Red Spotlights to Mark ‘Precrime’ Suspects

Aaron DykesInfowars.comJanuary 23, 2012

East Orange, New Jersey to beamsuspects of future criminal activitywith flashy, hi-tech policesurveillance equipment

In a glowing review of the risingprevalence of high-tech big brothersurveillance gadgets in police forceuse, the

1. Associated Press reports thatEast Orange, New Jersey plans tocut crime by highlighting suspectswith a red-beamed spotlight– before any crime is committed– a “pre-crime” deterrent to bemounted on nearby street lights or other fixtures.

Red Lights Newest 'Precrime' Technique

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aebHqLvYjM8

1. Alternative Video Link.

According to the report, police officers monitor hundreds of video feeds from across the city andopt to brand would-be criminals with a red glow if they believe they are about to engage in acrime, such as a street corner mugging.

“Whereas London has talking cameras, we’re about to deploy light projecting cameras, betterknown as light-based intervention systems.” said William Robinson, Police Chief for East Orange.He added, “The message to criminals is, we’re observing you, the police are recording you, andthe police are responding.”

As Robinson mentioned, other “pre-crime” measures have been deployed both in the UK andUnited States, as well as other countries. Talking cameras in the UK bark orders at ‘anti-social’ offenders, while the Homeland Stasi here has partnered with Intellistreets to release“smart” street lights capable of saving energy while monitoring & recording citizens, as well asdisplaying government-mandated emergency alerts on digital banners.

Now “pre-crime” spotlights that bathe surveillance targets in a criminally-branded red color willhelp complete the circle of preemptive suspicion.

But that’s just one flashy feature in a rash of new high-tech solutions provided to the crime-riddencity under federal grant money. In East Orange, and probably a locale near you, too, everyone is a

“pre-crime” suspect until proven innocent. Thevideo goes on to brag that officer squad cars alsoscan the license plates of every single vehicle theypass, checking them against a variety of lists– fromterrorist monitor lists, to unpaid parking tickets,warrants and more. Officers can then pull overvehicles that match watch lists, even if the driverhas committed no violations to draw attention fromthe patrol vehicle. Further, cameras tied into policevideo monitor stations can also be accessed fromsquad cars; officers can zoom in on nearbylocations to determine if a situation is underway, orif a suspect can be identified. The red light isintended to help track a would-be criminal oncesurveillance is already underway. A spokespersonfor the ACLU noted a worrisome climate ofmonitoring and spying on political groups, anti-abortion activists and more. Meanwhile, the MIACMissouri law enforcement memo, as well assimilar documents released from the Departmentof Homeland Security, have made clear that returning veterans and supporters of third partypolitical candidates and many other groups are note only considered “domestic extremists,” buthave been put on law enforcement watch lists as well as anti-terrorism databases. It has furtherbeen revealed that numerous non-violent political groups and grassroots campaigns have beenlabeled as “terrorists” and monitored by regional Fusion Centers.

1. Sac Police To Tap Into Business Security Cameras To Deter Crime

2. Google and CIA Fund Political Precrime Technology

3. Cisco, China Team Up for Surveillance

4. SpyCams Proposed For South Miami Beach

5. One crime solved for every 1,000 CCTV cameras

6. Chicago’s high-tech cameras spark privacy fears

7. Precrime at the Airport

8. Justice, Iraq-style: 39 al Qaeda suspects who are all facing execution without trial

9. Soros and Brzezinski Talking Thai: International Crisis Group spotlights Thailand

10. First downtown cameras installed to help fight crime

11. Big Sis Gives Green Light For Drone That Tazes Suspects From Above

12. Supreme Court says search warrants needed when police use GPS devices to track suspects

A New 9/11 Investigation – Coming toa Theater Near You?Howard Cohen

1. AE911Truth.orgJanuary 23, 2012

Hollywood Stars Seek to Make Feature FilmFocused on WTC Demolitions

“

1. A Violation of Trust” (formerly titled“Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator”) is a featurefilm project that is willing to do what the world’sgovernments and legal bodies are unwilling to do –open a real investigation of 9/11 for the entireworld to see. It dramatizes the first day of “ThePresident’s New Investigation of 9/11”, with actorsperforming from a tightly-written, factually-accurate script that pits the 9/11 CommissionReport and the National Institute of Standards andTechnology (NIST) Reports against the work of9/11 researcher Dr. David Ray Griffin and thescientific research highlighted by leading 9/11 truthorganizations, including Architects & Engineers for9/11 Truth.

The filming of “A Violation of Trust” will be performed on a single set, depicting theinvestigation’s public hearing room. The single-set approach provides the most intense platformfor the actors and the script to involve the audience. The film’s compelling drama, forceful imagesand real-time video clips will be woven into its often contentious question-and-answer dialogue tocreate opportunities for conflicting views that will be argued both passionately and in a scientificand logical manner.

The list of actors that have signed on to this film includes:

A dozen additional actors will be added to the ensemble cast.

1. The production schedule for “A Violation of Trust” is as follows:

Pre-Production: NOW

Principal Photography: 10 days beginning March 22, 2012

Post-Production: 6 weeks

Cannes “Marche du Film” Premiere: May 16, 2012

Release Date: September 11, 2012

For those calling for a new 9/11 investigation, the release of “A Violation of Trust” will be afocusing event. It is a front-row seat in what would be the most critical hearing room of our time.For those unfamiliar with the details of the official government reports published by the 9/11Commission and NIST, or those who sweepingly dismiss all the anomalies and inconsistencies inthe official story as mere naturally occurring coincidence, the movie can act as a catalyst forfurther personal investigation. It will provide an invaluable resource to more fully understand the9/11 attacks and the subsequent government cover-up:

• The state of affairs and events the movie alludes to have a basis in historical reality.

• The scientific evidence and testimonies make vital factual claims based upon soundresearch that are crucial to the persuasive power of the film – and emphasize its role as amirror to reality.

• The filmmakers hope to stimulate discussion and generate demand for a realinvestigation by bringing a neglected subject out of the shadows – What really happenedon 9/11?

“A Violation of Trust” (formerly titled “Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator”), is beingproduced under the auspices of Actors & Artists for 9/11 Truth. Please visit the projectwebsite and consider donating to support the production and marketing of the film. Donate$25 or more and receive a FREE DVD.

The following is an excerpt from the script of “AViolation of Trust” in which the character of RichardGage, AIA, testifies at the hearing.

Fictional characters in this excerpt:

JUDGE ALAN EISNER is a former Federal judge andconfidante of the President who is serving as Chairmanof the investigation.

PROFESSOR RUTH FOWLER is Chief of Research atthe White House.

DR. ELLA SLOAN is the President’s Science Advisor.

MRS. KATHY SAWYER is a representative of familymembers of the 9/11 victims.

DR. SINGER is an assistant to Dr. Shyam Sunder, leadinvestigator for NIST in the 9/11 reports.

MRS. SAWYER: Excuse me Mr. Chairman, but we have a big problem with Dr. Singer’stestimony.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Which part of it?

MRS. SAWYER: All of it.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: What do your experts say?

MRS. SAWYER: Let me introduce Mr. Richard Gage, AIA, a member of the American Instituteof Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Mr. Gage, what sparked your interest in 9/11?

MR. GAGE: In 2006, I caught aninterview with Dr. David Ray Griffin thatchanged my life. He was describing theoral histories from dozens of New YorkCity firefighters that had recently beenreleased due to a court order.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Then whathappened?

MR. GAGE: I started watching videoson the Internet of the buildingscollapsing, looking for signs ofexplosives. You can actually see themgoing off, all around the buildings, just

like the firefighters said.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: You’re sayingthe evidence for explosives has alwaysbeen there right in front of our eyes?

MR. GAGE: Everyone saw the TwinTowers brought down in a way thatcould only have been caused byexplosives. We were just told differentlyby the government and the media – andthen further deceived by the 9/11Commission and NIST.

DR. SLOAN: What would the explosiveshave been used for?

MR. GAGE: To remove the steelcolumns so they didn’t offer anyresistance to the floors falling from above. That’s why the buildings came down at nearly free-fallacceleration.

DR. SLOAN: By free-fall do you mean as fast as if you dropped a bowling ball from the roof andit fell down to the ground without any resistance?

MR. GAGE: It’s basic physics – the same laws of physics Isaac Newton discovered over 300years ago.

DR. SLOAN: So if NIST’s fire theory violates these laws then it must be wrong?

MR. GAGE: Not even George W. Bushcould have written a signing statement thatcan invalidate the laws of physics.

DR. SLOAN: However, on the other hand,I believe you’re saying the theory that theTowers were brought down by explosivesin a controlled demolition does not violatethese laws?

MR. GAGE: That’s right. Something thatcan’t be explained in terms of the officialstory or the laws of physics is fullyunderstandable when you considerexplosives.

DR. SLOAN: Could there be any otherexplanation?

MR. GAGE: Without explosives there’s noway two identical 110 story buildings couldcollapse in about a dozen seconds each.

DR. SLOAN: So the fires and the crashesdidn’t cause them to collapse?

MR. GAGE: Look at the building in thisvideo. It shows 10 characteristic features ofcontrolled demolition. Professor Fowler,please show that video.

VIDEO OF CONTROLLEDDEMOLITION FEATURES.

MR. GAGE: The probability any of these features would occur without explosives is extremelylow. The probability all of them would occur is virtually impossible.

MRS. SAWYER: Whoever planted those explosives knew the planes would be hijacked andflown into the buildings that morning and that the military wouldn’t shoot them down. Theywaited for that to happen and then they blew them up.

DR. SLOAN: If there were no planes would the towers have been blown up anyway?

MRS. SAWYER: Probably not – the idea was to be able to claim they collapsed because theywere hit by the planes. Whoever planted the explosives needed the planes so al-Qaeda could beblamed.

DR. SLOAN: But how did they know al-Qaeda would fly planes into the Towers that morning?

MRS. SAWYER: I don’t know.

DR. SLOAN: But you say they knew in advance theplanes were going to crash on 9/11?

MRS. SAWYER: They had to.

DR. SLOAN: And you’re saying they weren’t al-Qaeda?

MRS. SAWYER: I’m saying al-Qaeda couldn’t havedone it – at least not alone. Find out who helped themand you’ll know how and why.

MR. GAGE: Take a look at this video of Building 7.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: I’m sorry, building what?

MR. GAGE: Building 7. It was never mentioned in the9/11 report and many people, like yourself obviously,have never known about it.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Please continue.

MR. GAGE: Could we see the video, please?

VIDEO OF BUILDING 7 BEINGDEMOLISHED. IMAGE ON THE SCREENCHANGES TO A SPLIT SCREEN IMAGE.ONE IMAGE IS WTC BUILDING 7 WHILETHE OTHER IS A HIGH RISE BUILDINGBEING DEMOLISHED.

MR.GAGE: Building 7 came down at 5:21 PM –7 hours after the Twin Towers. As you can seethis is a comparison to another high-rise that wasbeing demolished by explosives.

MR.GAGE: Play it again please – in slow motion.

VIDEO PLAYS AGAIN.

MR. GAGE: As an architect, I’m trained to watch things in an analytical fashion. Alwaysthinking, ‘how does this happen’ and ‘what makes that happen’.

DR. SLOAN: And what happened to Building 7?

MR. GAGE: It was a controlled demolition, the same as the other one.

PROFESSOR FOWLER: Mr. Chairman, the NIST report admitted Building 7 remained in free-fall for more than 2 seconds.

MR. GAGE: Fires don’t make that happen. Explosivesdo. NIST’s admission about the 2 seconds of free-fall isthe clearest proof that explosives were used to removethe columns.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: They acknowledged the free-fall, but did they explain it?

MR. GAGE: No, their report isn’t scientific, it can’t betrue.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Dr. Singer, do you agreeBuilding 7's collapse looks like the other one, thecontrolled demolition one?

DR. SINGER: In science we have lots of phenomenathat look similar and yet have completely differentcauses.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Do you agreeit could be a controlled demolition?

DR. SINGER: Hypothetically, lots ofthings are possible. But I’m confidentit wasn’t.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Why are youso confident?

DR. SINGER: Our investigationproves that when the North Towercollapsed at 10:28 in the morningsome of its debris hit Building 7 andcaused fires that burned all day until itcollapsed seven hours later.

DR. SLOAN: But physicists, architects, engineers and demolition experts from all over the worldtold you it was probably controlled demolition. Shouldn’t that have made it your priority?

DR. SINGER: I understand why people may think that, but when we learned the facts about theway the building was built, the way it supported itself and the damage that was done when theNorth Tower collapsed that morning – we determined it wasn’t explosives.

MR. GAGE: Are you saying explosives are outside the range of possibilities even though thepossibility of explosives being used is consistent with the evidence?

DR. SINGER: NIST found no corroborating evidence suggesting the building was brought downby controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11. Our fire hypothesis is the onlycredible one.

MR. GAGE: But no steel-framed high-risebuilding anywhere in the world has evercollapsed because of fire. Mrs. Fowler,please show those buildings on fire.

IMAGES ON SCREEN OF STEEL-FRAMED HIGH-RISE BUILDINGFIRES.

MR. GAGE: Look at these buildings. Theyburned much worse, for much longer, anddidn’t collapse. Dr. Singer’s explanation ofwhy Building 7 came down is simplyimpossible.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: In what way?

MR. GAGE: Their final report issued in

2008 claims there were very big, very hot firescovering much of the 12th floor at 5 PM – only21 minutes before the building collapsed. Thesefires are essential to NIST’s explanation as towhy Building 7 collapsed.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Is that true?

DR. SINGER: Yes.

MR. GAGE: But your interim report issued in2004 says the 12th floor fire had completelyburned out by 4:45 – 35 minutes earlier.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Why did NISTcontradict its own report?

DR. SINGER: That’s what we thought in2004. By 2008 we realized we had been wrong.

MR. GAGE: Professor Fowler, please showthose photos I gave you earlier. The images onthe screen are photos of Building 7. The 12thfloor of the building is highlighted. Dr. Singer,you had this photo in your 2004 report with a note attached that said the 12th floor fires werecompletely burned out by 4:45. Professor Fowler, if you would please. The image on the videoscreen depicts Building 7 smoldering with a small fire in the northeast corner.

And this photograph shows the fire in that locationwas completely burned out by 4:00 PM, except forthe northwest corner.

Those are outright contradictions of your officialstory, Dr. Singer. And they’re no trivial matter.Your theory hinges on a fire that your ownphotographs show didn’t even exist an hour beforethe collapse at 5:20 PM.

DR. SINGER: I don’t remember these photos.

DR. SLOAN: I find it hard to believe Building 7collapsed in a manner that looks exactly like acontrolled demolition due to a fire that didn’t exist.If it came down as you claim from ordinary officefires, not explosives, I would expect to see buckling.

MR. GAGE: Professor Fowler, please play thosecomputer simulations. (Various CGI COMPUTERSIMULATIONS are shown next to videos of

Building 7 collapsing).

MR. GAGE: Take a look at these NISTsimulations. They have the building bucklingfrom the fires like you said. But the videosshow the roof and the walls are coming straightdown. These simulations are reason enough toquestion the report.

DR. SLOAN: Let’s be honest Dr. Singer, youcould hardly publish a report that contradictedthe official story. A report that said anythingabout explosives would mean that al-Qaedacouldn’t have done it.

DR. SINGER: That’s not true.

DR. SLOAN: That’s why you had to say officefires did it, even though it meant suggestingscientifically incredible ideas and completelyignoring the facts.

DR. SINGER: No.

DR. SLOAN: Trying to convince us that no evidence of explosives had been found.

DR. SINGER: No.

DR. SLOAN: And that ordinary office fires had caused the building to collapse.

DR. SINGER: Our conclusion is the only one that makes sense. There was no controlleddemolition, no evidence of explosives.

DR. SLOAN: Did you test the steel or the dust for signs of explosives?

DR. SINGER: There was no need todo any tests. Our reports explain howthe buildings came down without them.

MRS. SAWYER: Mr. Chairman, thesetests are specified in the National FireProtection Association’s Guide for Fireand Explosion Investigations.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Then whydidn’t NIST do any tests?

DR. SINGER: Let me point out thatthese are just guidelines published in

that book. They are not rules orregulations or laws of any kind.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: But don’tyou think for NIST, as thegovernment’s official laboratoryfor fire inspection, the sensiblething to do would have been tofollow the guideline and do a simple lab test?

DR. SINGER: No, because there was no evidence of explosives.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: How can you know there’s no evidence if you didn’t test for it?

DR. SINGER: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time – and thetaxpayers’ money.

MR. GAGE: But not testing for explosives is like a homicide investigation not looking at the bodythat’s lying on the ground after the murder – or trying to find the bullets. Evidence of explosionsthat occurred during the collapse can only be found by examining the physical scene after thecollapse.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: I don’t think doing some simple tests is wasting your time or thetaxpayer’s money when three of the biggest buildings in the world collapsed in just seconds killingthousands of people.

MRS. SAWYER: It’s very difficult to find what you’re not looking for.

Howard Cohen, a native of Brooklyn, New York, is the Executive Producer of “A Violation ofTrust”. A lifelong entrepreneur, Cohen successfully ran several publishing businesses thatproduced a variety of educational materials, including the monthly family money managementnewspaper supplement “Common Cents” that appeared in over 100 newspapers nationally, andthe consumer magazine “Better Times” that was sold in supermarkets and other outlets. He hasalso worked as a consultant with former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, whose wife, ValeriePlame, was outed by the Bush Administration as a covert CIA operative. “A Violation of Trust”is Cohen’s inaugural feature film.

1. NIST to Release Report and Recommendations from Investigation of World Trade Center Building 7

2. Fmr. Explosives Loader for Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaks Out

3. Texas Architects & Engineers call for a Real Investigation of the Destruction of the World Trade

Center on 9/11

4. New 9/11 Poll: Half Of New Yorkers Support New Investigation Into WTC7 Collapse

5. Leaked NIST Docs: “Unusual” Event Before Collapse Of WTC 7

6. New Poll: 48% of New Yorkers Support a New Investigation into Building 7's Collapse

7. 1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation

8. Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse

9. Architects and engineers challenge official story of WTC 7 collapse

10. LA police hunt arsonist after 35 fires in Hollywood

11. New Building 7 Collapse Video Clearly Shows Demolition

12. BBC Hit Piece: 9/11 third tower mystery ‘solved’

ALL MOVIES BELOW ARE A MUST WATCHIF YOU WANNA KNOW WHAT’S REALLYGOING ON AND WHO CONTROLS THISPLANET THEIR A MUST WATCH

EndGame Blue Print to Global Enslavement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho&ob=av3e

Police State 2000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKty_3IlXOc

Police State 4: The Rise of FEMA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klqv9t1zVww

Loose Change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71aXlW4gFcg

TerrorStorm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrXgLhkv21Y

Martial Law 911-Rise of the Police State

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIzT6r56CnY

American Dictators

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fr5QC6u2EQ

The Masters Of Terror

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvWftOi_u98

The Obama Deception

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

Fall of the Republic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

The 9/11 Chronicles: Part One, Truth Rising

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yscpNIxjI

Architects and Engineers 9/11: Blueprint for Truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vb7o-OOe20

Architectsand Engineers 911Truth Experts Speak Out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

ZEITGEIST ADDENDUM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs

Invisible Empire A New World Order Definedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E&ob=av3e

FIND THE TRUTH BELOW

http://www.infowars.com/