Expose-Truth.blogspot.com is going on a break.

A website is going to be developed to replace this blog. In the meantime, this blogsite won't be getting any updates or new information.

Keep your eye out for http://www.exposetruth.org/ in about a month.



In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell


Call it a “Gut Feeling”

With Bush and Cheney detaching themselves from the government, Bush setting himself up to be dictator, the continuing accumulation of war ships in the middle east, the sensational terror warnings, the dropping approval ratings of the President and his administration (which appears to not bother Bush in the slightest), the track history of false flag operations, recent terror attacks blown way out of proportion, and this recent gem, I’m not feeling too good about things to come. You know something is foul when you have people like Paul Craig Roberts speaking out against the Bush Administration and what they're willing to do for their agenda. And I don’t mean that in a derogatory way towards PCR. It’s just that when you start to see people in government give warnings about false flags, it gives a feeling of urgency.
Call it speculation if you want. I don’t believe that so many things of this nature happening in such a short amount of time are just coincidences.

For those of us who see this unfolding, what are we going to say to the people who are ignorant to all of this when the SHTF? How hard is it then going to be to get people to listen to the information that we have? Imagine presenting 9/11 cover-up information to someone just days after 9/11. You would have been strung up. So when the next false flag happens, and if it’s worse than 9/11, then how convinced are the ignorant going to be that the story that their government and media are telling them is the truth?

All the supporters of this criminal administration will feel vindicated that they knew all along that the evil America haters where out to get us. “We told you that we needed to fight them over there!” I can hear it now. And take a wild guess who will get the blame.

So, for us who regocnize this peril, share what you know with others ASAP. For those of you who know a little, educate yourselves as much as you can. Don’t be apathetic. I repeat, don’t be apathetic. Instead of a sitcom, a movie, a game or whatever you might find yourself watching, turn it off and take action. The infowar and the fight are on.

Much respect to all patriots who take action.

-Rob

Coming Soon… http://www.exposetruth.org/

Hopeless, Incompetent, Laughable, Finally The Truth About "Terror"

Former Scotland Yard detective dismisses "car bombings" as nothing more than a bonfire, but hysteria proves the terrorists have already won.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, July 3, 2007

A TV talking head has finally characterized last week's non-events in Britain for what they were, in the face of a blitz of frenzied hype, hysterics and fearmongering from the government and media, former Scotland Yard detective John O'Connor described the botched attacks as "hopeless," "incompetent" "almost laughable," and amounting to nothing more than a bonfire.

Watch the video below.



"This was a hopeless, incompetent terrorist attack, I mean when you see the ludicrous situation when none of the bombs were able to be detonated and these guys are then trying to set fire to petrol," O'Connor told CNN.

"All they got was a bonfire, they set fire to fuel - well that in its own way is not going to detonate the gas cylinders and it's not going to cause an explosion - it was just a fire, I mean that is so incompetent as to be almost laughable."

O'Connor also insisted that the perpetrators of the attack should be referred to as "jihadists" rather than Al-Qaeda, which is what the frothing media hurriedly declared them to be just hours after the dud "bombs" were discovered in London.

Others have been less sympathetic, labeling the goons who attempted to ram a Jeep into an airport terminal in Glasgow as "Beavis and Butthead" or, as Register writer Lewis Page, a former armed forces bomb-disposal operator, calls them, "Krazy Klown jihadis" who were engaged in "slapstick idiocy".

"These have to be some of the most pathetic terror attacks ever," writes Page, "difficult to distinguish from minor accidents. For goodness' sake, a car is full of petrol anyway; and gas cylinders too often enough. People drive cylinders of gas around all the time. Now and again - oh my god! - they probably carry boxes of nails, bolts, tools or whatever in the same vehicle. (Aiee!)"

"This kind of event happens on the motorways almost every day, at least the petrol fires and often enough with the other hazards added. The roads get closed off as a result, sometimes for hours - just like the Haymarket did on Friday morning. It causes massive inconvenience to lots and lots of people."

"But the perimeter is manned by firemen and traffic cops, not bomb teams and terror-feds. And so this weekend a minor news story - one injured in bunt-out car / suicide attempt causes travel chaos - becomes a big international media frenzy, a "test of the new Prime Minister's mettle," if you please."

The hysteria continued in the UK today after Stansted Airport was temporarily shut down following the discovery of an unattended bag whose owner had presumably deserted it to visit the toilet.

And a new level of absurdity was reached when authorities decided to carry out controlled explosions on a car that was parked outside a Glasgow Mosque last night - no dangerous materials were found in the vehicle. Because obviously one of the primary targets for Muslim terrorists are Muslim Mosques!

While in America, pipe bombs at a Disney theme park that blew off doors later turned out to be firecrackers in a trash can that fizzed and spluttered.



Now every discarded pack of sandwiches is a potentially "suspicious device" as Britain cowers in fear of the next terrorist atrocity - who knows, maybe they'll set off a firework or knock over a stack of bean cans in the supermarket.

While the majority of Brits are more interested in putting up shelves than some retards setting fire to a car, the media has deserted common sense for good and welcomed another opportunity to terrify the public, providing terror where there was none and thereby facilitating the amateur jihadist's agenda by hyping a peril that simply doesn't exist.

News anchors devour every breaking detail about the dastardly doctor bombers while an endless loop of Beavis and Butthead's car crash dominates the background, blown up and overpixelated in a desperate ploy to beef up its significance. They also revel in yet another excuse to show burly cops with machine guns, the enforcers ordering people around, searching cars and demanding complete compliance.

The reality is that accident causing deer, peanut allergies and swimming pools are all more likely to seal your fate than a terrorist attack.

As Ohio State University's John Mueller concludes in a report entitled A False Sense Of Insecurity, "For all the attention it evokes, terrorism actually causes rather little damage and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is microscopic."

But the sensationalist media, the power hungry government and the bottom line fretting "experts" who head up profitable anti-terror companies all need to feed the beast and they'll exploit every morsel on offer.

Terrorism can only be effective if the relatively minor acts of violence that are perpetrated are given false prominence and artificially inflated to the point where the dread of what's coming next fundamentally alters the way we go about our lives, travel, commerce, and the way we treat others, until we ultimately acquiesce to the terrorist's goal - relinquishing our freedoms and living in fear.

Since that is the very definition of terrorism, recent events only confirm that the terrorists have already won and that their victory was secured with the enthusiastic support of the government and the media.

Ex-CIA Man Exposes Hysteria Of Car "Bomb" Terror

London car bombs would not have killed anyone, government using terrorist tactics by hyping fear to morph society.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, July 1, 2007

Countering the frothing rabid hysteria that is being whipped up by a fervent media in response to three failed car "bomb" attacks in the last few days, ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson joined Keith Olbermann to underscore the truth behind the madness - that the so-called bombs were primitive and would not have killed anybody.



In the immediate aftermath of the discovery of a Mercedes parked outside a London night club containing up to 60 litres of petrol and a similar second vehicle, authorities claimed that the bombs would have caused "carnage" had they been detonated, killing hundreds of people.

A burning Jeep that was driven into a terminal building at Glasgow Airport yesterday was also believed to contain petrol, but failed to explode beyond simply burning out the interior of the vehicle.

The truth about the "deadly" car bombs that led to airports and other transit systems being closed across the country as well as the UK terror threat level being raised to critical is that they displayed an almost laughable level of proficiency and would not have killed anyone.

"This is not one of the truck bombs or car bombs we see going off in Iraq - what's really striking about this today is that you had two non-bombs in London when we had at least five bombs in Baghdad in which U.S. soldiers were killed in one of those so I think it's just out of proportion - this was an incendiary, this was not a high explosive," said Johnson.

Johnson said that had the gas been ignited properly, there would have been a loud boom that would have split the tank but that no projectiles would have even exited the vehicle.

"If someone was within 20, 30 feet of it they would have ear damage but not much more," said Johnson.

Johnson contrasted how the media glaze over deadly car bombings in Iraq which occur every day "And then you have a non-event in London and we're going to battle quarters and beginning to give the hairy eyeball to every Muslim."

Olbermann called the terrorists, "the graduating Al-Qaeda bomb squad that need remedial work" while attacking the concept that we're fighting them in Iraq so as to not have to fight them over here."

He also called out the so-called counter-terrorism experts who have hyped this non-event on television to enhance the profile of the counter-terror companies that they head up.

As Johnson outlines, fewer than 50,000 people worldwide have died as a result of terror attacks since the 60's, and as we recently highlighted, accident causing deer, swimming pools and peanut allergies have all proven more deadly than international terrorism.

The true extent of the damage that could have been caused by these recent attacks pales in comparison to the overblown exaggerated hype that the authorities have claimed and that the media has willingly parroted.

Similar attacks were a staple of the 60's and 70's but the government and the media downplayed them because they were of minimal threat to anyone and to hype such non-events was handing a propaganda victory to the terrorists.

Since the very definition of terrorism is to influence government policy not by the attack itself but by hyping fear of new attacks, the government of Gordon Brown is engaging in terrorism by strongly intimating that fresh attacks are inevitable.

Brown came to power with an agenda to push through new anti-terror laws including wiretaps being admissible in court and extending the 28-day detention without charge law to 90 days. Though such proposals failed under Blair and Brown was expecting a fight to get them passed, expect them to breeze through Parliament with little opposition following the outright panic that has been generated as a result of recent events.

US Warned of Glasgow Threat Two Weeks Ago
One of Bombing Suspects Is Iranian National
FOX News Makes Political Hay Out of The London Car Bomb Plot, Pt. 3, By Demonizing Muslims
Glasgow Attack Seen Tied to London Bombs
U.K. police make 5th terror arrest
U.S. "Probably Next" With Another UK Attack "Imminent"
Report: London Nightclubs Warned Before Attempted Bombing
Brown Sweeps In On Staged Terror

New 9/11 Truth Film Exposes BBC Hit Piece

Strong showing for 9/11 truth movement in face of mainstream attack.

Steve Watson Infowars.net
Thursday, June 28, 2007

A new film has taken the BBC's Conspiracy files hit piece on 9/11 truth from earlier this year and ripped it apart point by point exposing it as a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation.
9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy, produced by British researcher Adrian Connock and former MI5 counter terrorism officer David Shayler uncovers the BBC's selective and distorted 9/11 coverage and the corporation's attempts to portray the 9/11 truth movement as a racist cult like group of mythology.

The BBC programme, aired in February, produced a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath. The documentary attempted to dismiss serious questions about 9/11 firstly by implying that anyone who distrusts the official version has a borderline psychological illness and is a member of a mythological cult.

The programme then failed in debunking 9/11 questions by making points structured around fallacy, lying by omission, using defamation of character and overwhelming bias.

9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy reiterates many of the counterpoints Prisonplanet.com raised in response to the BBC piece exposing it for the yellow journalism hatchet job it was.



Among the scores of counterpoints within the film, Shayler makes clear how the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation from PBS' Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin towers. He also points out that no eyewitness testimony or references to bombs exploding at all levels of the twin towers made by ground zero rescue workers and firefighters were mentioned by the BBC.

Furthermore, Shayler highlights the fact that during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue, the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting chiefs decided to "pull" the building, were not even mentioned by the BBC.

Also exposed in the documentary is the fact that despite there having been numerous war games in operation in the lead up to 9/11, including involving planes crashing into buildings, the BBC boiled them all down into one and described them as "routine".

Shayler also points to the fact that manipulative editing and emotional bias was used to paint 9/11 truthseekers as social outcasts and lead the viewer into thinking the whole movement is insulting and hurtful to the victims, when there is an overwhelming faction of victims' families who are asking the same questions.

9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy highlights the fact that the BBC's hit piece has only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and caused a redoubling of efforts on the part of hardened researchers to refute the official conspiracy theory.

An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones

Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?

David Ray Griffin
and Rob Balsamo
06/26/07
Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Did AA 77---the flight that, according to the official conspiracy theory about 9/11, struck the Pentagon---have onboard phones? This question is relevant to the possible truth of the official theory, because Ted Olson, who was then the US Solicitor General, claimed that his wife, Barbara Olson, called him twice from this flight using an onboard phone. Full Article



Click here for a larger photo of the document and info about it.

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting Customer Relations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to assist you.

That is correct we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.

However, the pilots are able to stay in constant contact with the Air Traffic Control tower.

Mr. XXXXXXXX, I hope this information is helpful. It is a privilege to serve you. This is an "outgoing only" email address. If you 'reply' to this message by simply selecting the reply button, we will not receive your additional comments. Please assist us in providing you with a timely response to any feedback you have for us by always sending us your email messages via AA.com at http://www.aa.com/customerrelations.

Sincerely,
Chad Kinder
Customer Relations
American Airlines

Cheney and Bush Declare Autonomous Dictatorial Powers

Exempt themselves from executive branch.

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, June 25, 2007

The Vice President and the President have casually declared their offices to be independent of the executive branch and completely autonomous, with Dick Cheney also attempting to abolish agencies his office is supposed to be accountable to.

Last week the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported:

Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”

As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President's position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President's executive order.

In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. ... [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials."

The documents released by the committee reveal that Cheney's office has not cooperated with an office at the National Archives and Records Administration which is responsible for overseeing the protection of classified material by the executive branch.

As the Washington Post further reported, Cheney's staff have consistently declared themselves above the law by not filing reports on their possession of classified data and even blocking an inspection of their office in 2004. The documents also reveal that after the Archives office demanded cooperation earlier this year, Cheney's staff proposed eliminating it altogether.

While Cheney has declared his office outside of the executive branch he has continued to receive funding from the bill that funds theexecutive branch. Instead of challenging Cheney's absurd declaration of autonomy, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel is now seeking an amendment to the Financial Services and GeneralGovernment Appropriations bill in order to cut the funding to Cheney's office and thus legally separate it from the executive branch.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legalcase, his office has no business being funded as part of the executivebranch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannotignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice Presidentshould be consistent." Emanuel has said.

In addition to Cheney's office declaring itself exempt from oversight, President Bush's office has also claimed it has the same status.

The LA Times reported:

An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

It has now become chillingly clear that the President and the Vice President believe that they have absolute power over the Government of the United States and cannot be held accountable to anybody.

Previously Dick Cheney has declared both himself and Bush unaccountable to Congress, stating last year that "vice president and president and constitutional officers don’t appear before the Congress.”

It is also now clear that Bush and Cheney have broken literally hundreds of laws because they see themselves as outside of them. Last April the Boston Globe reported:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

The Constitution assigns power to Congress to write the laws and asserts that the president has an obligation ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Take the "torture ban", which was approved last year, for example. After approving the bill, Bush issued a ''signing statement" giving his own interpretation of what the law meant and
giving him the right to bypass it if he so wished.

Bush and Cheney are vastly expanding Presidential power and creating provisions that set their offices up as dictatorial bodies.

Just last month new legislation was signed which declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, which also places the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security", was signed on May 9th without the approval or oversight of Congress and seemingly supercedes the National Emergency Act which allows the president to declare a national emergency but also requires that Congress have the authority to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if it believes the president has acted inappropriately.

Journalist Jerome Corsi, who has studied the directive also states that it makes no reference to Congress and "its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists."

In other words the new directive excludes Congress altogether from governance in a state of emergency.

While alluding to the "enduring constitutional government", the directive actually ensures the end of constitutional government as each branch, the executive, legislative and judicial, are stripped of equal authority and must answer directly and solely to the President.

The mainstream media has not reported on the directive and the White House has refused to comment.

Last month it was also reported that a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program named "The Day After," which would effectively end civil liberties and implement a system of martial law in the event of a catastrophic attack on a U.S. city.

Though anathema to any notion of liberty or freedom, this new legislation has not come out of the blue, it is merely an open declaration of the infrastructure of martial law that the federal government has been building since the turn of the last century, which was first publicly codified in the 1933 war powers act under Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Senate Report 93-549, which was presented at the first session of the 93rd Congress, outlines just a handful of the declared national emergencies or martial law declarations that preceded the latest one.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971."

In alliance with these open declarations of martial law and the 1947 National Security Act, bills such as the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and the Military Commissions Act have all put the final jigsaw pieces in place to complete an infrastructure of dictatorship since 9/11.

We're already living under an infrastructure of martial law and have been since 1933, all that remains for it to be fully implemented is a big enough natural disaster, mass terror attack or other catastrophe that will cause the necessary carnage and panic that affords the federal government enough leeway to implement open dictatorship with the least possible resistance.

New revelations that Cheney and Bush have openly declared themselves to be have total power and the ability to bypass law and oversight should be a code red emergency. They are moving to implement everything necessary for a total takeover should a catalyst event provide the opportunity. Given that this administration has a history of cooking up its own catalysts we should be very wary indeed.

Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11

Former Transportation Secretary Also Reveals Lynn Cheney Was in PEOC Bunker and Contradicts 9/11 Commission Report's Account of Dick Cheney's Timetable.

Aaron Dykes / JonesReport June 26, 2007

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report.

Mineta says Vice President Cheney was "absolutely" already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58-- after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff.



Mineta is on video testifying before the 9/11 Commission, though it was omitted from their final report. He told Lee Hamilton:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?

Mineta confirmed his statements with reporters, "When I overheard something about 'the orders still stand' and so, what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down."

Mineta was still in the PEOG bunker when the plane was reported down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

"I remember later on when I heard about the Shanksville plane going down, the Vice President was right across from me, and I said, 'Do you think that we shot it down ourselves?' He said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'Let's find out.' So he had someone check with the Pentagon. That was about maybe, let's say 10:30 or so, and we never heard back from the DoD until probably about 12:30. And they said, 'No, we didn't do it.'"

The two hour time delay is suspicious given the Vice President's own account of the dedicated video communications available that morning, as he told it to Tim Russert of Meet the Press on September 16, 2001.

"We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it."

At a bare minimum, this confirmation by Norman Mineta is in gross contradiction to the 9/11 Commission Report and poses serious questions about the Vice President's role in ordering NORAD to stand down on 9/11.

Video Technology

Every time I see video like this, I can't help to think that the way technology is today, who knows what the government might try in terms of Pentagon plane video.

9/11 Bombshell: WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building

Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower collpased.

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, June 19, 2007


The Alex Jones show today welcomed Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Burmas to discuss an exclusive interview they have conducted with an individual with high level security clearance who was inside the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 and has descibed and detailed explosions inside the building prior to the collapse of any of the buildings at ground zero on 9/11.

The interview, to be featured in the forthcoming Final Cut of Loose Change is currently under wraps but the creators have allowed some details to leak purely to protect themselves and the individual involved who has asked to remain anonymous until the film is released.

We can reveal that the individual concerned was asked to report to building seven with a city official after the first attack on the North tower but before the second plane hit the South Tower and before their eventual collapse, in order to provide the official with access to different floors of the building.

The city official he was escorting was attempting to reach Rudy Guiliani, who he had determined was inside building 7 at that time. According to Avery and Burmas this official now works for Guiliani partners.

The individual was also asked to provide access to the Office Of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of the building, this was the so called "bunker" that was built inside WTC7 on the orders of Rudy Guiliani.

When he got there he found the office evacuated and after making some calls was told to leave immediately.

It was at this point that he witnessed a bomb going off inside the building:

"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."

The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:

"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."

He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex.

The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm.

Listen to the clips here.

Avery and Burmas, who played the two short clips of the interview prior to further analysis and more clips to be played on their own GCN radio show later tonight at 7pm CST, further described how the individual had witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them.

This is vital information be cause it is in direct conflict with the official claim that no one was killed inside building 7. The 9/11 Commission report did not even mention building, yet here we have a key witness who told them he saw dead people inside the building after explosions had gutted the lower level.

What makes all this information even more explosive is the fact that this individual was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their so called investigation.

The fact that the building was not even mentioned in the report in light of this information thus becomes chilling and indicates that officials have lied in stating that they have not come into contact with evidence of explosive devices within the buildings.

Avery and Burmas successfully contacted the individual after discovering a TV interview he did on 9/11 while they were trawling through news footage from the day in research for the Final Cut.

Avery says that he can and will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the individual was in building 7 on 9/11 and that what he is saying is accurate.