The following was submitted by a viewer who wishes to remain anonymous, for fear of retribution:
I have been struggling with homelessness for the past several months. I was once a middle-class citizen, who was born and raised here in Dutchess county. My family roots go back to the first Dutch settlers in the 1600's, in fact. Yet I can't even afford a rental on the long road that was once the long driveway of my old "Van" ancestors. The reasons for my homelessness is a storied tale, that doesn't happen all at once, and might be left to another article. But today's submission, is about how I am being made homeless yet again, by an indirect order from a public agency.
A few months ago, I was literally living on the streets for a time. An old friend from high school had the heart to take me in, and rent a space to me in her basement for the small pittance that I get for housing from an emergency benefit from New York State. (What "welfare" gives you is $216 a month. Good luck finding a rental for that much.) Sadly, not a month had gone by, and some family court issue on her end, left me homeless yet again.
A few days passed, and another friend of mine from my old high school days told me that he had an spare room. He basically used it as a slop den for his pets. I was not at all picky, and moved in with the agreement that I would pay him all of my housing benefit amount, plus another hundred dollars. I bought a mop and bucket, and turned the kennel room into a liveable space.
There was a catch though. My friend is on misdemeanor probation. So before I moved in, I asked him to clear this with his probation officer. The PO told him that since I am not a felon, not on probation or parole, and since I have no open cases pending, that he could not "violate" him on the terms of his probation. I moved in the next day.
I have since shifted over my legal address to the new residence, and I claim a housing benefit from social services in order to make partial payment for the room as well as access to the kitchen and bathroom. I make up the difference by spending my cash allotment for things like transportation and laundry, on rent to my roomate. These services are meant to get me back on my feet, and I am doing my best to do that.
Unfortunately, the probation department doesn't see it that way. Since I have moved in, the department of probation has threatened to violate my roommate/landlord, for renting a room to me. I have called his PO several times, but he didn't return any of my calls until today. Essentially he told me that "P*****k knows what he has to do" and would not give me any reason why I should be evicted, citing confidentiality. However, confidentiality did not prevent them from showing images of myself as well as my arrest record on unfounded charges, in order to establish defamatory statements against me by the agent, as well as his supervisor.
Now just to be clear here. I am not a felon, I am not on probation or parole, I have no open cases pending. Admittedly though, I do have an arrest in the last year, for which the charge was dismissed in a local town court.
The question then becomes, can the department of probation make me homeless once again, because I was arrested on a charge that was dismissed? Can they send a man to jail, at huge taxpayer cost, two months before his probation is finished, for renting a room to a man who was once a first-responder and a state-licensed officer, but happened to have a misunderstanding with the judicial system?
Friday, September 26, 2014
Monday, September 22, 2014
Facebook Blocks HVW Activity
We have not received any official notification of any alleged wrongdoing, but it appears that Facebook is blocking all activity on our Facebook page. None of our admins or writers are able to post comments, or share news items. Sometimes FB has technical "glitches" like this, but this one is lasting an awfully long time. Could it be we posted something that the-powers-that-be found to be unsavory? Could it be that we are being blocked while they investigate, under send us for further review? Time will tell.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
NBC News Crew Detained Filming Near Vacant NY Prison
This video just came across my desk, and though it happened back in July, this is something that any freedom-loving American should be very concerned about.
An NBC WNYT13 reporter and film crew headed up Mount McGregor to do a story at the Ulysses S. Grant Cottage State Historic Site. The day before this visit was the 129th anniversary marking the death of the Civil War hero, and former Chief Executive of the nation, at his Adirondack retreat.
This was clearly a legitimate human-interest news story, by a legitimate and well-respected mainstream news source. So why were they suddenly ordered to stop filming by a uniformed prison official, who rushed down the mountain at them in a private vehicle? The officer told them that they could not film at the ostensibly public historic site, and ordered them off the mountain entirely. When they did finally try to leave, after being blocked by another prison guard, they were detained by the New York State Police and threatened with arrest unless they handed over their film.
Well let's have a look here at what took place.
This brazen assault on liberty, free-speech, freedom of the press, and our core values as Americans stands as a testament to the actual state of oppression we live under today. This is not freedom, this is tyranny which even 20 years ago we would have thought only happened in third-world dictatorships. Who are these officers, these so-called public servants, actually working for here?
Despite the fact that New York state taxpayers were still paying the salaries for nearly 80 prison guards there, the prison has actually been vacant for almost a year. Not a single prisoner at the prison, but all of those officials still there, guarding what? Between the seemingly pointless cadre of guards and their aggression toward innocent civilians, some have gone so far as to speculate that the news crew may have accidentally stumbled across a so-called secret FEMA camp.
Jesse Ventura's Banned FEMA Camps Episode
Two days after the incident, New York State Department of Corrections pulled their officers off of the site, and private security firm Securitas took over. Securitas is a Swedish-based company which swallowed up the notorious Pinkerton agency here in the U.S., and is now the largest private security company in the world. They operate everything from home security systems, to armored cars once owned by Loomis Fargo & Company, another famed outfit which they absorbed.
Whatever is actually going on up at the old prison may be speculative. What is not speculative however, is what we saw happen to that news crew on that day. A grotesque display of police-state oppression and tyranny right here in our own country, on hallowed ground where an American President and champion of liberty died. Is there a war now, against free speech and the people, where agents can detain you for simply going about your day? What crime is it to capture a public building on film? While there should be outrage across the country at what we saw, there is only complacency and deaf ears. Where is the accountability? Where are the measures to ensure that such trampling of our rights never happens again in this so-called land of the free? Sadly enough, something like this is no longer shocking, just business as usual, as liberty goes quietly into the night.
An NBC WNYT13 reporter and film crew headed up Mount McGregor to do a story at the Ulysses S. Grant Cottage State Historic Site. The day before this visit was the 129th anniversary marking the death of the Civil War hero, and former Chief Executive of the nation, at his Adirondack retreat.
This was clearly a legitimate human-interest news story, by a legitimate and well-respected mainstream news source. So why were they suddenly ordered to stop filming by a uniformed prison official, who rushed down the mountain at them in a private vehicle? The officer told them that they could not film at the ostensibly public historic site, and ordered them off the mountain entirely. When they did finally try to leave, after being blocked by another prison guard, they were detained by the New York State Police and threatened with arrest unless they handed over their film.
Well let's have a look here at what took place.
This brazen assault on liberty, free-speech, freedom of the press, and our core values as Americans stands as a testament to the actual state of oppression we live under today. This is not freedom, this is tyranny which even 20 years ago we would have thought only happened in third-world dictatorships. Who are these officers, these so-called public servants, actually working for here?
Despite the fact that New York state taxpayers were still paying the salaries for nearly 80 prison guards there, the prison has actually been vacant for almost a year. Not a single prisoner at the prison, but all of those officials still there, guarding what? Between the seemingly pointless cadre of guards and their aggression toward innocent civilians, some have gone so far as to speculate that the news crew may have accidentally stumbled across a so-called secret FEMA camp.
Jesse Ventura's Banned FEMA Camps Episode
Two days after the incident, New York State Department of Corrections pulled their officers off of the site, and private security firm Securitas took over. Securitas is a Swedish-based company which swallowed up the notorious Pinkerton agency here in the U.S., and is now the largest private security company in the world. They operate everything from home security systems, to armored cars once owned by Loomis Fargo & Company, another famed outfit which they absorbed.
Whatever is actually going on up at the old prison may be speculative. What is not speculative however, is what we saw happen to that news crew on that day. A grotesque display of police-state oppression and tyranny right here in our own country, on hallowed ground where an American President and champion of liberty died. Is there a war now, against free speech and the people, where agents can detain you for simply going about your day? What crime is it to capture a public building on film? While there should be outrage across the country at what we saw, there is only complacency and deaf ears. Where is the accountability? Where are the measures to ensure that such trampling of our rights never happens again in this so-called land of the free? Sadly enough, something like this is no longer shocking, just business as usual, as liberty goes quietly into the night.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
WTC 7 On 9/11: Evidence
The following is reprinted here, with permission of the original author.
We are going to present a compilation here of material regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7 on September 11, 2001.
Many have argued that the World Trade Center disaster was actually the result of a controlled demolition project planned well in advance by parties unknown. Much of the focus on the disaster that day has been centered on Towers 1 and 2, which were struck by aircraft. It has also been argued by many, that the damage from the aircraft and ensuing fires would not have been sufficient to cause a symmetrical collapse at nearly free-fall speed. There is compelling evidence to support the idea that the planes could not have brought down the towers, but perhaps the most compelling is that WTC7 was never struck by a plane at all, and yet that building too also collapsed in a way that seems to defy any explanation other than a controlled demolition.
But let's start by looking at the official explanation first. Could fire be the reason that Building 7 collapsed, as we have been told by government officials? It seems rather unlikely, considering that it has never happened before, or since. Yet on 9/11, we are told that three steel buildings were brought down primarily by fire. And again, one of those buildings was not even hit by a plane loaded with fuel.
This is a picture of the fires still burning in WTC7 in the late afternoon of September 11.
Here are some examples, of burning skyscrapers from around the world, that did not collapse, despite the fact that they suffered fires that burned longer, and engulfed more square footage of the structure.
In 1975, World Trade Center Tower 1 also burned on several floors, for several hours, with no modernized fire suppression system or fire-proofing material in place, but did not collapse.
Of course, these towering infernos were not struck by aircraft and were not struck by the debris of the Twin Towers as they collapsed. So let's have a look now at what sort of damage a building can suffer and still remain standing.
This is an image of debris which struck and damaged WTC 7.
For comparison now, here is a picture of the Deutsche Bank building which suffered extensive damage on 9/11. A fire in 2007 claimed the lives of two FDNY firefighters. Nearly a decade later, a $100-million deconstruction project was completed and the building was no more.
The following two images show the damage done to WTC Building #3 on 9/11, and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City after it was bombed in 1995. Despite the devastation, what remained of the buildings still did not collapse, and had to be brought down later.
Relatively small fires, comparatively far less structural damage than others, yet WTC7 still fell, uniformly, into a nice neat pile.
Even when buildings do happen to collapse, perhaps after an earthquake, they do not implode. Here are some images of what happens when critical supports in a building fail.
Even when specialists spend months planning and spend weeks placing huge amounts of explosives all throughout a building, it is still a difficult task to bring down a building in it's own footprint. There are no guarantees, as these videos show. Demolitions gone wrong, click here, here, and here to see them.
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex first explained the collapse of Building 7 saying he gave the order to "pull it." This is a term often used in demolitions, meaning to pull down the building.
Strangely, given the subsequent information you will read here in a moment which has been kown for years, Secretary of State John Kerry also explained the destruction as a controlled demolition rather than an unexpected collapse.
There is a very serious problem with that explanation though. Fire departments are not trained or equipped for demolitions operations. Fire trucks do not carry explosives, firefighters do not knock down buildings. Even for the world's leading specialists a demolition of that scale is not something that could be done in a matter of hours in a damaged and burning skyscraper. The only explanation could be that the explosives were set, before 9/11.
Silverstein later tried to revise the meaning of his statement, saying that he meant "pull it" as in to pull the rescue effort, and to pull out the firefighters in the building. The only problem with that, is that there were no firefighters in the building according to FEMA, because there was no water available to carry out interior firefighting operations. This video clip corroborates that. That clip also alludes to previous knowledge of impending collapse.
How did anyone know the building was going to collapse before it actually did? Why wasn't it predicted that other, more badly damaged buildings were going to fall, even though they never did? What were the telltale signs that Building 7 was going to collapse?
Why did the BBC report that the building had collapsed, 20 minutes before it actually did?
In this video clip, you will hear someone declare that the building ia about to "blow up" as you hear what sounds like explosives going off in the background. Odd choice of words. Blow up. And who told them it was going to blow up?
Perhaps the sounds of bombs going off was a clue, but bombs had been going off all day. Something that was completely overlooked by the media and has never been explained.
But perhaps the most chilling account of bombs in WTC 7 comes from Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. That fateful morning he raced to the Office of Emergency Management located in WTC7, to find it eerily empty, except for New York City's corporate counsel Michael Hess. An explosion trapped the two inside the building. Keep in mind that what he talks about here in the following interview happened before either of the Twin Towers fell, and therefore before the collapses had done any damage to Building 7.
(Videos of Barry Jennings' statements and interviews are routinely scrubbed from the internet. Unfortunately, this has happened again, as one of the most complete videos of his account has been removed, as you can see. For a less complete version, see this video here on YouTube.)
Unfortunately, Barry Jennings will never be able to testify on record about what he saw that day. He died, for unknown reasons, just days before the NIST report on 9/11 was released in 2008. One of the film makers who interviewed Jennings for the film Loose Change hired an investigator to find out more about Jennings' mysterious death. All that he found was Jennings' home empty, and up for sale. He then returned the money to the man who hired him, and told the filmmaker to never contact him again. This only added to the mystery. A commenter at a website claimed to be Jennings' son, and claimed his father had died of leukemia, but the identity of the commenter has never been verified.
Hess publicly corroborated important elements of Jennings' account.
This video examines the collapse of WTC7 and some elements of the NIST report.
If that video was a little too technical for you, don't worry. Most of us are not engineers. There are plenty of real experts out there though, thousands of them, who disagree with the government's findings. This video summarizes the details of the WTC 7 collapse in terms we can all understand.
We are going to present a compilation here of material regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7 on September 11, 2001.
Many have argued that the World Trade Center disaster was actually the result of a controlled demolition project planned well in advance by parties unknown. Much of the focus on the disaster that day has been centered on Towers 1 and 2, which were struck by aircraft. It has also been argued by many, that the damage from the aircraft and ensuing fires would not have been sufficient to cause a symmetrical collapse at nearly free-fall speed. There is compelling evidence to support the idea that the planes could not have brought down the towers, but perhaps the most compelling is that WTC7 was never struck by a plane at all, and yet that building too also collapsed in a way that seems to defy any explanation other than a controlled demolition.
But let's start by looking at the official explanation first. Could fire be the reason that Building 7 collapsed, as we have been told by government officials? It seems rather unlikely, considering that it has never happened before, or since. Yet on 9/11, we are told that three steel buildings were brought down primarily by fire. And again, one of those buildings was not even hit by a plane loaded with fuel.
This is a picture of the fires still burning in WTC7 in the late afternoon of September 11.
Here are some examples, of burning skyscrapers from around the world, that did not collapse, despite the fact that they suffered fires that burned longer, and engulfed more square footage of the structure.
In 1975, World Trade Center Tower 1 also burned on several floors, for several hours, with no modernized fire suppression system or fire-proofing material in place, but did not collapse.
Of course, these towering infernos were not struck by aircraft and were not struck by the debris of the Twin Towers as they collapsed. So let's have a look now at what sort of damage a building can suffer and still remain standing.
This is an image of debris which struck and damaged WTC 7.
For comparison now, here is a picture of the Deutsche Bank building which suffered extensive damage on 9/11. A fire in 2007 claimed the lives of two FDNY firefighters. Nearly a decade later, a $100-million deconstruction project was completed and the building was no more.
The following two images show the damage done to WTC Building #3 on 9/11, and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City after it was bombed in 1995. Despite the devastation, what remained of the buildings still did not collapse, and had to be brought down later.
Relatively small fires, comparatively far less structural damage than others, yet WTC7 still fell, uniformly, into a nice neat pile.
Even when buildings do happen to collapse, perhaps after an earthquake, they do not implode. Here are some images of what happens when critical supports in a building fail.
Even when specialists spend months planning and spend weeks placing huge amounts of explosives all throughout a building, it is still a difficult task to bring down a building in it's own footprint. There are no guarantees, as these videos show. Demolitions gone wrong, click here, here, and here to see them.
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex first explained the collapse of Building 7 saying he gave the order to "pull it." This is a term often used in demolitions, meaning to pull down the building.
Strangely, given the subsequent information you will read here in a moment which has been kown for years, Secretary of State John Kerry also explained the destruction as a controlled demolition rather than an unexpected collapse.
There is a very serious problem with that explanation though. Fire departments are not trained or equipped for demolitions operations. Fire trucks do not carry explosives, firefighters do not knock down buildings. Even for the world's leading specialists a demolition of that scale is not something that could be done in a matter of hours in a damaged and burning skyscraper. The only explanation could be that the explosives were set, before 9/11.
Silverstein later tried to revise the meaning of his statement, saying that he meant "pull it" as in to pull the rescue effort, and to pull out the firefighters in the building. The only problem with that, is that there were no firefighters in the building according to FEMA, because there was no water available to carry out interior firefighting operations. This video clip corroborates that. That clip also alludes to previous knowledge of impending collapse.
How did anyone know the building was going to collapse before it actually did? Why wasn't it predicted that other, more badly damaged buildings were going to fall, even though they never did? What were the telltale signs that Building 7 was going to collapse?
CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."
Why did the BBC report that the building had collapsed, 20 minutes before it actually did?
In this video clip, you will hear someone declare that the building ia about to "blow up" as you hear what sounds like explosives going off in the background. Odd choice of words. Blow up. And who told them it was going to blow up?
Perhaps the sounds of bombs going off was a clue, but bombs had been going off all day. Something that was completely overlooked by the media and has never been explained.
But perhaps the most chilling account of bombs in WTC 7 comes from Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. That fateful morning he raced to the Office of Emergency Management located in WTC7, to find it eerily empty, except for New York City's corporate counsel Michael Hess. An explosion trapped the two inside the building. Keep in mind that what he talks about here in the following interview happened before either of the Twin Towers fell, and therefore before the collapses had done any damage to Building 7.
(Videos of Barry Jennings' statements and interviews are routinely scrubbed from the internet. Unfortunately, this has happened again, as one of the most complete videos of his account has been removed, as you can see. For a less complete version, see this video here on YouTube.)
Unfortunately, Barry Jennings will never be able to testify on record about what he saw that day. He died, for unknown reasons, just days before the NIST report on 9/11 was released in 2008. One of the film makers who interviewed Jennings for the film Loose Change hired an investigator to find out more about Jennings' mysterious death. All that he found was Jennings' home empty, and up for sale. He then returned the money to the man who hired him, and told the filmmaker to never contact him again. This only added to the mystery. A commenter at a website claimed to be Jennings' son, and claimed his father had died of leukemia, but the identity of the commenter has never been verified.
Hess publicly corroborated important elements of Jennings' account.
This video examines the collapse of WTC7 and some elements of the NIST report.
If that video was a little too technical for you, don't worry. Most of us are not engineers. There are plenty of real experts out there though, thousands of them, who disagree with the government's findings. This video summarizes the details of the WTC 7 collapse in terms we can all understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)