Irish Blog Whacked

Monday, February 18, 2013


Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage 

By Peter Drew 

February 17, 2013 "
Information Clearing House" -  On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of lawwhere the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.
Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST's 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.
As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.
Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.
Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:
Professor Niels Harrit
Dr. Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit's team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.
Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit's team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC
Tony Farrell
Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.
Other members of Rooke’s presentation team include:

Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK group ‘Re-investigate 9/11’
Ray Savage: Former counterterrorism officer who demonstrates the official 9/11 story is not true
Peter Drew: UK AE911Truth Action Group Facilitator
In addition to these presenters, there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from four other 9/11 researchers which will be deployed to bolster to Tony’s defence:

Richard Gage, AIA: Founder/CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Erik Lawyer: Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot and member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.
We encourage all AE911Truth supporters and petition signers in the UK to attend this court hearing – the more the better. An outpouring of support will strengthen the message that the 9/11 truth movement needs to be heard and that there needs to be a new and independent 9/11 investigation.
The date and location of the hearing are as follows:
February 25th at 10:00 am
Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts
Hurst Road
West Sussex
RH12 2ET
For further information, please contact Peter Drew, AE911Truth UK Action Group Leader, at truthfor911 [at]
This article was originally posted at Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth



Voted · Comment · Send · 

Five years ago today, a Saturday, our old friend Brendan Hughes died in a Belfast hospital after a short illness. For over a week this redoubtable leader of the H-Block blanket protest had lain beyond the reach of any human help other than the palliative. Sometimes he rallied. The previous Saturday in the company of another former prisoner I made my way to the hospital in fear of the worst.  Upon arriving we were relieved to learn the moment had passed and for a while Brendan seemed to pick up. But it was a temporary respite.

Framed photos of him adorn our mantle piece, as they have since the day he died. They were placed there that very evening five years ago and have remained there since. The by-now well-known photo of Brendan and Dolours Price was put there the same night. Dolours was in our home at the time awaiting the inevitable. Now she too no longer graces our company.

Two great fighters from the republican battle fields died in the full knowledge that the armed struggle they participated in had been comprehensively defeated, their energy, effort and endurance hijacked and traded in by others in ignominious exchange for political careers.  It caused them no small measure of regret as did many of their own actions. Yet they took responsibility for what they did and never sought to shift culpability away from themselves and onto the shoulders of others.

Brendan and Dolours were quintessential Provos: and the Provos were the antithesis of anything that smelt even remotely of compromise and capitulation. They arose in part as a reaction against kowtowing and forelock tipping to the British state and its unionist allies.  Yet the greatest about turn in the history of republicanism was made by the Provos who now stand four square with the DUP against the republican tradition. That sort of four square orientation would never have resonated in the minds of either Brendan and Dolours. For them four square would have conjured up imagery of the IRA attack on the Four Square Laundry operation in October 1972 when the Belfast Brigade inflicted a considerable intelligence coup on the British Army.

Both felt badly let down by the Gethsemane stance of Gerry Adams, their one time military commander, who has since taken umbrage at CNN for having described him as a military commander. No chance of Brendan and Dolours having found it shameful to learn of themselves being referred to as former IRA commanders. They would have seen it as an accolade to be worn like a badge.

St Peter only did the denial trick three times during the course of one evening, whereas Gerry has done it on countless occasions over a thirty year period, denying Brendan and Dolours and every other IRA volunteer he commanded as his comrades-in-arms. But they are not alone in being on the receiving end of that denial. Bobby Sands, who they share the good company of, is another whose comrade-in-arms status is routinely denied as well. Bobby is just someone Gerry met while the latter was imprisoned for civil rights activities. An IRA comrade – never. Merely somebody he met on his journey of peace.

The cock would be hoarse by now if it were to crow at every denial from the Great Denier. But Peter is certainly crowing and cackling with delight each time the DUP boss sees the stalwarts of IRA armed struggle disowned and effectively disdained by the man who made more categories of legitimate targets than Barney Hughes made baps.

Above is the content the blog provided. If incomplete, read the original here.
Brendan Behan
Brendan  What you say is the truth but bitterness does not travel well, neither is it a friend of the Republican Movement in general in Ireland. We need to remember the lessons but learn to forgive to make a reality of the Republican Proclamation. UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL ! Division is Britain's first trick!
Brendan Behan

IRISH TIMES ; RUBBERBANDITS Brain research faces ethical issues

Brain research faces ethical issues

Plugging the brain into machine interfaces raises many questions, science meeting hears. Photograph: Getty ImagesPlugging the brain into machine interfaces raises many questions, science meeting hears. Photograph: Getty Images
DICK AHLSTROM, Science Editor, in Boston
Research advances in building brain-machine interfaces have the potential to change lives in rehabilitation medicine, yet the area is bristling with difficult ethical issues. It opens the potential to control one’s environment with the power of thought alone, but it also raises questions about what it means to be human and how far we should go with this technology, and what would happen if a hacker or a computer virus got into the interface?
The business of wiring the brain directly into a machine or computer has become a Hollywood staple with films such as The Matrix and Robocop, but in reality very real advances are being made in this area, a session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science heard over the weekend. A panel including brain-machine researchers and ethicists debated the issues, including whether augmentation of this kind makes us all a little less human.
One of the panellists, Prof Miguel Nicolelis of Duke University Medical Centre only five days ago published research in Nature Communications into the creation of a completely new sense built into laboratory rats. It allowed them to “feel” the presence of infrared light, he said. “It allows light to be converted into touch,” he said. “The animal is not seeing the light, it is feeling it.” In previous work he and his research team demonstrated how monkeys fitted with brain-machine interfaces could control both real and virtual limbs.
There are good reasons to pursue the research, he argued. Such interfaces could allow a quadriplegic the ability to move limbs, but also add tactile sensations for example to robot hands as they grasp an object. The research helps to provide feedback to help you control a device that is separated from you. Other types of interfaces were also emerging, for example cochlear implants to provide limited hearing or the latest, retinal implants wired into the optic nerve.
Plugging the brain into such devices raised many questions however, said Prof Martha Farah of the University of Pennsylvania. How might it affect our sense of being human, who should decide to apply the technology and how bad did a disability need to be to warrant intervention.
Plastic surgery was developed to help soldiers with disfigurements after the second World War, but today is used to make often unnecessary cosmetic changes, she said. Would this technology also become used for less than essential purposes? And what would happen if a hacker broke into your interface or someone planted a computer virus? “There will be some pretty important ethical issues,” she suggested.
“From a religious perspective I don’t see a problem with the technology,” said ethicist Brent Waters of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. A bigger issue was what would happen when brain-machine augmentation became commonplace, he said. There was also the potential to misuse the technology. “We have to be vigilant, good things can always be used in bad ways.”
While Prof Nicolelis works with implanted devices, Prof Todd Coleman of University of California, San Diego is researching very thin flexible electronics that can be applied to the skin like a temporary tattoo. These pick up brain waves, providing a signal that could be exploited in different ways, he said. The technology was already in commercial development.
Comments (1)
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling outthis form. New comments are only accepted for 10 days from the date of publication.
Sort By: 

Ceiteria For Civil Disobedience in Ireland