Tuesday, 10 November 2015

Incontrovertible- the Premier

Last night I attended a movie premier. There was no red carpet, no audience of fans waving cameras and autograph books, no celebrities strutting around in diamond-studded bikinis; but then the movie I went to see would never be considered for that kind of attention by the media. The venue in London hosting the event was a small backstreet independent screen specializing in art-house flicks and world cinema; it has the pun name of Whirled Cinema, see: https://www.whirledcinema.com/. It lies at the end of Hardess Street in Brixton, a road so small that it is barely more than an extended layby and was not marked on my map. Luckily there were detailed directions on the back of my ticket; a wise move by management, probably learned through the experience of having customers not being able to find the place. I've been to Brixton several times now, all because of going to see David Icke live at the Brixton Academy, for example see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/see-here-for-my-report-on-previous-live.html. It is a tight-packed residential district south of the river which is a mixture of old Georgian and Victorian townhouses and modern terraces, flats and maisonettes, mostly occupied by black people. It's full of the traditional open air markets found all over London. There are a lot of stylish murals and art galleries giving the area a Bohemian feel. The Whirled Cinema sits at the Loughborough Junction, a spot where three railways lines meet in an arcing triangle of high bridges that merge and cross above the rooftops. The venue is actually built beneath one of the railway arches and its barrel vaulted brick ceiling is part of the bridge. It's not possible to completely soundproof the interior which means every five minutes the rumble of a train passing overhead fills the room. This could of course annoy some film viewers, but perhaps others will see it as part of a unique cinematic experience (I really should be working for Time Out). The entrance and foyer looked more like a nightclub than a cinema. I passed through a heavy security door which swung shut with an almighty crash behind me, and climbed a flight of steel steps to a darkened auditorium. There was no separate area for the screen, the row of seats opened immediately onto the barstools and bar where I ordered an expensive but delicious pint of Czech lager. I recognized a few of the people there from previous meetings and there were a few famous faces including Dr Niels Harrit who appears in the film. Here he is being harangued by the BBC; I think it's for one of the programmes I was asked to be in as well, but I more wisely refused, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQdB27XBT6c. I also met a very pleasant man and woman whom I had a good conversation with and we shared a pizza from the takeaway next door.

The interior of the Whirled Cinema in London
I took a seat on the front row. The seats are actually large settees and are much more comfortable than regular cinema seats. A bald man came and sat beside me that I recognized as Ian Henshall, another contributor to the film, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6FXBs6E0dM. He remembered meeting me at a pervious 9/11 event. "It's amazing what they've done." he told me. "It looks like a very big budget film, but it's not really." The movie is called Incontrovertible, see: http://www.killingauntiefilms.co.uk/, and is aimed primarily at the emergency service professions (of which I include myself of course), especially the fire brigade, police officers and the armed forces. The passionate and eloquent narration addresses these people directly and persuasively. It calls on the fire brigade to strike over the issue and for the police and military to mutiny. "Do your job and don't be a coward! Don't collude with criminals!" the narrator demanded. "Unless you believe in miracles... that a huge skyscraper can collapse into rubble when no plane has hit it." The film was of course referring to Building 7, the third tower to disintegrate on September the 11th 2001. The destruction of WTC7 was announced by the BBC reporter Jane Stanley a full twenty minutes before it actually went down. There are scenes from archived Battle of Britain footage showing RAF pilots climbing into the cockpits of Spitfires. "Did these men really fight and die for the country we have today?" said the narrator. There is a sequence of the previous Remembrance Day service in Whitehall where David Cameron lays a wreath. "It's stomach churning! This bastard (sic) sends young men off to kill innocent people for his own greed and power struggles and then dares to show his face at a memorial service for them!" Cameron has recently branded people who doubt the official story of 9/11 as "non-violent extremists" and has made it clear he intends to use government resources to persecute us, see background links at the bottom. This includes myself of course. It also includes Matt Campbell whose brother Geoff perished in the World Trade Centre. I've met Matt a couple of times and have no doubt that the statistical threat he poses to the safety of the general public is in minus figures. He just wants to get justice for his brother. There's a poignant scene in the film in which Matt takes a rubbing of his brother's name from the list of casualties at the 9/11 memorial in New York. A number of people are interviewed in the movie, some very credible and others less so; I'll come to the latter later. The best of these scenes were the ones with firemen and policemen who have decided to reject the official story of 9/11 through sheer logic and expertise. The film explains that there is a historical precedent for false flag operations; this is where a violent act of warfare is perpetrated by somebody in a way that makes it look like somebody else did it in order to deceive strategically. We're all guilty of things like that. As a child did you ever smash up your own Lego model and try to pin it on your little brother so he'd get a smack from your dad? Governments do this too. Operation Northwoods of the 1960's is a prime example of a proposed false flag attack by the USA on its own territory; in this case the nominated culprit would be Cuba. The camera filmed shots of the Coliseum in Rome while this was described. Interestingly, and I don't know if this was deliberate on the part of the film makers, the earliest false flag attack I know of happened two thousand years ago in Rome when the emperor Nero started a huge fire and blamed it on his political enemies. As they say: "Nero fiddled while Rome burned". There is another very similar more recent example, Project for a New American Century. This was not a specific plan for a false flag attack, but it does hint that some kind of external menace would be necessary to gain public support for PNAC's objectives and that it would be advantageous if said menace carried out a major assault on the United States; what they themselves call: "a new Pearl Harbour", see here for more details: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/project-for-new-american-century.html. The film outlines how the 7/7 attacks were also a false flag, see here for more details: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/nick-kollerstrom-in-oxford-london.html. What's more, and this was a new one on me, the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984 might be one too. This was when a young policewoman was killed by a gunman who was assumed to be inside the Libyan embassy which she was guarding at the time, but in fact the bullet might have come from another direction. Either way, the murder of this brave young police officer on live TV turned public opinion into supporting the American air strikes against Gaddafi's regime. Cynthia McKinney, a former US Presidential candidate who appeared at Ian R Crane's AV3 conference, see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/alternative-view-3-part-4.html, believes that the assassination of Martin Luther King was also a false flag. This is true; even Dr King's family believed that James Earl Ray was just another "patsy" and supported him during his retrial. Another suspicious element to 9/11 was the put option scandal. A put option is a device stockbrokers have to have an exclusive right to buy or sell a share without actually completing the sale; it is essentially a bet on the changes in the stock market. Shortly before 9/11 somebody took out a put option on American Airlines and United Airlines that both companies' stock would shortly plummet. They were the airlines that had their aircraft allegedly hijacked and rammed into the buildings. The broker made a fortune off their amazing "good luck". Oddly enough that person or organization has never been traced, but even the skeptics don't try to claim that it's just a coincidence. The Incontrovertible film is the brainchild of Tony Rooke, a man who was prosecuted for refusing to pay his TV licence because of the lies the BBC had told about 9/11. He appeared in court and had with him expert witnesses, including Tony Farrell, a police officer who was sacked for his views on 9/11, see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/british-humanist-association-conspiracy.html and: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/tony-farrell.html. The film tries to talk to the emotions of those serving in the emergency services and the armed forces. Since the start of the various incarnations of the "War on Terror" the leading cause of death among allied combatants has not been enemy fire, but suicide. Servicemen often become depressed and take their own lives, usually when deployed home after a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. The incidence of this is far worse than in any other war in the past, including those where casualties were far higher such as the Great War or World War II. The family of one such solider speak out on camera to say that they believe that it is the specific nature of this war that has hurt the servicemen so badly. The immorality and depravity of it has done far more harm than any hostile army.
Tony Rooke has continued to obey the law... that is to resist funding a corrupt and deceitful organization in accordance with his obligations under the constitution of this country. Matt Campbell has done the same and this is admirable. I would join them and refuse to pay my own TV licence as well, if I had one in the first place. Hopefully the film will inspire those in the emergency services and military in exactly the way the film makers want it to. However there is a catastrophic flaw with Incontrovertible that could potentially undo the noble sentiments of most of those involved with it. The film explains how the official story of 9/11 is "irrefutably, undeniably, incontestably, indisputably, unarguably and unassailably" fake. Ian Henshall is also absolutely right, that it is technically brilliant. However it makes very few statements about any alternative solution to what happened on that terrible day. There are three scenes only in the film in which Dr Niels Harrit, Richard Gage and two other people explain what they think was really done to the Twin Towers, but, as I've said many times, their "thermitically correct" explanation is completely bogus. The film publicizes the actions of Tony Rooke and Matt Campbell in court without saying a single word about the fact that the official story of 9/11 has already been legally challenged before. One of the slogans of the Truth movement is "Reinvestigate 9/11!" You'll see it printed on banners, T-shirts and scrawled on walls as graffiti. However there already has been a proper scientific reinvestigation of 9/11. It was carried out by one Dr Judy Wood, a professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University in North Carolina USA. She has published a detailed book called Where Did the Towers Go? explaining her discovery. Also, along with two other people, she has filed a lawsuit against NIST- the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the falsehoods in their original 9/11 investigation, see: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml. Dr Wood has proved that no conventional explosives were used to destroy the World Trade Centre, instead a weapon was deployed based on the "Hutchison Effect"; which was itself discovered by the Canadian inventor John Hutchison. Hutchison runs a private laboratory in which has been attempting to repeat some of the experiments of the Serbian electrical genius Nikola Tesla. He found that if electromagnetic fields interfere in a certain way strange things start to happen. A very powerful force is unleashed that is not currently understood by physics. When Hutchison generated this effect he found that it had certain properties that Dr Wood noticed were also present during the 9/11 attacks. For instance when the "collapse" of the north tower begins it looks as if it does so from the plane impact site and continues down the building. According to the NIST report this was a chain reaction of structural failure due to the weight of descending debris above; however when buildings normally collapse bits fall off them and make a pile of rubble on the ground beside it. In the case of the north tower, when the wave of destruction has reached the point where half the tower has already gone nothing yet has touched the ground. Instead there was a huge cloud of dust surrounding the carnage. There are chunks of masonry falling, but these are falling only slightly faster than the rate of general dissolution and they dissolve in mid air like a soluble tablet dissolving in water. In one of the news shots you can see the central core columns of the tower standing naked after the rest of the building has gone, and these then pulverize as we watch. There are bizarre effects noticeable in the vicinity during the period after the destruction of the towers too. Cars and emergency vehicles were found which are ruined, but this does not appear to be fire damage. They look more like cars that have been left in a scrap yard for twenty years, withered away by rust and the elements. This degeneration seems to be very localized. There is even a photograph of a police car in which the front half is completely destroyed and the back half completely intact; the tyres haven't even been punctured and the plastic fittings have not melted. Fires can be seen at Ground Zero which are burning right next to piles of paper, but the paper is not catching fire. Some of the "toasted cars" are parked next to trees which are completely intact, without so much as a scotched leaf. There are far too many other strange phenomena in the 9/11 attacks to list here, but Dr Judy Wood's book and website does. It is the basis of my recent debate on the KTPF Community Talk Show and my article in the KTPF Magazine, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/article-by-ben-emlyn-jones-in-ktpf.html. Some of the people in the 9/11 Truth movement are lying to us, every bit as much as the BBC and others promoting the official story. As with the mainstream media, many of the individuals helping to propagate the lies are simply suffering from psychological denial, wilful ignorance or a failure of imagination and nerve; but with certain individuals I suspect they are knowing disinformation agents; and I do not make accusations like that lightly, in fact I warn against it, see: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-shill-squad.html. Stephen E Jones is somebody in particular who has some serious questions to answer over his involvement in the "Cold Fusion" scandal, many years before 9/11, see: http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=382&Itemid=60. There are even signs of some major duplicity going on during the mainstream media coverage of Tony Rooke's trial. As Andrew Johnson and Richard D Hall have pointed out, in this article the second photograph should cause us some serious alarm, see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html. The banner reads: "Remember, remember the 11th of September. Thermite, treason and plot", but we know from Dr Judy Wood's work that the true story of 9/11 is completely different. Therefore this photograph is a distraction, orchestrated, intentionally or through error, either by the designer of that banner or the newspaper, or both. The 9/11 Truth movement must come to terms with this matter, and that includes Tony Rooke and everybody else behind the film Incontrovertible, if any progress is to be made. I enjoyed the movie; it was a brilliant effort. I'm grateful for the organizers of the premier for inviting me along. I think this film has the potential to make so many people aware of 9/11 who were not otherwise, and encourage them to take action; but not unless it is remade into new and updated version that includes a report on the issues I've raised in this review. It might sound like a tautology, but "9/11 Truth" must be completely true, in order to be really the truth.

8 comments:

Andrew Johnson said...

Thanks Ben - readers may also find additional information about some of the "players" here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=373&Itemid=60

It's also an interesting title they've chosen "Incontrovertible" - quite a similar word to "irrefutable" - a word Dr Wood has been using a lot...

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

You're welcome, Andrew. Thanks for the link.

Ellis said...

Agreed Ben. You brought to mind a Nick Redfern article I read today. Writing about the FBI's interest in Spontaneous Human Combustion, back in Hoover's day. An FBI report he cites and précis', into a suspected case lists the same strangeties as you have with the police car. I wonder, was this interest they had, to do with what was developed into the weapon that brought down the towers?
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/11/spontaneous-combustion-and-the-fbi-pt-1/

Cheers mate, another good article.

Xylomet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
IBU,FITRI SULISTIAWATI said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Xylomet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks, Ellis. That is fascinating! I'm hoping to get Nick on the show very soon.

Anonymous said...

the hutchison effect has never been replicated independently. It is only viewable on video.

If you look at the video levitation effects they are consistent with invisible wires. Invisible to poor quality video that is.

ie the objects usually raise up on one side before leaving the supporting surface, then settle to an equilibrium that looks like they are being suspended from a single point. (they dangle at an angle that indicates the suspension point is not symmetrical to the object, which is usually hard to obtain unless the object is spherical) Some look like puppets on more than one wire.

For those that doubt the apollo moon landings ...... why not apply the same 'suspended by wires anti gravity effect" to hutchison?