When I look at your website in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it
has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up!

Other then that, wonderful blog!

Plenty that’ve been uploaded by ae911truth and David Chandler channels at YouTube. He did this as a member or certainly associate of AE911Truth and his channel used to be DavidChandler911 or something like that.

WTC security:

For “wtc security clearencr” you evidently mean WTC security management. My guess is that some of them had to be somewhat included in the “inside loop” of information, but not everyone in these circles is told everything. It’s on a “need to know” basis, only, and very strictly.

Some people refer to it, usually in other contexts, as compartementalization. A “hit man”, fe, doesn’t need to know more than he or she needs to know to carry out a hit. A security manager would just need to be told by superior authorities that he/she has to allow bla bla, whatever, to happen and that there’s nothing to worry about, higher-ups supposedly having good conscience and knowing what they’re doing. That’s if the security manager is someone who’s of good conscience. If they’re not, then they can be told a little more, though not everything. Not everyone in a criminal organization, if any organization at all, is equally informed/knowledgeable. Each participant learns what he/she has to know in order to be able to carry out the work that he/she is paid for; but, they don’t need to have greater knowledge in order for the leadership to be able to carry out all of its planning, etc.

Regarding WTC security, 911review.com or 911research.wtc7.net and I think it’s a piece by Jim Hoffman, presents an argument that I find interesting. This is in a critique of Scott Forbes’ account, a guy who apparently is like almost entirely unknown, though not entirely. And his story apparently hasn’t been corroborated. The following are some example articles.

“UNLIKELY: ‘The South Tower Was Powered Down Before the Attack’”, last modified on 28 Jan 2006
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

Excerpts:
* It makes no sense that the perpetrators would do something so obvious as powering down half of a tower so shortly before the attack. …
…
* Powering down for cabling upgrades is laughable as a cover story …. Cabling upgrades for data bandwidth do not require interrupting AC power at all. …
* Contrary to the e-mail’s assertion, security cameras are designed to use independent uninterruptible power supplies. …
End of excerpts

I still haven’t heard anyone speak about this supposed Forbes account in a way that can cause me to doubt that the above 911review.com page is wrong. Everything isn’t “hunky-dory ok” about security at the WTC on and over the days, weeks, months preceding 9/11, but what Scott Forbes purportedly said is very questionable and I don’t know of anyone who’s actually spoken with him. Something was wrongly done with security at the WTC, but what Forbes supposedly said and which apparently was communicated through others is very questionable. As far as I know, he’s like a ghost and even less verifiable than that.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/911mysteries/powerdown.html

Sibel Edmonds said earlier this year that she only listens to two people about the 9/11 attacks, Scott Forbes and I believe the other is Jon Gold. While I think Gold has said some acceptable things, without agreeing with him 100%, though nevertheless enough; the Forbes account is very or else totally uncorroborated and would definitely need to be corroborated. What Gold has said, from what little I read and heard anyway, raised some questions for me, but he wasn’t speaking as a witness. Forbes’s account is treated like a witness or eye-witness one and this requires corroboration. There’re no others when there should normally be many people who witnessed the same thing.

We only have people who support and refer to what he purportedly said, nothing more. Supposedly isn’t good enough. Real corroboration is essential if what he purportedly said is to be seriously believed. But, I guess that Sibel Edmonds can be forgiven about this flaw in her choices. After all, she certainly isn’t a technologist.

Some elementary questions :
*) How could Forbes, who was supposedly working on the IT system for his employer on floor no. x in one of the two WTC towers hit by a plane, have known that power was totally cut off from the 50th floor to the top? Did he leave his job or assignment to go inspect what the power situation was on upper and lower floors? He was purportedly there to do emergency work for his employer, not the rest of the tower, which had somewhere around or a little over 100 floors.
*) How would he know that all doors normally locked by security were unlocked? How many did he check? He was there for the weekend for emergency IT work for his employer, so why did he go around checking doors for all or many of the other floors when his employer occupied only 1 or 2 floors, or parts of them?
*) Who told him that power was disabled from floor 50 upward and that all normally secured doors were unlocked due to power-down?
*) Why has this supposed Scott Forbes not been proven to be a real person? As far as I know, this still hasn’t been done after nearly a decade. Why hasn’t he come forward?
*) If he has come forward and proven his identity, that he worked at the WTC the weekend preceding 9/11, etc., then why is the “9/11 community” like totally silent about this?

Kevin Ryan wrote a 4-part article and 911review.com provides an apparently full copy, including an introduction by Don Paul, who I’ll let others look up. All 5 parts are worth reading and it’s important information. There’s also a video that presents some overview of what’s said in the 4-part piece. I already included this in a prior comment, here, for this page, but will repeat it.

“Demolition Access To The WTC Towers”, by Kevin Ryan, 2010
911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_DonPaul.html

A complmentary video for the 4-part article and which I also find to be quite interesting is the following 15-minute one.

“9/11 Suspects – Explosive Connections (Updated Fixed and Revised)”, uploaded by WarCrime911 on 15 Oct 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffs7PkOREEY

He has an older 2010 video on the same topic and that’s titled while saying, “Part 1 of ?”. I found a second part, but no more. The two parts provide about 30min for runtime and perhaps they’re important to listen to when listening the above one of only 15min. The following link is for part 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grybkFkmfYM

The same user has the following related video.

“Marvin Bush, Stratesec, and 9/11: The Straight Facts”, uploaded on 14 Dec 2012. (11min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPD9kAJT98o

These 3 videos are based on Kevin Ryan’s writings and they definitely inform readers and listeners to the fact that there were serious problems with security; but, none say what Forbes purportedly claimed.

When people like yourself rant about Jews, your wording inherently includes absolutely everyone who’s Jewish in one form or another. Some are religiously Jewish and there’s variation in this respect, for some are Ultraorthodox, some are Orthodox, others are less religious while nevertheless being religiously Jewish to some extent or in some ways. Then there’re people who’re Jewish only in an ethnic sense or way. There’re Jews in all of these categories who’re against the extreme criminality of the Israeli govt.

Unfortunately, people like yourself use the word Jews as meaning the criminal Zionist ones and you do this without making it clear that you don’t mean every person who’s Jewish. By doing this, you and ilk discredit yourselves, making it clear that you’re careless writers or communicators and that you’re possibly just a bunch of quacks, like racists, f.e.

Such lousy communication shouldn’t appear in a website like this one belonging to Kevin Ryan. Readers of his website or blog should work to try to keep this website clean of stupidity, hatreds, etc. Narrow-minded crap should be posted someplace else.

With that said, maybe Louis Freeh being Jewish and the criminal that he is would mean that there’s a very high probability that he’s a Zionist sort of Jew, in the sense that Zionism is usually referred to today. But this nevertheless needs to be treated delicately, for NOT all Jews are of evil nature. Many are of truly good nature.

It’s bad enough that the govts and multinational corporations, f.e., work to dumb us all down. It becomes worse when citizens also work to contribute to trying to dumb us all down.

Clarify your intent when communicating, rather than communicating like a fanatical fool who should be kept at bay. Anti-Zionism as it’s usually referred to today is one thing. Being anti-Jewish, as in being against all Jews, is complete hogwash.