestamp was off, and that must be the explanation. But if that were true, it must have also been off for ABC news, and Google.

Here are the screenshots, captured for posterity, and the related links below for as long as they might last.

This is the link to the Daily Courier:


This is the link to ABC News:


And this is the search query I did on Google to exclude today, and only return results from Sunday and earlier:



Unarmed Man Shot Dead Running to Police for Help After Serious Car Wreck

Police in North Carolina shot and killed a man running toward them Saturday morning -- but he may have just been looking for help after a car wreck. Officers responded to a "breaking and entering" 911 call at a home in Charlotte. The homeowner told dispatchers that a man had been knocking on her door repeatedly. Police say that when they got to the scene, a man matching the caller's description ran toward them. One of the officers fired his stun gun, but it was "unsuccessful." Another officer then opened fire, police said. Jonathan Ferrell died at the scene. He was shot several times. He was unarmed. Police now believe Ferrell was seeking assistance after crashing his car. Read more at: CNN Justice

World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11: The Evidence

We are going to present a compilation here of material regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7 on September 11, 2001.

Many have argued that the World Trade Center disaster was actually the result of a controlled demolition project planned well in advance by parties unknown. Much of the focus on the disaster that day has been centered on Towers 1 and 2, which were struck by aircraft. It has also been argued by many, that the damage from the aircraft and ensuing fires would not have been sufficient to cause a symmetrical collapse at nearly free-fall speed. There is compelling evidence to support the idea that the planes could not have brought down the towers, but perhaps the most compelling is that WTC7 was never struck by a plane at all, and yet that building too also collapsed in a way that seems to defy any explanation other than a controlled demolition.

But let's start by looking at the official explanation first. Could fire be the reason that Building 7 collapsed, as we have been told by government officials? It seems rather unlikely, considering that it has never happened before, or since. Yet on 9/11, we are told that three steel buildings were brought down primarily by fire. And again, one of those buildings was not even hit by a plane loaded with fuel.

This is a picture of the fires still burning in WTC7 in the late afternoon of September 11.

Here are some examples, of burning skyscrapers from around the world, that did not collapse, despite the fact that they suffered fires that burned longer, and engulfed more square footage of the structure.

In 1975, World Trade Center Tower 1 also burned on several floors, for several hours, with no modernized fire suppression system or fire-proofing material in place, but did not collapse.

Of course, these towering infernos were not struck by aircraft and were not struck by the debris of the Twin Towers as they collapsed. So let's have a look now at what sort of damage a building can suffer and still remain standing.

This is an image of debris which struck and damaged WTC 7.

For comparison now, here is a picture of the Deutsche Bank building which suffered extensive damage on 9/11. A fire in 2007 claimed the lives of two FDNY firefighters. Nearly a decade later, a $100-million deconstruction project was completed and the building was no more.

The following two images show the damage done to WTC Building #3 on 9/11, and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City after it was bombed in 1995. Despite the devastation, what remained of the buildings still did not collapse, and had to be brought down later.

Relatively small fires, comparatively far less structural damage than others, yet WTC7 still fell, uniformly, into a nice neat pile.

Even when buildings do happen to collapse, perhaps after an earthquake, they do not implode. Here are some images of what happens when critical supports in a building fail.

Even when specialists spend months planning and spend weeks placing huge amounts of explosives all throughout a building, it is still a difficult task to bring down a building in it's own footprint. There are no guarantees, as these videos show. Demolitions gone wrong, click here, here, and here to see them.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex first explained the collapse of Building 7 saying he gave the order to "pull it." This is a term often used in demolitions, meaning to pull down the building.

Strangely, given the subsequent information you will read here in a moment which has been kown for years, Secretary of State John Kerry also explained the destruction as a controlled demolition rather than an unexpected collapse. 

There is a very serious problem with that explanation though. Fire departments are not trained or equipped for demolitions operations. Fire trucks do not carry explosives, firefighters do not knock down buildings. Even for the world's leading specialists a demolition of that scale is not something that could be done in a matter of hours in a damaged and burning skyscraper. The only explanation could be that the explosives were set, before 9/11.

Silverstein later tried to revise the meaning of his statement, saying that he meant "pull it" as in to pull the rescue effort, and to pull out the firefighters in the building. The only problem with that, is that there were no firefighters in the building according to FEMA, because there was no water available to carry out interior firefighting operations. This video clip corroborates that. That clip also alludes to previous knowledge of impending collapse.

How did anyone know the building was going to collapse before it actually did? Why wasn't it predicted that other, more badly damaged buildings were going to fall, even though they never did? What were the telltale signs that Building 7 was going to collapse?

CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."

Why did the BBC report that the building had collapsed, 20 minutes before it actually did?

In this video clip, you will hear someone declare that the building ia about to "blow up" as you hear what sounds like explosives going off in the background. Odd choice of words. Blow up. And who told them it was going to blow up?

Perhaps the sounds of bombs going off was a clue, but bombs had been going off all day. Something that was completely overlooked by the media and has never been explained.

But perhaps the most chilling account of bombs in WTC 7 comes from Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. That fateful morning he raced to the Office of Emergency Management located in WTC7, to find it eerily empty, except for New York City's corporate counsel Michael Hess. An explosion trapped the two inside the building. Keep in mind that what he talks about here in the following interview happened before either of the Twin Towers fell, and therefore before the collapses had done any damage to Building 7.

(Videos of Barry Jennings' statements and interviews are routinely scrubbed from the internet. Unfortunately, this has happened again, as one of the most complete videos of his account has been removed, as you can see. For a less complete version, see this video here on YouTube.)

Unfortunately, Barry Jennings will never be able to testify on record about what he saw that day. He died, for unknown reasons, just days before the NIST report on 9/11 was released in 2008. One of the film makers who interviewed Jennings for the film Loose Change hired an investigator to find out more about Jennings' mysterious death. All that he found was Jennings' home empty, and up for sale. He then returned the money to the man who hired him, and told the filmmaker to never contact him again. This only added to the mystery. A commenter at a website claimed to be Jennings' son, and claimed his father had died of leukemia, but the identity of the commenter has never been verified.

Hess publicly corroborated important elements of Jennings' account.

This video examines the collapse of WTC7 and some elements of the NIST report.

If that video was a little too technical for you, don't worry. Most of us are not engineers. There are plenty of real experts out there though, thousands of them, who disagree with the government's findings. This video summarizes the details of the WTC 7 collapse in terms we can all understand.

Architects & Engineers video CENSORED by YouTube

Enjoy these videos instead:

updated 2/15

Latest Headlines

Which Mythical Creature Are You?                         Sexy Out of This World Aliens                         Is That a Ghost or Just a Dirty Lens                         Can You Survive the Zombie Apocalypse?                          Do You Know Vampires?                          Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse                          Ten Amazing Urban Legends That Are Actually True                          Unbelievable UFO Sightings                          Is Your Dealer a Cop?

Search This Blog