SPP is built around secrecy and US military command - law expert

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Harper Index
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

The agreement's title is classic framing: "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP) conjures up comfortable images. Michael Byers says the agreement under discussion this week by Canadian, US and Mexican leaders Harper, Bush and Calderon should more properly be framed as a secret agreement to give sweeping military, immigration and border control of all three countries over to the US. On Sunday, Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia told a standing-room-only forum in Ottawa about the politics and persuasion connected with the agreement under discussion behind the barricades this week at Montebello, Quebec.

I want to begin by welcoming the civil servants who been sent to keep track of what's going on here. Like you, we love our country, unlike the people who are gathering in Montebello this week, we have nothing to hide.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership did not begin as a phenomenon after September 11, 2001. It was part of a trend that predates that time. But the proponents of North American integration seized upon 9/11 as an opportunity to advance their cause. And some of those proponents in Canada were very overt about their aspirations in the weeks and months after the terrorist atrocities in New York City and Washington, DC.

David O'Brien, the CEO of Canadian Pacific and now Chairman of the Board of Royal Bank of Canada argued Canada would have to adopt US-style immigration policies to keep the border open. He said that we have to make North Americans secure from the outside. 'We're going to lose increasingly our sovereignty but it's necessarily so.' Mr. O'Brien is an influential man. Within months, the Canadian government had signed the Safe Third Country agreement with the United States whereby Canadian refugee policy was essentially assimilated into the refugee policy of the United States. The rights of human beings to asylum when they're being persecuted for their religious or political opinions or ethnic identities is one of the most fundamental rights of all.

Then there was Nancy Hughes Anthony, the President of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce who said that we're not going to get anywhere with our American friends unless we can show we have good strong anti- terrorist legislation and we intend to enforce it. The result was the 2001 Anti- terrorism Act, which, of course was modelled on the [US] Patriot Act.

And then there was Patrick E. Daniels, the President of Enbridge, the big energy company based in Calgary, who complained that Canada pushed its sovereignty 'a little too far.' He said it would be realistic for Canada to either get onside with US foreign policy or 'accept some change in our relationship.'

I was asked to speak about one aspect of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, namely security, or more specifically, the military. In the immediate aftermath of September 2001, plans were devised within the American and Canadian governments to put the entire Canadian Forces under the umbrella of the US Northern Command. To put all our soldiers, sailors and pilots and all their equipment under the operational control of the United States, in a much- expanded version of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Fortunately some sunshine was let in upon that thinking before it could be taken too far. Some serious credit needs to be given here to a former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, who took advantage of being out of Cabinet to let the rest of us know what his former colleagues were up to.

So those who wanted to pursue the efforts of further integration of the Canadian and US military decided to take their efforts underground in arrangements that bear striking similarity to the SPP. And the SPP is part of a larger process. The Bi-National Planning Group was the military sister or brother of the SPP. Essentially it was a transborder committee of unelected bureaucrats, military officers and consultants who were given task of studying and then reporting on the options for improving the efficacy of the North American defensive system. The goal was simply to allow us to respond faster and better to the various kinds of threats that might arise.

The military officers worked away quietly in Colorado Springs, Colorado, headquarters of NORAD, as well as the US space command.... Canadian military leaders quite liked playing with the big boys and using the best military equipment in the world...

The proponents of closer military integration could not believe their luck when Stephen Harper was elected. And very shortly after Mr. Harper came to power, they released their final report... which sets out four different options for the closer integration of the Canadian and US military. Most of the report is concerned with public relations, noting that Canadians are particularly attached to sovereignty.

Imagine how you might actually explain that closer military cooperation enhances sovereignty because giving up sovereignty is an exercise in sovereignty! You actually affirm your sovereignty by giving some of it away..

The report was very very clear that its preferred option was full integration, the option that had been floated internally in 2002, the assignment of Canadian Forces to what looked like an expanded NORAD, to an umbrella command where operational control would ultimately rest with the US military.

Some steps have been taken in that direction, including, last year, the NORAD agreement to expand the sharing of maritime surveillance including within the Northwest Passage. It wasn't much noticed at the time. Only one party opposed it in Parliament, the New Democratic Party of Canada.

When the report actually came out and was put up on the website of the Bi- National Planning Group, some smart people, including possibly the Prime Minister of Canada, decided that you were not yet ready for this. That somehow it wasn't the time to make the public case for the full integration of Canadian and US forces because Mr. Harper didn't get that majority he so desperately desired. And so it was shuffled away once again, it disappeared off the website, and the Bi-National Planning Group was shut down, and who knows what they're talking about in Montebello.

But something did happen, and I'm talking about Afghanistan.... We are seeing the implementation in theatre of precisely the kind of planning that was going into the Bi-National Planning Group. We are seeing the Canadian Forces being given more and more equipment. We're even buying new tanks. We're seeing the integration of attitudes and rules of engagement with respect to issues like the treatment of detainees. Why did we not adopt the Western European approach to detainee transfer rights, following models that were provided to us by the British, the Dutch and the Danish? Because Washington wanted to do it another way. And why should we volunteer for the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan, a forward-leaning, war- fighting search and kill mission supported by US airstrikes and working in tandem with a US-led and -commanded mission that is not part of the NATO command?

Why have 67 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan? Why did Private Simon Longtin die today? The simple explanation, and it's only a partial explanation, is that there are people who want to transform the Canadian Forces into a miniature version of the US Marine Corps and want Canada to only choose missions that involve fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States; that want us to acquire equipment that integrates seamlessly with the US military, including in the relatively near future new F35 fighters. The same people who will tell you that peace-keeping is dead, that we really don't need new search-and-rescue aircraft in the second largest country on Earth, and who will tell you that those who stand up for the rights of detainees are expressing disrespect and a lack of support for the brave young Canadian men and women who serve this country in whatever mission they're given because they love this country just as much as you and I.

The integration of the Canadian and US military is not officially part of the SPP, but the SPP and the integration of the Canadian and US military are part of a larger project, and we need to address that larger project, and understand that what we're up against here does not involve the existence of an independent Canada. But as we saw with the Bi-National Planning Group, a little bit of sunshine can chase these plans away. When I look at this room I see a whole lot of sunshine.

Related individuals, organizations and significant events
Deep integration - TILMA and SPP to bring in rules to let corporations challenge our laws

Harper Conservative vs. Public Values Frame
Security / Secrecy, American control
Sovereignty / American control, smokescreen

Links and sources
Bi-National Planning Group
Continental Integration of Military Command Structures: A Threat to Canada's Sovereignty, by Michel Chossudovsky

Harper Dismisses SPP Protests As "Sad"

DEB RIECHMANN
AP
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

President Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada worked Monday to craft a plan to secure their borders in the event of a terrorist strike or other emergency without creating traffic tie-ups that slowed commerce at crossings after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper want their homeland security experts to figure out the best way to protect citizens in an emergency, perhaps an outbreak of avian flu, without snarling business among the trading partners.

More broadly, the goal of the North American summit was to seek middle ground on shared concerns about the border and a host of other issues ranging from energy to trade, food safety to immigration. The three-way meeting at a highly secured red cedar chateau along the banks of the Ottawa River focused on administrative and regulatory issues, not sweeping legislative proposals for North America.

Few, if any, formal announcements were expected. The meeting served to address thorny problems between the U.S. and its neighbors to the North and South and bolster a compact - dubbed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America - that serves as a way for the nations to team up on health, security and commerce.

Several hundred demonstrators protested on issues such as the war in Iraq, human rights and integration of North America. One carried a banner that said: ``Say No To Americanada.''

Calderon and Harper both want tight relations with Bush, yet don't want to be seen as proteges of the unpopular president or leave the impression that the U.S. is encroaching on their sovereignty.

To that end, Harper is asserting his nation's claim to the Northwest Passage through the Arctic.

The race to secure subsurface rights to the Arctic seabed heated up when Russia sent two small submarines to plant a tiny national flag under the North Pole. The United States and Norway also have competing claims in the vast Arctic region, where a U.S. study suggests as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas could be hidden.

Canada believes much of the North American side of the Arctic is Canada's, but the United States says that the thawing Northwest Passage is part of international waters.

``We look at the Northwest Passage as an international waterway, and want the international transit rights to be respected there,'' White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. ``But certainly President Bush will listen to what Prime Minister Harper has to say.''

Harper also plans to raise concerns about new passport requirements for travelers, longtime U.S. restrictions on Canadian softwood lumber exports and the war in Afghanistan.

Harper has said Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will not be extended beyond 2009 without a consensus in the country and the Parliament. Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, fighting against the Taliban in the violet southern parts of the nation. Other countries, such as Germany ad Italy, restrict the use of their forces to more peaceful areas in the north.

With Hurricane Dean bearing down on Mexico, Calderon might have to cut his meetings short with Bush and Calderon. This is his first meeting with Bush since the U.S. immigration legislation died in the Senate. Calderon has called that a ``grave error'' and also is rankled by the Bush administration's newly announced crackdown on employers who use illegal immigrants.

It's unclear whether the United States will use the summit to announce a major new aid plan to help Mexico fight violent drug trafficking. U.S. anti-drug officials have been impressed with Caldron's crackdown on drug traffickers since he took office.

But Calderon has repeatedly pushed the U.S. to take more responsibility in fighting the two countries' common drug problem, including doing more to stop the flow of illegal U.S. arms into Mexico and trying to combat the demand for drugs north of the border. The issue of U.S. aid is a sensitive subject among Mexicans wary that U.S. help could lead to interventions that violate Mexican sovereignty.

Bush stepped off Air Force One and onto a red carpet at an airport in Ottawa where he was greeted by a bagpiper and a ceremonial honor guard dressed in red jackets and tall, black fur hats. Bush flew to the resort on the Marine One presidential helicopter, which landed in a grassy clearing along the water.

A few hundred protesters amassed at the gate of the resort. Police in riot gear used tear gas to hold back about 50 of them, who responded by flinging rocks, branches and plastic bottles. A line of police in riot gear jostled with about 50 demonstrators. A few hundred marched on the front gate of the summit compound shouting taunts.

``I've heard it's nothing,'' Harper said, dismissing the protests as Bush arrived at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello. ``A couple hundred? It's sad.''

Viewers See History Channel 9/11 Special As Straw Man Hit Piece

Documentary set up bias straw man arguments, ignored key evidence, afforded debunkers overwhelming majority of time - so-called "experts" Popular Mechanics are on the same corporate payroll as the History Channel itself, which is owned by Disney, GE and Hearst Publishing

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Initial reaction to last night's two hour History Channel Special on the 9/11 truth movement was vehement and conclusive - the show was nothing more than another biased hit piece that manufactured straw man arguments, ignored key evidence, and afforded debunkers to talk at length while ridiculing any other viewpoints.

According to viewers who were unfortunate to have to sit through 120 minutes of yellow journalism, the program was very similar to a previous BBC hit piece - an outright smear attempt that abandoned any pretense of neutrality early on and sought to vigorously attack so-called conspiracy theories.

Though producers of the show promised Alex Jones directly that the documentary was not going to be a hit piece, according to viewers it was replete with distortion and deception, all delivered in the kind of condescending tone we have become used to from the establishment media.

- According to 9/11 researcher James Gourley, the debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta's bombshell testimony about Cheney's actions in the Emergency Operations Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, "the airplane coming in to the Pentagon," and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee Hamilton.

- The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to address the fact that firefighters and first responders described witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also ignored Professor Steven Jones' scientific analysis of the iron-rich microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night, Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered" but the History Channel, mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue.

- The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed to address why the building, which wasn't hit by a plane, collapsed in 7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before it actually fell.

- The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely excluded.

- The Able Danger program and how the hijackers were discovered before 9/11 was completely excluded.

- The fact that the money man behind the hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials before and on the morning of 9/11, was completely excluded.

- William Rodriguez' first-hand testimony of explosions prior to the impact of the planes was completely excluded, as was the testimony of numerous firefighters who attested to bombs and explosions.

- NBC reporter Pat Dawson claimed that FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi had only described explosions, not bombs, going off, contradicting Dawson's own report at the time which stated, "Reports of a secondary device, that is another ‘bomb’ going off."

According to another blogger, the whole tone of the program was crafted to be antagonistic towards those questioning the official version.

Conspiracy theorists were derided throughout the program as being ignorant, mean and kooky with no personal lives. On the other hand, the Popular Mechanics editors were given the last word on each and every subject along with the undeserving title of “expert”. To the best of my knowledge, not one of the pencil pushing staff members have any credentials that are relevant to any aspect of 9/11 truth. Of course it was the conspiracy theorists that were accused of not having any of the valid expertise necessary for stating their assertions logically. They do this by completely ignoring the very existence and works of groups like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Also just as expected, the History Channel failed to disclose the Chertoff connection and other major conflicts of interests that have clearly drastically compromised the research and conclusions of their so-called “experts”. It was disingenuous and deceptive from the very start. It only got worse.

As we reported previously, the makers of the hit piece first advertised the show as a response to "outrageous" theories about 9/11, but then immediately back-pedaled and altered the program description on their website after we highlighted the blatant biased agenda of the piece and its multiple corporate conflicts of interest.

Hearst Publishing's Popular Mechanics, the premiere name in yellow journalism, were featured on the show as the most prominent debunkers, shilling for their corporate bosses in a brazen display of cronyism.

The History Channel is part of the A&E Television Network which is jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company (37.5%), The Hearst Corporation (37.5%), and NBC Universal (25%).

The owners of Popular Mechanics are also the joint owners of the History Channel!

Once again it is not a good starting point for a neutral investigation when the people you choose to represent one side of a factual debate are actually on the payroll.

It makes Fox News appear fair and balanced in comparison!

Furthermore, the other joint owner of The History Channel, NBC Universal, is run by General Electric, the world's second largest corporation and one of the major players within the military industrial complex.

GE is a major supplier of arms and the “war on terrorism” has seen GE’s government and military contracts rise substantially to over $2.2 billion.

In short, GE really has very little to gain and a great deal to lose from probing into questions concerning the possibility of 9/11 being a military intelligence operation to seed the "war on terror" and to justify a huge increase in military activity around the globe.

Despite the fact that this charade was seemingly another crude smear job, we should thank the History Channel for attacking us because it only ensures that more people will check out the evidence for themselves and discover what was deliberately buried by the debunkers.

As we head towards the sixth anniversary of 9/11, our numbers are larger than ever and our credibility is growing, while lying corporate media whores like the History Channel lose respectability at a rate rivaled only by their hemoraging of viewers.

Beck: I Live In Connecticut Because ‘It’s Out Of Reach Of A Nuclear Explosion In Manhattan’

Think Progress
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

A new GQ profile of Glenn Beck asks whether the CNN Headline News host is the “most annoying man on TV.” But whether he is “annoying” is beside the real point, which is that Beck has a long history of inflammatory remarks on-air.

The mainstream media continue to reward Beck for his hateful, divisive rhetoric. Earlier this year, ABC’s Good Morning America hired Beck as a commentator, and Washington Post radio is now considering bringing on the right-wing pundit because he “does a good job.” Beck’s television producer admitted to GQ, “He’s a polarizing figure. That’s why we hired him.”

In the GQ article, author Benjamin Wallace claims that Beck “is less partisan soldier than channeler of regular-guy id.” A look at some of Beck’s “regular-guy id” as evidenced by the GQ article:

On the Virginia Tech shooter:

“This guy makes you have respect for suicide bombers,” Beck says, trying out today’s career-immolating zinger. “At least they’re killing themselves because they believe in something larger.”

On living in Connecticut:

In a mirrored room at CNN, on the fifth floor of the Time Warner Center in Manhattan, a makeup artist paints cream under Beck’s eyes while her colleague, idle in a nearby chair, tells Beck that she’s moving to Riverdale, in the Bronx. “At least you’re outside the vaporization zone,” Beck says.

“Really?” says makeup lady number two. “I’m still in New York.”

“You could drop a one-kiloton bomb on Lower Manhattan and be safe in Chelsea,” Beck says.

“Good to know,” the woman says.

Beck: “Did you check the blast radius?”

“No,” she says. “I was more interested in the public-school system.”

“Priorities,” Beck says.

He is kind of joking, kind of isn’t. One of the reasons he lives in Fairfield County, Connecticut, is that it’s out of reach of a nuclear explosion in Manhattan.

On work habits:

A Baltimore producer he fired named Tom Russell — who is not the Baltimore producer Beck fired for bringing him a ballpoint when he had asked for a Sharpie — recalls the time Beck seized him by his collar, hoisted him nearly off the ground, and said he would eat him “for fucking breakfast.”

In the profile, Beck also states, “If we don’t stop believing the worst in each other, we’re dead.” This is the same man who once described Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) voice as that of “a stereotypical bitch,” hosted a guest who said on-air that watching someone murder the Clintons would be “great,” and confessed that he is “afraid” to have “a lot of African-American friends.”

Rather than a “channeler of regular-guy id,” a better description of Beck might be what Jon Stewart said about him in 2006: “a guy who says what people who aren’t thinking are thinking.”

Chris Achorn at My Two Sense has more on the GQ profile

SPP deal could create common border standards

Canadian Press

Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

Just exactly who's allowed into North America -- and how long they can stay -- could be heavily influenced by the complex web of initiatives known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Canada, the United States and Mexico are collaborating on more than a dozen traveller security programs that fall under three umbrellas: creating trusted border documents, developing compatible immigration measures and sharing information on high-risk travellers.

The goal is to ensure none of the three countries is a weak link in the continental security chain.

While Ottawa, Washington and Mexico City say this will make citizens safer, critics charge it is a secretive bid to bolster the corporate agenda without public or parliamentary debate.

The three countries are:

• Working on biometric systems -- incorporating unique identifiers like iris scans and fingerprints -- to improve the security for passports, visas, permanent resident cards, transportation credentials and other border documents.
• Implementing immigration measures that include requirements for admission and length of stay, visa decision-making standards, border lookout systems for wanted individuals, and the possibility of entry and exit procedures, and
• Devising ways to share data on high-risk travellers such as suspected terrorists and other criminals.

Dozens of other initiatives deal with aviation, cargo and maritime security, protection of crops and livestock, and increased law-enforcement and intelligence co-operation.

In many ways, the march toward trilateral collaboration on these issues began with a path laid in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership builds on the so-called smart border accord Canada and the United States signed six years ago.

One of the measures to emerge from the accord was the safe third country agreement on refugees.

Under the agreement, each country recognizes the other as a safe place to seek protection.

It means Canada can turn back potential refugees at the Canada-U.S. border on the basis they must pursue their claims in the United States, the country where they first arrived.

Canada says that is only fair. Canadian refugee advocates strenuously oppose the deal, arguing the United States is not always a safe country for people fleeing persecution.

Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, says there's a concern that refugee protection is "left off the table'' when borders are harmonized.

He fears the trilateral talks could see a similar safe country deal established between Mexico and the United States.

"The problem is that these policies simply don't provide the kinds of exceptions and allowances made to ensure that people who have very valid and legitimate protection concerns get the safety they need,'' Neve said.

One woman who travelled to Canada to voice opposition to the Security and Prosperity Partnership pointed to her journey as evidence of curbs on civil liberties.

Ann Wright, an anti-war activist and retired U.S. State Department official, said she was questioned for three hours by immigration officials at the Ottawa airport because of her "peaceful, non-violent arrest'' for protesting in the United States.

At a news conference held by the Council of Canadians, Wright said she paid $200 for a three-day temporary visa to enter Canada "for activities in my own country that threaten no one.''

Leading Conservatives Denounce Bush on 'North American Union'

Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

President Bush is meeting with other world leaders in Canada this week to establish, in part, a "New World Order" that subverts national sovereignty, according to some leading American conservatives who have taken a hard stance against the president over the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

President Bush is meeting in Quebec Monday and Tuesday with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss the SPP, which the U.S. government's Web site describes as a cooperative effort among Canada, the United States, and Mexico to "increase security and enhance prosperity ... through greater cooperation and information sharing."

Yet Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, said at a news conference in Ottawa Monday that Bush is trying to develop a "New World Order" of centralized world government controlled by super-national bureaucracies. Phillips said some of the bureaucracies already exist, including the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and United Nations.

"George Bush and his daddy [former President George H. W. Bush] have both used the term 'New World Order.' It was used by Woodrow Wilson. It was used by Adolf Hitler. It was used by a number of people, and the New World Order relates to the desire of many people in the world to submerge national sovereignties to international institution." (See Video)

Other conservatives who joined Phillips at the news conference included author and columnist Jerome Corsi; John McManus, president of the John Birch Society; Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center; and Bob Park, founder of Veterans for Secure Borders.

The SPP meetings (the fourth since 2005) have afforded little access to the media and no access to the general public except for leaders of some large corporations taking part in the concurrent North American Competitiveness Council. The secrecy has led activists on both sides of the political aisle to develop ideas about what might be happening behind closed doors.

Responding to protests stated in Ottawa Sunday by leftist, anti-government, anti-corporate activists, Phillips acknowledged a difference of approach. But, he said, "if we're all firing in the same direction, let's work together."

Conservative author Jerome Corsi criticized supporters of the SPP for labeling opponents "conspiracy theorists."

"We're the Internet black helicopter conspiracy theorists?" asked Corsi. "What's going on over in Montebello behind closed doors? Is that not the real conspiracy?"

"Only to call us names does not answer the arguments we're making," he said. "We're called names because those supporting the Security and Prosperity Partnership wish to keep their secret agenda being advanced in secret, and we've ruined the party by exposing it."

Most recently, U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins called the opposition to the SPP "conspiracy theories." In an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen Monday, Wilkins said that "while conspiracy theories abound, you can take it to the bank that no one involved in these discussions is interested in, or has ever proposed, a 'North American Union,' a 'North American super highway' or a 'North American currency.'"

Wilkins further wrote that "security with prosperity remains the defining vision of the leaders' meeting" and that "each [nation] will continue to protect its own interests, but it makes sense, as friends and neighbors, to sit down together and see what we might accomplish better together."

Phillips responded by noting that Wilkins was appointed by Bush and represents an administration that "does not have a reputation for straight talking or accuracy ... ." And it_s high time for the SPP organizers to "tear down the wall of silence and let the people see what you are scheming to do," he said.

History Channel 9/11 Hit Piece Ignores WTC 7

You Tube
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

The first review of last night's History Channel hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement which did not even address the anomalies surrounding the collapse of WTC7.