In a sad commentary on the currently disintegrating state of “main stream media”, I found myself ambushed on Saturday, March 6th, just ten minutes after I arrived at a conference outside Philadelphia on “9-11, the Wars and Our Broken Constitution”.
When young, smiling female producer Katie Hinman identified herself as being with ABC and asked for an interview, I had only just arrived at the conference. So although I was a little surprised that the Nightline TV crew was there, I immediately consented to an interview before anyone had a chance to warn me that the TV show was trying to concoct a connection between the conference and the mentally ill young man who had been killed a few days before while shooting at Pentagon guards.
From the very first question Mr. Bury launched, it was clear, however, that he was not interested in the truth, and that I would not fare any better than someone who consents to go on Bill O’Reilly’s or Glenn Beck’s show.
Journalistic ethics
In the interest of journalistic ethics, let me list a few of the departures from how a decent, ethical, objective journalist would have covered the story of this conference:
1) Chris Bury and his news crew left right after interviewing me. They apparently only spent a couple hours at the conference that morning (before I arrived) and did not interview any of the sick 9-11 rescue workers or 9-11 victim family members. It turns out that while castigating the victims’ quest for more facts about 9-11, they had refused to interview these folks!
2) Bury did not let me answer any of his questions, but repeatedly cut me off after I got only a couple words out. He asked totally leading questions using loaded terms with pejorative connotations like “conspiracy” in connection with the search for facts and evidence. Within a couple minutes, it was clear that Nightline’s Chris Bury was only interested in furthering his pre-determined agenda and conducting a hit type interrogation just as Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and other radio-TV talk shows are fond of doing.
3) Of course Chris Bury and his Nightline crew did not stay to hear my presentation on the terrible consequences of the lack of 9-11 truth — the series of post 9-11 mistakes — nor did they stay to hear any of the other speakers. It’s been said that “truth is the first casualty of war” and there were many other visual displays and speakers, like myself, who made that point about why the truth matters. In fact when I tried to counter Bury’s disparaging line of questioning, by asking why and how it came to be when Bush-Cheney launched their preemptive invasion of Iraq, that 70% of Americans mistakenly believed that Saddam was behind 9-11, Bury did not answer. Nightline edited out my questions of course about this massive deception as well as the rest of my interview in what they chose to air.
4) The Nightline crew appeared so intent on vilification but it missed my presentation on “Truth–the Dribs and Drabs” as well as other speakers’ presentations on questions about inconsistencies in the NORAD time lime, the level of pre 9-11 intelligence that existed, and the actual motivations of the 9-11 hijackers (that involve the illegal Israeli settlements and Israel’s handling of Palestinians instead of Bush’s glib answer “they hate our freedoms”).
5) If Chris Bury and his ABC producer had attended the full two days of this conference, they would have failed to find one single call for violence in any of the presentations. They would have found just the opposite. Of course that would have conflicted with Nightline’s sensationalist angle, stretching to connect the young troubled Pentagon shooter to calls for further investigation of 9-11. Their outrageous proposition was that anyone who asks questions about the momentously tragic event is dangerous.
What Would Gandhi Do?
For many years, I’ve had this little magnet on my refrigerator with a picture of Mahatma Gandhi which says “Truth is the highest God.” What that means to me is that although it’s impossible to fully know the truth (as it is to know “God”), truth is a very worthy pursuit!
So maybe it wouldn’t do much good but we ought to send some of these refrigerator magnets to Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and all those sensationalist Gonzo journalists like Chris Bury to remind them not to forsake their own integrity and their 4th estate responsibilities. The truth really does matter.
Most Americans don’t know what kind of people 9-11 truthers really are. So they can’t figure out whether or not they are dangerous.
Below is a list of people who question what our Government has said about 9-11.
The list proves – once and for all – that people who question 9-11 are “dangerous“.
Email this list to everyone you know, share it on Facebook, Digg, Twitter, Reddit… to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are dangerous nut case conspiracy theorists… (are they really?).
To understand why, watch their recent historic press conference which includes Richard Gage (AIA), Dr. Steven Jones (physicist), Dr. David Ray Griffin (author of several books on 9-11 and Nobel Peace Prize nominee) and Erik Laywer (founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth).
Senior intelligence officers
Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”, and it was probably an inside job (scroll down to Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job
The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.”
Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government’s version of the events of 9/11.
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11
Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence.”
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government’s version of 9/11
Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated: “If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!”
80,000 New York City Voters
In 2009, 80,000 New York City voters signed a petition to support NYC CAN, a coalition of victims’ family members, survivors, first responders and others, all demanding a new independent investigation. The historic petition was repelled by the New York City council and the State Supreme Court.
Why is the mainstream media working hard to call us names and demonize us on the one hand, and on the other hand almost completely denies coverage about what the 9/11 truth movement really is? Why are they afraid of investigating the collapse of WTC Building 7?
When losing a discussion on the facts of 9/11, a so-called 9/11 “debunker” will often rely on an old canard to “prove” that 9/11 could not have been an inside job: “So many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn’t squelch the squealers from spilling the beans,” write self-satisfied defenders of the government story. According to the logic of this argument, if there are no 9/11 whistleblowers then 9/11 was not an inside job.
So what if there are 9/11 whistleblowers? What if these whistleblowers come from every level of government and private industry, individuals who have even had their cases vindicated by internal government reports? As you are about to see, there are numerous such whistleblowers and each one is a thorn in the side of those who want to pretend that the 9/11 Commission represents the sum total of knowledge on the 9/11 attacks.
That is precisely why these whistleblowers are not lauded by legislators or trumpeted by the media, but actively suppressed by government officials and the corporate media alike. These courageous insiders have been sidelined, gagged, hounded from their positions and ignored to the point where their stories are virtually unknown among the general public. And that is exactly why it is vital for the alternative media to make these stories known by bypassing the filters and control of the establishment media.
In an effort to draw more attention to the critical issues and troubling questions raised by the testimony of these insiders, The Corbett Report has just released a documentary exploration of key government and corporate whistleblowers, including a discussion of whistleblower protection and what the public can do to facilitate a wider distribution and awareness of this information. Download an mp3 audio file of the documentary or listen to it in the player below:
The 9/11 Whistleblowers
The 9/11 Commission – The myth that the 9/11 commission report represents an adequate investigation into the events of 9/11 is perhaps best exposed by the commissioners themselves, 6 out of 10 of whom have questioned the commission and its conclusions personally (namely Kean and Hamilton, Kerrey, Roemer, Lehman and Cleland). Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean once famously remarked that the Commission was “set up to fail.” Commission members considered bringing criminal charges against Pentagon officials who had deliberately lied to them about the military’s complete lack of response on that day. One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States.”
Richard Andrew Grove – In 2000, Richard Andrew Grove was working for Silverstream Software, a software development company specializing in enterprise architecture software. By October of that year he had landed the firm their largest client in the company’s history: Marsh & McLennan. After finding evidence that Silverstream was overbilling Marsh by nearly $7 million and being told to keep quiet by both his own management and those he confided to at Marsh, he was fired. After his termination, he was invited to present his evidence at a staff meeting in Marsh’s offices where Marsh employees who were suspicious of such transactions themselves were gathered. That meeting was on the 98th floor of the World Trade Center. It was the 11th of September, 2001. And everyone who was in attendance at the meeting died there that day. Grove, who had been late for the meeting, survived. His remarkable story, as well as subsequent events, led him to start piecing together how 9/11 helped financial institutions and insurance companies cover up billions of dollars in fraud by eliminating those who were asking questions about it.
Sibel Edmonds – In the wake of 9/11, Sibel Edmonds heeded the FBI’s call for Middle Eastern language experts to support their counterterrorism unit. Fluent in Turkish and Azerbaijani and conversational in Farsi, she joined the FBI as a translator on September 15, 2001. She soon discovered gross negligence and criminal conspiracy in the FBI and State Department, including deliberately mistranslated documents in the Bureau’s possession before 9/11 that contained information about the attacks, nuclear spies being facilitated by top government officials and foreign operatives who were taken in for questioning after 9/11 being released because they were connected to those spy rings. A 2005 report from the Office of the Inspector General determined that none of Edmonds’ allegations can be refuted. In 2009, Edmonds revealed that Osama Bin Laden had been working for U.S. intelligence right up to the day of 9/11.
William Bergman – In August 2001 the Federal Reserve Board of Governors issued a non-routine supervisory letter warning Fed banks to be vigilant in monitoring suspicious activity reports. At the same time, the United States’ economy was experiencing its largest June-August spike in M1 money supply since 1947, with more than $5 billion being added to the currency in circulation over that period. Piecing this information together at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago two years later, economist Bill Bergman wondered if the sudden infusion of currency might have been an indicator of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, as those with assets in danger of being frozen in the wake of such an attack would naturally want to liquidate their holdings before an investigation could occur. When Bergman wrote to the Board of Governors to ask for clarification as to why they had issued their supervisory letter, he was told that he had committed “an egregious breach of protocol in calling the Board staff and asking the question.”
Coleen Rowley – When the so-called “20th hijacker” Zaccharias Moussaoui was detained on August 15th, 2001, agents in the Minneapolis FBI field office immediately sought a criminal warrant to search his belongings. Management at the FBI dealing with the request threw up numerous obstacles to the agents, and even withheld information from them, including the now-infamous Phoenix Memo written by an agent in Arizona warning of terrorists training in flight schools for a possible upcoming attack. The request was denied and agents were prevented from searching Moussaoui’s laptop, which contained information that would have tipped the FBI off to the 9/11 plot. The Minneapolis field office Chief Counsel, Coleen Rowley, has been very public with her disgust at the conduct of FBI management during the case and its subsequent review, and she has supported causes like NYC CAN which seek to re-open the 9/11 investigation.
J. Michael Springmann – A 20-year veteran of the State Department’s Foreign service, J. Michael Springmann served 18 months as the head of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 1988-89. During that time he repeatedly rejected visa applications from unqualified individuals only to have his decisions overturned by the head of the consulate. When he returned to Washington, he discovered that the Jeddah consulate was being used as a place for funnelling Afghan mujahedeen into the U.S. for training, facilitated by the CIA on behalf of their asset, Osama bin Laden. The Jeddah consulate would be the very office that issued 15 of the alleged 9/11 hijackers’ visas to enter the United States. After numerous complaints up the chain of command, Springmann’s contract with the State Department was not renewed.
Robert Wright – In the 1990s, Special Agent Robert Wright of the FBI’s Chicago field office spearheaded an investigation into terrorist financing codenamed Vulgar Betrayal. The investigation uncovered information about Yassin Al-Qadi, a terrorist financier who would go on to be designated a global terrorist financier by the U.S. treasury in the wake of 9/11. Vulgar Betrayal led to information about the African embassy bombings in 1998 and resulted in the seizure of $1.4 million of terrorist financing. Despite the investigation’s remarkable success, however, Wright was taken off of Vulgar Betrayal in 1999 and reduced to a paper pusher. In 2002, Wright went public with information about how his investigations had been systematically starved for funds, hindered and obstructed by FBI management and revealed that he believes 9/11 could have been prevented if he had been allowed to continue his investigation. The Bureau prevented him from releasing a book about his experience. He was threatened with legal action if he revealed any details about what he had been investigating.
Indira Singh – As a risk management consultant for J.P. Morgan in 2001, Indira Singh was tasked with implementing the next generation of risk management software for the firm. Working for one of the largest financial institutions in the world, Singh wanted to choose a reputable software vendor for the task, one with a proven track record of working with the sensitive information of important clients. She solicited a presentation from Ptech, an enterprise architecture software firm whose clients included some of the most sensitive departments in the U.S. government, including the FBI, the Department of Defense, the Treasury, the IRS, the US Navy and the White House. After performing due diligence on the company, Singh discovered that it had been started in part by funds from Yassin Al-Qadi (the same Specially Designated Global Terrorist that Robert Wright’s investigation had been focused on). She discovered many other disturbing links between Ptech officers and suspected terrorist organizations. Ptech had been conducting tests on the interoperability of FAA and NORAD computer systems in the event of an emergency on the morning of 9/11. When she tried to bring this information to the FBI in Boston she was told by one agent that she was in a better position to investigate the case than the Bureau was.
Barry Jennings – Barry Jennings was the Deputy Director of Emergency Services for the New York City Housing Department. On the morning of 9/11, he received a phone call informing him that a plane had hit the World Trade Center and asking him to go to the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center Building 7. Arriving at the office with New York City Corporation Counsel Michael Hess, the men discovered that the OEM had been abandoned. When they attempted to leave there was a series of explosions inside the building, trapping them in the stairwell. Eventually Jennings and Hess were rescued by firefighters, and as they were leaving World Trade Center 7, they had to step over a number of bodies. Jennings’ account contradicts the official government explanation of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 at 5:20 p.m. that day, which stated there were no explosions or casualties in the collapse. Jennings died on August 19, 2008 under extremely suspicious circumstances.
Protecting the Whistleblowers – New Legislation Threatens Whistleblower Protections in the U.S.
All of the 9/11 whistleblowers have faced intimidation or even prosecution for going public with their stories and the establishment media has played along by failing to publicize their information. But as incredible as it sounds, things are going to get even tougher for national security whistleblowers if draconian new legislation in the Senate gets signed into law.
According to Stephen Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center, the bill (S.372) actually started off as whistleblower protection legislation, but “poison pills” have been inserted at the last minute that will repeal already-existing protections for national security whistleblowers. “[This legislation] gives the FBI director the authority to summarily fire any whistleblower with no judicial review” Kohn told The Corbett Report in a recent interview. “These[...]consitutional thugs—administrators who have no respect for the public right to know, no respect for freedom of speech—they want more power. And they’re going to get it if this law passes.”
Even worse, the bill is being passed through the senate via a special legislative process known as “hotlining.” This means that it will be automatically passed by the senate unless a senator steps forward to object to the bill. No vote will even be held unless such an objection takes place.
The good news is that this process requires unanimous consent, meaning that if even a single senator raises an objection to the bill it will have to be re-worked and/or brought to a vote on the senate floor. The really good news is that there is no excuse for any senator to duck political pressure on this issue: there is no 60-vote supermajority needed here, and a senator doesn’t have to be on any specific committee to voice opposition to the bill. This means that average U.S. citizens have a very good chance of stopping the bill in its tracks. All that is required is for people to make their senators aware just how important this legislation is to them and that they won’t stand by while the courageous national security whistleblowers are railroaded and stripped of their protections. If this becomes a significant issue, it is almost guaranteed that a single senator could be persuaded to raise an objection.
All U.S. citizens are strongly advised to contact their senator about the bill and to get others to do the same by passing this information around. The 9/11 whistleblowers and many others like them have risked everything including their careers, their reputations and even their lives to bring the inside truth to the public. Now it’s time for the public to give something back by opposing S.372 and showing their solidarity with the whistleblowers.
Alex Jones Exposes Attempt to Demonize 9/11 Truth on Fox News Following Pentagon Incident
(Video below)
Alex Jones exposes key information about the Pentagon shooting and the Christmas Day Bombing during a live segment with Geraldo Rivera on FOX News this Saturday. Geraldo asks if the Pentagon shooting incident “will stick to the 9/11 Truther people”, almost as if that was someone’s intent. Alex responds in anger about why the media moved so quickly in attempt to demonize 9/11 Truthers– who broadly include, polls show, a majority of Americans and 6 out of 10 9/11 Commissioners who question the official story.
Alex makes clear in the segment, it was no more than one hour after the incident that major national news outlets were reporting the connection– how were they so ready to report, and why were they so focused on Bedell’s apparent postings about 9/11? What makes the establishment so uncomfortable about 9/11 questions that its media tools work overtime to denounce it? Pundits like Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Chris Matthews constantly hype up the “hurt feelings” the movement causes or its alleged potential for violence. Then when random, lone nut acts occur, news teams dash to explain the supposed anti-government motivation behind the acts, whether seeking to link it 9/11 truth in this case, or to the Tea Party movement in the case of the IRS plane crash mentioned by Geraldo.
Alex Jones on Fox News
Alex Jones is the host of the Alex Jones radio show. More details on Infowars.com.
The snap-reaction of reporting Bedell to be a 9/11 truther within one hour of the incident is a smoking gun that media forces intentionally sought to link violence with those asking questions about 9/11 (who have been demonstrably non-violent) and to damage the movement via induced public anger over the incident.
Alex also exposes, for the first time on national television, how the Underwear Bomber was helped onto the plane prior to his attempted Christmas day bombing and given clearance by the U.S. State Dept. on orders of intelligence officials– despite the fact that his father had warned government authorities well in advance that his son posed a danger. Though outrageous, this behavior is part of a pattern, and frankly, part of history. From the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to the Vietnam War to the now declassified Operation Northwoods documents and more, the U.S. government has proposed and carried out deceptions– including deadly lies that cost Americans lives– in order to sell the public on an agenda.
For his part, Geraldo was fair in giving Alex Jones time to speak, and even stepped in to back up Alex when Kimberley questioned “what evidence” he had for his serious allegations that the U.S. had carried out false flag attacks in the past. The “Gulf of Tonkin is very well documented,” Geraldo points out.
At the Treason in America Conference on 3/6/2010, ABC News decided to drop by and “cover” the event. The creators of theLoose Change documentaries, Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe were interviewed for a piece within the next week on the Pentagon shooter. They were ready for them.
You can see the entire conversation right here, uncut… (see below)
“What happens is ABC News comes and interviews us and goes and attacks us instead of actually maybe try to get some accountability for the events. It’s easier for you guys to interview two young filmmakers and attack them, call them names, put words in their mouth and extract soundbites from them than to actually go and try to investigate the attacks. So we are just fighting back and forth with the media. You just keep calling us names and we keep going: ‘uh, why aren’t you going to interview actual people that could lead to an new investigation?’ Why is it easier to interview us and to demonize us than to try and get your job done?”
“We already know what you guys are going to do. Just by the questions you asked us. It’s very clear what your agenda is. So the only question is: are you going to continue attacking us and doing the same thing the media has done for years or are you actually going to try and get some justice?”
“We’re a peaceful movement. And just because someone picks up a gun and shots people and the News decides to say he was a ‘truther’ that doesn’t meant that all of a sudden all of us are suddenly going to pick up guns. And that’s funny because when we try to do good things, when we donate money to the first responders or when we try to show support and educate other people, that we don’t get any coverage.”
— Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe, Loose Change filmmakers
Twelve New England Towns Demand New 9/11 investigation
RT reports that a new movement to reinvestigate the 9/11 attacks is gaining pace in the US. With major public support, 12 towns are set to decide whether to ask the federal government for a new independent probe. Twelve towns are making a new 9/11 inquiry a ballot box issue this spring. Voters heading to the polls will vote on a non-binding resolution that supporters hope eventually sparks momentum and legislative power nationwide.
Hundreds of citizens are expressing a desire to find out the real truth and are attending meetings where local experts present alternative 9/11 theories, specifically surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers.
Last year, NYC CAN, a coalition of 9/11 victims’ family members, survivors, first responders and others, submitted a petition signed by 80,000 New York City voters to the NYC city council, demanding a referendum vote for a new investigation. The demand was repelled by the council and the State Supreme Court.
Despite the undemocratic decision by the city of New York, NYC CAN continued their battle a few weeks later by creating “Vote For Answers: New Hampshire” which is supported by several New Hampshire political leaders. To learn more about this historic initiative, to get involved and to donate in support of their quest for a new 9-11 investigation, visit voteforanswersnh.com
While most elected officials have ignored cries for a 9/11 probe, former Keene mayor Mike Blastos is an exception.
“As current and former public servants, it is our duty to raise our voice with those from across the country and around the world to call attention to the omissions and falsehoods in the official account of the events of September 11, 2001.
The good people of New Hampshire are asked to sacrifice ever more in the War on Terrorism and yet there has been no true investigation into the events of September 11th for which this war is being fought.
So long as our policies continue to be based on those tragic events, it will never be too late for honest answers to reasonable questions that to this day go unanswered. In defense of our nation and in defense of freedom itself, we must get to the bottom of what happened.”
—Mayor Mike Blastos, City of Keene, New Hampshire
The 9/11 commission, like the Warren Commission, left millions of Americans doubtful over the official governments version.
Twelve New England Towns Demand New 9/11 investigation: RT Report
One disturbing fact regarding both the NYC CAN and the Vote for Answers New Hampshire initiatives by the families of the victims, is they had almost no US media coverage. One would expect to hear about this on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and others. We can only applaud the fair an balanced reporting from RT and hope that it will inspire more media to cover this very important story.
New Hampshire was the first colony to declare independence from England in 1776. Only time will tell if the first sovereign US state will be where the push for a new 9-11 investigation will prevail.
Over the last couple years, WeAreChange Colorado working with Colorado 911 Visibility and other activist groups in the Colorado area, along with the people at KBDI channel 12, were able to show many powerful films that have never been shown on cable TV before.
“These shows particularly turned out to be really really interesting to a large segment of our population [viewers] and I would say the response to it has been almost 95% in favor of what we’ve been doing.”
—Wick Roland, President & CEO of DBDI Channel 12
This is an other inspiring example of WeAreChange’s successes to bring the 9/11 truth movement’s information to a more mainstream audience as well as a barometer of that audience’s interest in the information. We invite other media to join us in informing the public about the inconsistencies of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory of the Bush administration and the recent scientific findings of unignited chips of nano-thermite in the WTC dust by Steven Jones, Niels Harrit and others.
Do the same in your area
We Are Change Colorado invites you to contact your local stations and do the same.
“Getting shows like this on your local television channel is a way you can make a positive difference in your community and promote citizen journalism.”
Go to your local KBDI’s local station or any public station, show them the DVDs and help them organize. That’s how these activist groups were able to accomplish so much.
Would you like to know what the French “spies” think of Al Qaeda? Hold-on tight, the masks are about to fall.
Note: The DGSE is the French equivalent of USA’s CIA or UK’s MI6.
During a round-table discussion at the French Senate January 29, 2010, on the topic of “Where are we at with Al Qaeda?”, Alain Chouet — former head of the Security Intelligence Service of the DGSE (Directorate-General for External Security: the French equivalent of the CIA or MI6) — demystified the concept of “Al Qaeda” and denounced the inappropriate responses and other instrumentalizations by the West, without however deflating the dangers of Islamic extremism.
The video below has been subtitled into English (thanks to ReOpen911.info) and edited to include the best parts of Alain Chouet’s passionate discourse containing no stonewalling or political doublespeak, placing itself light-years ahead of the official discourse about September 11th and “the nebulous Al Qaeda” that the mainstream media have been reporting for far too long.
Alain Chouet: “Al Qaeda Dead Since 2002″
Transcript
I’m Alain Chouet. For those who aren’t familiar with the internal organization of Intelligence Services, notably the French Intelligence Services, the Security and Information Services is charged with the collection of information and the implementation of active overseas measures in terms of counter-criminality, counter-espionage, counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism.
As with so many of my colleagues from around the world, I feel that on the basis of key information gathered, that ‘Al Qaeda’ died as a functioning force in the rat caves of Tora-Bora in 2002.
The Pakistani Intelligence Services, from 2003 to 2008, then happily offered us what was left in exchange for various indulgences.
Of the 400 active members of the organization which existed in 2001, as described in Marc Sageman’s excellent book, “Understanding Terror Networks” less than 50 henchmen (apart from Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawaihri), who have no functional competence were able to escate and dissapear into remote regions, leading percarious lives, with primitive means of communication.
It’s not in this way that you can run a globaly coordinated network of political violence. Besides, it seems clear that none of the perpetrators of the post-9/11 terrorist attacks (London, Madrid, Casablanca, Djerba, Charm-el-Sheikh, Bali, Bombay, etc.) had any contact with the organization.
As for the more or less offbeat claims of responsability, occasionally articulated by Bin Laden or Zawahiri, supposing we can actually authenticate them, it doesn’t implicate any operational, organisational or functional link between these terrorists and the remains of the organisation.
However, I’m compelled to establish like everyone, that to keep invoking Al Qaeda as the source of everything, whenever a Muslim commits an act of violence, or a Muslim finds themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time (like with the AZF factory near Toulouse), or even when Muslims aren’t involved at all (like with the Anthrax attacks in the US), a certain number of reductivist members of the media, as well as some so-called side-experts, and others from the Atlantic have ended up not just reviving Al Qaeda, but transforming it into a kind of Amédée from the author Eugène Ionesco, a corpse which continually grows and overshadows reality, and which we don’t know how to get rid of it.
The dogmatic obsinacy of the West in invoking the mythical Al Qaeda (that has been characterised as a superterrorist not because of what it did, but because it attacked a superpower), has quickly had 2 pernicious effects.
1st effect: every violent protester in the Muslim world, either political or common-law, regardless of their motivation, quickly understood that he should claim to be from Al Qaeda so as to be taken seriously, so as to cover his actions in a legitimacy recognized by others, so as to give his actions an international impact.
At the same time all the regimes in the Muslim world, as we know, not the most virtuous, have well understood that they had every interest in passing off their opponents and protesters whoever they were for members of Bin Laden’s organisation, so as to quietly suppress them and even if possible to do so with assistance from the West.
Hence a proliferation of ‘Al Qaeda’ more or less designated or self-proclaimed, in Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Maghreb, and elsewhere “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.”
The principal result of this idiotic dialectic has of course been to reinforce the myth of an omnipresent Al Qaeda, lurking behind every Muslim, ready in waiting to hit the West in general, the US of course in particular, in the name of who knows what perversity. And this vision is a product of several errors of judgment and perspective, and it above all generates completely inappropriate retorts.
Because if Al Qaeda doesn’t exist, Islamic political violence well and truly exists. And the West is but an indirect and collateral victim of it.
Violent Islamic ideologues aren’t God’s warriors: they’re people with precise objectives, which isn’t to convert the world to Islam, it’s to take the power and riches which come from the Muslim world, without the West intervening. In a way like Hassan al-Tourabi in his day in Sudan.
Thus, even if the West’s self-esteem has to suffer as a result, we need to constantly repeat that the first, the heaviest, and the main victims of Islamic violence are Muslims themselves.
Of course, one can always disagree that since jihadist violence does exist, and it’s developing pretty much everywhere following the same patterns, that we call it Al Qaeda hardly matters given that is only the generic designation for a certain form of globalized fundamentalist violence.
A number of recently prudent journalists now tell us about “the nebulous Al Qaeda”: the problem is that such a semantic confusion is at the origin of all the incorrect responses thus far, and de facto excludes any adapted solution to the problem.
Every security and intelligence service knows all too well that you don’t confront the ‘Lone Wolf technique’ by means of military action, armored divisions or an inflation of uniform security measures. You confront it by targeted security measures, supported by political, social, economic, educational and cultural initiatives which aim to drain the pool of potential volunteers, by cutting their ideological and financial sponsors.
Not only (and I’m referring to different American treasury reports) was nothing serious undertaken to attempt to curb the underlying financial structure, and even less the ideological structure of jihadist violence, but in designating Al Qaeda as a permanent enemy against which we must lead a crusade by military and security means totally unsuited to how things are, we’ve used a machine gun to kill a mosquito.
Obviously we missed the mosquito but the collateral damage is evident as we can see every day in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen…
And the 1st effect of this failed crusade has been to feed the pool of volunteers, to legitimize this form of violence, to render it the sole reference of action and possible assertion in a Muslim world in which the collective imagination is now traumatized by a universal law of suspicion that weights them down, through massive military interventions and occupations, both endless and blind.
For 9 years, the West has struck without much discernment in Iraq, Afghanistan, the tribal regions of Pakistan, Somalia, Palestine of course (and we’re now thinking about intervention in Yemen, and while we’re at it why not Iran…), but in the eyes of the Muslims, Bin Laden is still a step ahead of the world’s most powerful army and the Islamic regime in Saudi Arabia stays under America’s absolute protection.
To conclude and try to bring an element of response to the question asked at this roundtable, “Where are we at with Al Qaeda?”, Al Quaeda died between 2002 and 2004.
But before dying it was “impregnated” by western strategic errors and unwise calculations by certain Muslim countries and it’s given birth to little ones.
The problem for us is whether we will commit the same mistakes with the unwelcome offspring, by fueling an indefinite cycle of violence, or to refer back to Ionesco, whether we will partner with the Arabs and Muslims to halt the proliferation of the rhinoceroses.
Thank you.
[Other panel member:]
It goes to show that hands-on experience in difficult conditions, considering the number of honours that Mr. Chouet has accumulated so far, provides an original and mind-blowing understanding. That was really, very interesting.
Script: Demi-Lune
Translation: DJDaveMark
Corrections: Mohshin D
Subtitles: Cristof
From AE911Truth: We’re proud to have the endorsement of The Jersey Girls, who single handedly forced the Bush Administration to convene to 9/11 Commission after one year of inaction following the attacks of September 11.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is proud to be working for and on behalf of the 9/11 victims’ family members, in particular The Jersey Girls. We recommend “9/11 Press for Truth“, which is the story of the Jersey Girls and their struggle for the truth.
We are pleased that Patty and Lorie have signed our petition. We have also received signatures from Josef Princiotta, Manny Badillo, Bob McIlvaine, Ellen Mariani. Let us know if there are any of them we are not listing here!
We have taken a lot of criticism from so called debunkers & unconscious government officials that our work is “upsetting the family members”. Let it be clear that only the truth about the deaths of these innocent people will bring healing to their loved ones. AE911Truth has ever increasing support from them to reveal the truth to the American people.
Open Letter from The Jersey Girls
February 25, 2010
We must applaud Mr. Richard Gage and his colleagues, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, for their tenacity in seeking to answer lingering questions concerning the total destruction of the World Trade Center complex, in particular buildings 1, 2 and 7.
As with any scientific report, conclusions must be able to be replicated and verified by subsequent public peer reviews. Mr. Gage and his colleagues have attempted to do just that with NIST’s Final Report of the Collapse of the WTC. There seem to be discrepancies and omissions in NIST’s conclusions, which Mr. Gage and his colleagues have brought to light.
With their combined professional training and work experience, this group of professionals is uniquely qualified to address the myriad oddities resulting in the collapse of the WTC high-rise buildings – including WTC 7, which was not hit by an airplane. This chosen course of action by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, has often come at a high cost to them personally and professionally making this endeavor all the more admirable.
As family members of 9/11 victims, we have been seeking truth and transparency since 200l. Almost nine years later, in spite of the NIST Investigation and the 9/11 Independent Commission, a vast majority of our questions remain unanswered.
It was always our hope that both of these government investigations would uncover the cause of the WTC destruction and any loopholes or lapses in security protocols that could be remedied to protect us in the future. In this case, it was of utmost importance to determine what actually caused the collapses to ensure the future safety of high-rise buildings. Since the government failed to do that, we applaud Mr. Richard Gage and the many other professionals who are spending their own time attempting to seek the truth.
Sincerely,
Patty Casazza
Lorie Van Auken
Mindy Kleinberg
Monica Gabrielle
The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement
Part II: A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010
Original article by Elizabeth Woodworth, posted on GlobalResearch.ca
In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account.Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a “conspiracy theory” ignoring science and common sense.
This essay presents these media analyses in the form of 18 case studies.
Eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.
This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media – might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country’s foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge.
I. Introduction
Until 2009, doubts about the official 9/11 story were briefly entertained by the mainstream media on each anniversary of the event, allowing the independent research community only a fleeting moment once a year to publicly voice its findings.
But after crucial scientific evidence emerged in April 2009 to challenge the official story of how the towers fell, a spate of European media reports followed. The news coverage of this evidence seems to have opened the door to more serious reflection on all aspects of the 9/11 issue in the major media.
The first paper in my series, “The Media Response to 9/11,” dealt with the New Statesman’s grudging recognition of Dr. David Ray Griffin, the world’s “top truther” (as it dubbed him), placing him number 41 among “The 50 People Who Matter Today.”1 Since this admission in September 2009, the issue has gathered increasing momentum.
The collective content issuing from this new momentum is presented here in the hope that it will embolden other major media to take up the pivotal controversy concerning 9/11, and pursuing the truth wherever it may lead.
Observations on the Analysis
While carrying out my analysis, I observed five new features in the media treatment of the 9/11 issue that developed as 2009 progressed. They are listed here, so that readers might look for them in the case studies that follow below:
1. The 9/11 issue is increasingly framed not as conspiracy theories versus hard science, but as a legitimate controversy resting on unanswered questions and a search for truth.
2. News reports and television programs examining these controversies have become longer and more balanced.
3. Major media outlets have begun to present the claims of the truth movement first, followed by counter-arguments from defenders of the official story.
4. Major media outlets have begun to include, and even to introduce, extensive evidence to support the claims of the 9/11 truth community.
5. The media treatments increasingly suggest the possibility of a re-investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.
The first part of this essay deals with the crucial scientific evidence that emerged in early 2009, the significance of this evidence in relation to the official story of 9/11, and the immediate news coverage it received.
II. Scientific Paper Finds Nano-thermite Explosives in World Trade Center Dust, April 3, 2009
A peer-reviewed paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009,2 reported that a little known high-tech explosive called nano-thermite was found throughout the World Trade Center dust.
These physicists and chemists involved in this study discovered “distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers”3 in four samples of dust collected from the area. The presence of aluminum and iron oxide in the red material provided one of the signs that it might be nano-thermite, which is a high explosive (whereas ordinary thermite is an incendiary.)
Another clue was provided when putting a flame to the chips produced an explosive reaction.
On the basis of these and other observations, the team concluded that “the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”4
The article’s first-named author, Dr. Niels Harrit – a University of Copenhagen chemistry professor who specializes in nano-chemistry5 –explained on Danish TV2 News:
“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron.
“So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.
“You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite.”6
What was the significance of this sophisticated material?
Reported Evidence that Nano-thermite is a Military Substance
In a German interview in May 2009, Dr. Harrit said: “There are no experts on nano-thermite without connections to the military…. This stuff has only been prepared under military contracts in the USA and probably in bigger allied countries. This is secret military research…It was not prepared in a cave in Afghanistan.”7
Chemist Kevin Ryan, another co-author, had reported in an earlier article that explosive nano-thermite, which may be painted onto surfaces, was developed by US government scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.8
A United States Department of Defense special publication confirms that work on these “energetic materials” has long been “performed in laboratories within all military services.”9
According to a June 2009 statement by Britain’s prestigious Institute of Nanotechnology,10 the Harrit study “provides indisputable evidence that a highly engineered explosive called nano-thermite was found in the dust of all three buildings that came down on 9/11 2001 in New York city. [sic] This advanced explosive incorporating nanotechnology is only available to sophisticated military labs.”11
It thus became known by mid-2009 that explosives of military origin, probably in the United States, had been involved in the World Trade Center collapses.
Early Coverage of the Nano-thermite Finding in the European Mainstream Press
Although the new scientific evidence against the official story of 9/11 was not reported in the mainstream British or North American media, it did receive attention in continental Europe.
The day the article was published, a thorough essay in the Danish journal Videnskab (Science) examined both sides of the controversy about controlled demolition.12
The same issue of Videnskab also carried an interview with Professor Harrit, who answered pointed questions about the peer-review history of the article, and the military nature of nano-thermite.13
The following day, Denmark’s politiken.dk reported the scientific nano-thermite paper in an article called (in Danish) “Conspiracy theories about 9/11 get new life.”14
Then, the day after Professor Harrit’s April 6 interview Danish TV2 News, he was featured on the popular talk show, “Good Morning Denmark”, on which he said:
“The material we found is super hi-tech frontline military research. It’s not a mixture of random chemicals. It’s an advanced material which is difficult to get information on. But some conference papers and internal reports have been published…There has to be a normal forensic investigation of this attempt. Our research is high-level forensic work. We have provided technical evidence that can be used in the future investigation.”15
On April 13, an online Croatian political newspaper posted the Danish TV2 video interview with Harrit along with an article titled “VIDEO: 9/11 No Longer Taboo Topic in Denmark”.16
Russia also took notice. On July 9, Laura Emmett, the London correspondent for RT, interviewed Dr. Niels Harrit for over 10 minutes. (RT, previously known as Russia Today, is a globally broadcast English-language channel sponsored by the state-owned news agency RIA Novosti. It reaches 1.5 million people monthly, including half a million Americans.) Stating that “the evidence for controlled demolition is overwhelming”, Harrit reported that the nano-thermite reaction produced pools of molten iron beneath the rubble and inextinguishable fires that lasted for months.17
I turn now to ways that the mainstream news coverage of the case against the official story has changed since the appearance of the nano-thermite paper.
III. The Changing Mainstream Media Treatment of 9/11 Evidence from early 2009 to early 2010: 18 Case Studies
Two February 2009 news items illustrate the wary mainstream attitude towards conspiracy theorists early in the year. A New York Times article said about actor Daniel Sunjata:
The second episode of “Rescue Me’s” fifth season, starting in April, may represent the first fictional presentation of 9/11 conspiracy theories by a mainstream media company…Mr. Sunjata’s character delivers a two-minute monologue…describing a “neoconservative government effort” to control the world’s oil, drastically increase military spending and “change the definition of pre-emptive attack.”
Mr. Sunjata surprised some of the TV reporters when he said that he “absolutely, 100 percent” supports the assertion that “9/11 was an inside job.”18
Fox News was somewhat less constrained, saying:
An upcoming episode of the drama “Rescue Me” is about 9/11 being an inside job. The actor who spews the theories on camera, Daniel Sunjata, actually believes in it too.
Look, the fact is, actors who barf this crap are doing it for their own egos. It makes them feel smart, because for once they’re spouting something provocative instead of puerile. Never mind that it’s an insidious insult to the victims of 9/11 – as it is to the rest of us, who may or may not be guilty, according to Sunjata’s theory.19
However, things started to change after the appearance of the nano-thermite paper on April 3, as may be seen from the following case studies of media reports, each of which is identified as having corporate, public, or independent ownership.
The case studies reveal the evidence which has been introduced into public consciousness during the past year.
Case Study 1: The Dutch TV Mock Trial of Osama bin Laden, April 25, 2009
On April 8, 2009, a popular TV program called “Devil’s Advocate” held a mock trial of Osama bin Laden with lawyers arguing before a politically balanced civil jury of five people.
The case against bin Laden was argued by two real-world opponents: former American correspondent Charles Groenhuijsen, and Dutch-American Glenn Schoen of a US security firm. Real-world lawyer Gerald Spong acted as bin Laden’s defense attorney.20
Spong presented new evidence from a videotape of Professor Emeritus of Islamic Studies Gernot Rotter, saying that the American translators who transcribed the bin Laden tapes of the November 9, 2001 “confession video” have “clearly added things in many places – things that are not there even when listening multiple times.”21
Spong won. Although the jury found bin Laden to be a terrorist, it said there was no proof that he had ordered the 9/11 attacks.
Through this method, this program on AVRO – the Dutch public broadcasting organization – presented evidence, not previously seen in the major media, against the likelihood that bin Laden ordered the attacks.
On April 15, Fox News reported the Dutch jury findings in a long and unusually balanced article, in which former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani was quoted six times, saying that bin Laden’s exoneration sent a “disturbing message” to the world and fueled conspiracy theories. Giuliani variously called this message “bizarre,” “dangerous,” “aberrational,” “irrational,” and “unfortunate.”22
However, referring to Spong as a “well-known yet controversial attorney,” Fox mentioned him 10 times, and more substantively, reporting his evidence that the bin Laden videos seemed inauthentic, as well as his point that the FBI has not indicted bin Laden for the attacks.
Concluding Comment: (AVRO is publicly owned, but Fox News is corporate.) Neither of these two mainstream treatments of doubts about the official story was broadcast on the customary anniversary date, and both reached millions of people.
Case Study 2: Architect Richard Gage in Canada’s “Financial Post”, April 25, 2009
One of Canada’s top four English-language newspapers, the conservative National Post, publishes its business section as the Financial Post.
Three weeks after the nano-thermite story broke, Jonathan Kay, a National Post columnist and editor with degrees in both engineering and law, wrote an article about Richard Gage, the “lucid” San Francisco architect who heads up the 1,000-strong “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.”23
Kay, who himself endorses the official story of 9/11, described Gage as a “respectable-looking middle-aged” architect, “complete with suit and tie, and receding hairline,” and reported that Gage’s organization “scored a booth at the upcoming American Institute of Architects conference from April 30 to May 2.”
In the midst of references to thermite reactions and iron-oxide-based explosives, Kay wrote of controlled demolitions:
“As radical as Gage’s theory may sound to readers, it’s surprisingly popular. The ‘9/11 Truth Movement’…has millions of adherents across the world. Many believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed on Sept. 11 through controlled demolition set in motion by officials within America’s own government and military.”
Gage’s presentation was also described as “effective”:
“In one particularly effective segment, he puts up shots of the localized fires that broke out in the lower floors of WTC Building 7 hours before it collapsed. Seconds later, he shows footage of Beijing’s Mandarin Oriental hotel – which suffered an epic top-to-bottom conflagration in 2009…and remained standing.”
Concluding Comment: (Corporate). Besides reporting Gage’s evidence without any attempted refutation, this corporate-press writer remarked that “no major media outlet has done a truly comprehensive profile or investigation of the Truther movement.” He thereby seemed to be suggesting that it is now time to take the 9/11 truth movement seriously.
Case Study 3: Norwegian State Radio’s Public Debate on 9/11 Truth, May 21, 2009
Professor Harrit, who was lecturing in Norway in late May 2009, was interviewed by public radio program “Here and Now”,24 on NRK (the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation).
Harrit presented the findings of the nano-thermite paper, which were then discussed by three Norwegian scientists who did not support his conclusions.
Following the radio program, an extended email debate continued between Dr. Ola Nilsen, who teaches chemistry at the University of Oslo, and Dr. Steven Jones, a co-author of the nano-thermite paper who formerly taught physics at Brigham Young University. This debate, during which Nilsen somewhat modified his original view, was posted to a Norwegian blogsite in English.25
Concluding Comment: (Public). Although NRK in this April program challenged the findings of the Harrit paper, this was to change by late summer, as we shall see below.
Case Study 4: Architect Richard Gage on Fox News, May 28, 2009
The hosts of Fox News on KMPH in Fresno, California, began their 7-minute interview by saying, “He’s an architect experienced in steel structures. Now Richard Gage is…here to show us why he’s calling for a more thorough investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.”26
These two anchors actively encouraged Gage’s discussion of the ten key features of controlled demolition. He was allowed to explain the free-fall acceleration of WTC 7 (shown on his two video frames as dropping at the same rate as a second building felled by controlled demolition) and the “uncanny” failure of 40,000 tons of structural steel columns that were designed to resist its collapse.
Although normal office fires were said to have caused the collapses, he explained, various firefighters had reported large pools of molten iron at ground level.
“What produced all that molten iron?” he asked.
The answer, he said, was found in the inches of dust covering lower Manhattan. “The by-product of thermite is molten iron and it’s dispersed throughout all this dust…and there are small chips of unignited thermite as well. This is very high-tech thermite – nano-thermite. It’s not found in a cave in Afghanistan; it’s produced in very sophisticated defense department contracting laboratories…[its] particles are one-thousand times smaller than a human hair.”
Asked whether bin Laden might have had access to the buildings, Gage said probably not – that someone else who had access to nano-thermite, and to the buildings’ security systems, would need to be investigated. Someone who had access to the elevator modernization, which was going on nine months earlier and was “immediately adjacent to the core columns and beams in the building.”
Concluding Comment: (Corporate). This Fox News show began by asking Gage about his credentials, saying “We ask that for clarification so that as we get into this, we want people to make sure that you’re not just someone with a wacky idea…you come with some science to you.” The program ended with a sincere thank-you to Gage for “opening up a lot to think about,” and an announcement that there is “a great deal of information” on the KMPH.com website. In short, Gage was treated with the respect due to any serious participant in an important and controversial issue.
The next major mainstream event was the Russia Today program of July 9, 2009, which was covered above, so we will move directly to the anniversary period of September 2009, when further evidence of the impact of the nano-thermite discovery became apparent.
Full interview (nearly 300,000 views on YouTube)
Case Study 5: The National Geographic Documentary, “9/11: Science and Conspiracy”, August 31, 2009
In late August, 2009, the National Geographic Channel (NGC) aired a two-hour documentary, “9/11: Science and Conspiracy,” which sought to answer several questions, “What caused the collapse of the Twin Towers? Was it from the fires, or were explosives placed inside the buildings, causing them to implode? Did a missile, rather than a commercial airline jet, strike the Pentagon?”27
This “NatGeo” program purported to explore evidence about controlled demolition presented by the 9/11 truth movment. It interviewed Dylan Avery (the maker of the “Loose Change” films), Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, and Steven Jones. But in reality this NatGeo program was entirely devoted to debunking their claims by using pseudo-scientific demonstrations to refute claims that none of these men have made.
For example, in order to refute the claim that nano-thermite could have brought down the buildings, NatGeo used ordinary thermite (with the narrator explaining that they had no access to nano-thermite). Moreover, instead of using the thermite to make shaped charges, which can cut through steel, the NatGeo experimenter simply placed a bag of thermite next to a steel column and lit it. When the burning thermite (entirely predictably) did not melt the column, the narrator concluded, triumphantly, that science had disproved the claim of the conspiracy theorists.
A review in Media Life Magazine, while not fully exposing the phoniness of the program’s claim to represent “science,” did point out some shortcomings, saying:
Some of the issues raised by the truthers, however, aren’t addressed, or are addressed in brief asides. This leaves this documentary open to charges of picking and choosing which points to cover. “9/11: Science and Conspiracy” spends too much time discussing the psychology behind conspiracy theories – which isn’t really a hard science.28
A review in the New York Post quoted Sander Hicks, a journalist who is openly a member of the 9/11 truth community, as saying that its representatives on the program “come off as careful and professional, unemotional, but compassionate about the truth,” and that the program, in spite of its faults, shows “that the topic is still relevant and that the case isn’t closed.”29
Concluding Comment: (Corporate). This program by National Geographic provides a good reminder of how the 9/11 truth issue has generally been handled by the corporately-controlled media. But it also demonstrates the fact that the controversy is very much alive in the major media.
Case Study 6: Germany’s Weekly TV Guide, “TV Hören und Sehen,” August 31, 2009
“TV Hören und Sehen”, with a paid circulation of nearly a million copies, is owned by the Bauer Media Group, which publishes 308 magazines in 14 countries. The TV magazine features interviews and articles by prominent German authors.30
It is therefore significant that on August 31, 2009, this magazine published “Die Geheimakten von 9/11″ (“The Secret Files of 9/11″) as a full double-page spread, continuing with photos on two subsequent pages. It opened by saying: “9/11 is officially the largest criminal case in history – but classified documents and witness accounts are surfacing, that speak against the official versions of the CIA and Pentagon.”31
It then asks what force could pulverize 200,000 tons of steel in 11.4 seconds, quoting US engineer Neel Ginson: “In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially exploded outwards.” Ginson added that, looking closely, one can see small explosions in the Twin Towers always occurring before the floors are reached by the collapse line. The fact that the towers were the first steel-frame buildings in the world to collapse because of fire, he added, was even admitted by NIST (the National Institute of Science and Technology, the government agency that produced the official reports).
Among many other questions, the article raises the issue of adjacent World Trade Center 7, the 47-storey steel-frame building with a base the size of a football field that collapsed at 5:20 PM the same day: “But the official 9/11 investigation never mentions the building once.”
With reference to the Pentagon, this article asks: How were the victims identified by their fingerprints, when even the airplane steel had melted?
Concluding Comment: (Corporate). Although this article does not specifically mention nano-thermite, it clearly suggests that artificial explosions brought down the buildings. By not defending the official story at all, this large-chain corporate media outlet was among the first to give an open hearing to the independent 9/11 research community.
Case Study 7: Two California Newspapers Review the Role of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, September 2009
In September 2009, Metroactive (Silicon Valley’s number-one weekly magazine) and the Santa Barbara Independent, each published slightly different versions of a long article on the controversy surrounding the WTC building collapses.32
The Independent article – entitled “Twin Towers, Twin Myths?” – begins:
“One of the crucial technical disputes in American history, perhaps second only to global warming, is underway. It pits hundreds of government technicians who say the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by airplane impact against hundreds of professional architects and building engineers who insist that the Twin Towers could never have collapsed solely due to the planes and are calling for a new independent investigation. It is a fight that is not going away and is likely to get louder as more building trade professionals sign on to one side or the other.”33
The version in MetroActive – called “Explosive Theory” – says “[E]ight years after 9/11, a growing organization of building trades professionals suspect that there was more to the event than the government will admit.” It then gives a short history of Gage’s now 1,000-strong organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE).34
Deputy Director Michael J. Heimbach of the FBI’s counter-terrorism division, this article adds, had recently acknowledged in a letter to the organization that Gage’s presentation is “backed by thorough research and analysis.”
One local AE member was quoted as saying “it takes too much energy” – energy that was not there – to collapse the buildings at free-fall speed, given the resistance that steel offers. This was borne out, this member continued, by a team of scientists “working at technical laboratories in the United States and Denmark [who] reported in April that analysis of dust …gathered at the World Trade Center found evidence of the potent incendiary/explosive ’super thermite,’ used by the military.”
Almost half of this article deals with the controversy over whether nano-thermite was used, with most of the space allotted to evidence supplied by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Near the end, however, spokesman Michael Newman is brought in to defend NIST’s research, saying there was “no need” to test the dust for thermite.
But the last word was given to engineer Ed Munyak of AE, who said:
“The fact is that the collapses don’t resemble any fire-induced behavior of structures, but it exactly mimics a controlled demolition, so why not investigate that? It’s all very suspicious and that’s why an independent investigation is needed so we can all learn from this.”
“Explosive Theory” also focuses pointedly on the growing number of professional organizations and retired officials calling for a new investigation, including:
…two dozen retired U.S. military brass and eight former U.S. State Department officials, along with a number of Republicans who have served in high federal positions since President Reagan, including former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts and former Reagan administration Assistant Defense Secretary (and retired Marine Corps colonel) Ronald D. Ray.
The version in the Santa Barbara Independent concludes with an unusually candid observation:
And how would America deal with such an investigation against the backdrop of suppositions that some officials in government were complicit? This idea is virtually unthinkable to most of the public, much less something the American political system can handle…The forces of denial, in the system and in most of our minds, are innately powerful and probably sufficient to mitigate against a reopened investigation. Despite this, [Richard] Gage [of AE] sees his role as provoking a better investigation.
Concluding Comment: (Independent). The authors of this article, rather than referring to “conspiracy theorists,” present the 9/11 issue as a “technical dispute” of historic importance. Both versions of the article represent a 180-degree turnaround in American newspaper reporting, providing a useful introduction to the long-ignored research by independent professionals. The Santa Barbara Independent, curious about public opinion rather than seeking to hide it, published a local poll asking if conspiracy was behind the collapses: 75% of respondents answered “yes”.35
Case Study 8: Dr. Niels Harrit on NRK1’s “Schrödinger’s Cat,” September 10, 2009
NRK1 is the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation’s main TV channel. It’s program “Schrödinger’s Cat”, which is about scientific research and technology, comes on every Thursday following the evening news. It has won several awards, and averages 487,000 viewers.
For the September 10 program, Dr. Harrit was interviewed for about ten minutes in his office and laboratory at the University of Copenhagen Nano-Science Center, where he demonstrated the magnetic quality of a WTC dust sample. He also showed videotape of molten iron flowing from the upper South Tower, which was iron, not aluminum (which melts at a much lower temperature than steel or iron). Emphasizing that an office fire, even if fed by jet fuel, could not possibly get hot enough to melt steel, thereby producing iron, he concluded that the flowing iron had to have been caused by something such as nano-thermite, which produces “an enormous amount of heat”, and molten iron is created in the process, with a temperature of 4530 F.36
Although Harrit did not know who placed the explosives, he said, he had no doubt that a crime had occurred.
In the final third of the program, three other people were asked for comments. Two of the people tried to cast doubt on Harrit’s conclusions, but their comments were weak, even absurd. An architect argued that the energy from the airliners brought the Twin Towers down and then Building 7 came down because the collapse of the towers acted like an earthquake to weaken the ground. American buildings are weak, he explained, because they don’t use reinforced concrete.
Finally, Dr. David Ray Griffin has stated that “for scientists and people who study the facts, the official story about the Twin Towers is completely ludicrous, but for the general public it has seemed plausible. Jet fuel fires – they seem so hot. Jet fuel’s just kerosene.”
Concluding Comment: (Public). This prime-time coverage by Norway’s largest TV channel was quite a turnaround from the earlier NRK radio coverage in May. Most of the time was given to Drs. Harrit and Griffin; the content was groundbreaking; and the opposing views were obviously insubstantial. Considering Norway’s NATO membership and military participation in the US-led operations in Afghanistan, the program could prove to be significant.
Case Study 9 : London’s “Daily Mail” asks whether Osama bin Laden is Dead, September 11, 2009
This long and detailed article opens with the menacing bin Laden audiotape of June 3, 2009, timed to coincide with Barack Obama’s arrival on his Middle East tour, and then moves to the new Anglo-American offensive to “hunt and kill” the al Qaeda leader.
But, the Daily Mail asks, what if bin Laden isn’t alive?
3
What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes since the early days after 9/11 is a fake – and that he is being kept ‘alive’ by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror?
Incredibly, this is the breathtaking theory that is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts.37
3
Professors Angelo Codevilla of Boston University and Bruce Lawrence of Duke University point out that the early, verifiable videotapes of bin Laden do not match the tapes that have emerged since 2002 – and even one in late 2001.
Telltale distinguishing features include a changed facial structure and increasing secularism in the content of the messages.
The article then presents the findings of Dr. Griffin’s book on the topic – Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? – as “provoking shock waves”.
This book presents evidence that bin Laden died, probably due to kidney failure, in mid-December 2001, which would mean that his taped messages since then have been faked to “stoke up waning support for the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Perhaps the most controversial of all the tapes was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001, claiming that it had been found in a home in Jalalabad. Prior to this tape, bin Laden had, while praising the 9/11 attacks, consistently denied responsibility for them. But the bin Laden of this tape boasts about having planned them.
President Bush, the Blair Government, and the mainstream media all hailed this message as offering conclusive proof of bin Laden’s guilt.
The Daily Mail, however, points to various reasons provided in Griffin’s book to believe that the man in this video was an imposter. It refers to the existence of a “highly sophisticated, special effects film technology to morph together images and vocal recordings.”
And it quotes Griffin as saying: “The confession tape came exactly when Bush and Blair had failed to prove Bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11 and both men were trying to win international public support, particularly in the Islamic world, for the anti-terrorist campaign.”
Far from seeking to ridicule Griffin’s book, the Daily Mail concluded thus: “[T]he Bin Laden tapes have emerged with clockwork regularity as billions have been spent and much blood spilt on the hunt for him. Bin Laden has been the central plank of the West’s ‘war on terror’. Could it be that, for years, he’s just been smoke and mirrors?”
Concluding Comment: (Corporate). This 2400-word article is the first serious mainstream coverage the evidence that Osama bin Laden is dead – and has been for many years.
Case Study 10. The New Statesman announces Dr. David Ray Griffin as No. 41 in “The Fifty People who Matter Today,” September 24, 2009
Two weeks after the Daily Mail article, a second corporate British publication put Griffin in 41st place in a list of people who “matter today.”38
Because this article was discussed in my earlier paper, Part I of this series, it is mentioned here only as a significant milepost, one that gave (grudging) recognition to the fact that the movement challenging the official account of 9/11 can no longer be ignored.
Its impact on the media is shown by the fact that the New Statesman placed Dr. Griffin (who scores 200,000 results when googled) above Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez, (who scores over 11 million results) on its list of influential people.
Concluding Comment: (Corporate). Although the New Statesman called the movement represented by Dr. Griffin “pernicious”, its evaluation of his importance represents a point of no return in the media coverage of 9/11 – as we shall see.
Case Study 11: Jean-Marie Bigard on France 2 Public Television, October 28, 2009
Back in September 2008, Jean-Marie Bigard, France’s most popular stand-up comedian, was led to apologize for claiming 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.39 But by July 2009, Bigard had started to post humorous videos on his website ridiculing the official account of the September 11 attacks.
In October 2009, Bigard and award-winning French filmmaker Mathieu Kassovitz appeared for an hour in a debate on France 2, the publicly owned French national television channel.40
The hosts, who had refused to include the scientist who was originally supposed to be on the show (Dr. Niels Harrit) attempted to center the debate on “straw man” theories that neither Bigard nor Kassovitz held. This led to arguments, which then allowed Le Figaro, France’s second largest newspaper, to dismiss the debate as “noisy sophistry”.41
Concluding Comment: (Public). Although this program was aimed at debunking the 9/11 movement, as shown by its refusal to include a scientist, the fact that it was aired on this state-owned network was a breakthrough, ending the era in which 9/11 questioning was ignored in France.
Case Study 12: “The Unofficial Story”, by CBC’s The Fifth Estate, November 27, 2009
On November 26, 2009, Canada’s largest newspaper, The Globe and Mail, noting in an objective review42 that the 9/11 truth movement is “gathering steam,” reported that a documentary airing that evening “follows up on some fairly startling public-opinion polls of late.”
It was referring to “The Unofficial Story”,43 a program in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s weekly award-winning investigative series, The Fifth Estate.44
Host Bob McKeown, himself a recipient of multiple awards45, opened by saying that eight years after the “most scrutinized day in history”, there may be “more questions than ever”, and that an increasing number of people now believe the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. “Incredibly”, he adds, “public opinion polls now show that a majority of Americans believe the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of those attacks, and one way or another allowed them to happen, and polls show that one Canadian in three believes that, too.”
“The Unofficial Story” then allows leading members of the 9/11 truth community to present a spectrum of evidence on various issues:
Architect Richard Gage on how the towers were brought down by controlled demolition
Canadian scientist A.K. Dewdney on the impossibility of cell phone calls at high altitude
David Ray Griffin on the FBI’s 2006 admission that, although US Solicitor General Ted Olson had reported receiving two calls from his wife, CNN commentator Barbara Olson on Flight 77, the evidence indicates that she attempted only one call and that it was “unconnected” and hence lasted “zero seconds”
Dr. Griffin and Canadian media commentator Barrie Zwicker on the military’s explanation of why it did not intercept the airliners
9/11 documentary filmmaker Craig Ranke on the fact that footage of the Pentagon attack is virtually unavailable to the public in spite of many cameras trained on the building
Dewdney on evidence that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military
Richard Gage on the presence of nano-thermite in the World Trade Center dust
In response, defenders of the official account, such as Johnathan Kay (of Canada’s National Post) and 9/11 Commission counsel John Farmer, focus more on why the American public is susceptible to conspiracy theories, than on the disputed evidence itself 46 – although Kay does credit Richard Gage for being involved in a serious quest for truth.
Jim Meigs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, also directs comments against the skeptics themselves rather than their evidence. Conspiracy theorists, he says, are deluded by “the myth of hyper-competence” in relation to the failure of the US Air Force to intercept the planes.
However, Brent Blanchard, presented as a demolition expert, argues against the controlled demolition theory by producing seismographs showing the absence of spikes that, he says, would have been produced by explosions.
He also expressed concern that people around the world, by reporting US government complicity in 9/11 “as fact”, are affecting how people view America.
But actor Daniel Sunjata (of “Rescue Me”) ponders the price of not asking the hard questions: “Sometimes boils need to be lanced. Sometimes poison needs to be brought to the surface in order for real healing to take place.”
McKeown concludes: “We did it not to promote one side or the other, but to shine some light on some of those unresolved issues and unanswered questions.”
And indeed, the program website published links to both sides of the issue.47
Concluding Comment: (Public). This hour-long documentary was the first truly fair opportunity in North America for advocates of the “unofficial story” of 9/11 to present some of their case on mainstream television. Representatives of the “official story” were also given time to speak, but their case was patently weaker. This imbalance was allowed by the producers, and indeed by the Canadian government, to stand. Aired several times across Canada, this program drew unusually high viewer commentary.
Case Study 13: New Zealand TV’s “Close Up” hosts Architect Richard Gage, November 27, 2009
The same day “The Unofficial Story” was broadcast by the CBC, Richard Gage appeared on New Zealand TV’s popular public affairs program, Close-Up, for a six-minute interview.49
“WTC 7 was never hit by a plane but it still came down,” the host begins, “and that’s what troubles internationally respected architect Richard Gage.”
Gage is then allowed to explain that the building fell straight down in 6.5 seconds, and that NIST, the agency tasked with explaining the collapse, admitted that it had come down in absolute free-fall for the first hundred feet or so. “That means the structure had to have been removed,” says Gage. “There is evidence of very high-tech explosives in all the dust throughout lower Manhattan – nanothermite.”
Normal office fires, Gage added, would start “a large, gradual deformation – the building would tip over – it wouldn’t go straight down through the path of greatest resistance.”
This is why 1,000 engineers and architects around the world are demanding a real investigation that includes all of the evidence at the crime scene, not just the planes and the fires, says Gage.
“In the nine months prior to 9/11, we had the largest elevator modernization in history going on inside the towers…We’re looking for an investigation that includes elevator companies, security companies, etcetera.”
Concluding Comment: (Public). New Zealand’s national television station allowed open and unopposed discussion, by the founder of the world’s largest professional organization calling for a new 9/11 investigation, of the claim that nano-thermite was used in a controlled demolition of the World Trade Center. The coincidence that this program and the CBC’s “The Unofficial Story” both aired on the same day may prove to be a turning point in media coverage of the 9/11 issue.
Case Study 14 : “9/11 Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura,” TruTV, Premiere December 9, 2009
TruTV is an American cable television network owned by Time Warner through its subsidiary, Turner Broadcasting. Historically, its has given live homicide trial coverage and other criminal justice programming, though it has recently expanded into more caught-on-video reality, which it calls “actuality” television.
“Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura” premiered December 2, 2009, to an audience of 1.6 million television viewers.
The former Governor of Minnesota has good cause to look into conspiracies, as seen in his December 29 episode, which shows personal experience that the “secret state” holds more power than the senior elected representatives of the people:
“About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the capitol to be interviewed by 23 members of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA…And I said to them, “look before I answer any of your questions, I want to know what you’re doing here.” Because in the CIA mission statement it says that they’re not to be operational inside the United States of America. Well, they wouldn’t really give me an answer on that. And then I said, “I want to go around the room, and I want each one of you to tell me your name and what you do.” Half of them wouldn’t. Now isn’t that bizarre? I’m the governor, and these guys won’t even answer questions from me.”49
Ventura made the 9/11 documentary after being approached by Donna March O’Connor, whose daughter died in the World Trade Center and wanted “every American exposed to the questions” about 9/11.50
Ventura’s documentary contained interviews with the following people:
Janitor William Rodriguez, the last man out of the North Tower and who was decorated for heroism by President Bush, who reported enormous explosions in the basements just before the plane hit up above, and whose testimony to the 9/11 Commission was ignored
Physicist Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who isolated super-thermite from the enormous dust clouds of the Twin Towers and Building 7, after which he was contacted by a consultant engineer from the Department of Homeland Security, who warned Jones that, if he published his findings “the pain would be great.”
Explosives expert Van Romero, of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, demonstrating how super-thermite can be painted onto a steel beam, causing it to burn through
Ground Zero rescue worker Mike Mallone, who reported seeing one of the four black boxes removed from the site, and was told of two others – and who was told by the FBI that if he talked about it, “there would be a problem.”
Investigative journalist Dave Lindorff, who was told “off the record” by a contact in the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the boxes, that all four had been recovered by the FBI and taken away, though officially, the contact said, this would be denied
Air crash investigator Dale Leppard, who said that the bright orange heat-resistant boxes are never lost
Yet the 9/11 Commission Report claimed that the boxes from American 11 and United 175 were never found.
Ventura concluded by asking: “If everything they told us was true, then why would they need to stonewall us?”
Concluding Comment: (Corporate). By calling his series “Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura”, he openly declares that conspiracies do exist, and that they are a legitimate subject to investigate. According to TruTV, the first episode drew 1.6 million viewers, a record for a new series on this network.
Case Study 15: German Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth Questions the Official 9/11 Investigation, December 15, 2009
Heinz Heise is a German publishing house, which publishes Europe’s most popular computer and technology journals. It also owns Heise Online (heise.de), which is a top-50 site in Germany, and a top-1000 website in the world as a whole.
On December 15 2008, Heise Online carried an interview with German Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth on the legality of the Afghanistan war and the question of whether the attacks were adequately investigated in the US.51
In his response, Deiseroth made the following points:
The 9/11 Commission consisted of Bush Administration officials who were very close to the military industrial complex.
Now, over eight years after 9/11, no independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks.
It is not acceptable for a constitutional state to dispense with the necessary steps in identifying suspects and instead to declare war, bomb a foreign country where suspects reside, and place it under military occupation.
Having made the claim that bin Laden was responsible for the terrorism of 9/11, the United States was under burden of proof, and yet America’s own FBI admits that it has no evidence presented in court of Osama bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.
Concluding Comment: (Corporate). This “top-
” online journal exposed many German people to the illegal and unconstitutional responses to the 9/11 attacks – which were the underpinning for the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – and even to questions about the truth of the official account of 9/11 itself.
Case Study 16: Germany’s “Focus Money” says: “We Do Not Believe You!” January 8, 2010
With 450,000 to 720,000 readers, Focus Money is the second most popular German weekly business magazine. In January 2010, it published a 5-page, highly detailed, and comprehensively researched glossy feature, “We do not believe you!”52
The article first looks at the many professional 9/11 groups, as well as a 2,000-strong list of prominent and qualified people who question the 9/11 Commission Report at the Patriots Question 9/11 website.
It quotes Richard Gage saying: “The towers accelerated without interruption in free fall…as if the lower 90 floors of the building did not exist. The only way to bring them down like that is controlled demolition.”
The article weighs Gage’s list of ten features of a controlled demolition, which were exemplified in the World Trade Center collapses, against the three features of a fire-caused destruction, which were absent.
Focus Money also explores the case of Barry Jennings, a former Deputy Director of Emergency Services in New York’s Housing Authority, who reported being trapped in WTC 7 after massive explosions in this building occurred in the morning – before the Twin Towers fell. Focus Money also reported that Jennings, aged 53, died mysteriously just days before NIST’s report on WTC-7 was to be released in August 2008.
The article recommends films that challenge the official report, including “Loose Change”, which has been seen 125 million times on Google video alone, “9/11 Mysteries,” and “Zero” – all available online.
Regarding the Pentagon, experienced commercial pilots are cited as maintaining that no one, let alone a Cessna pilot, could fly the route that Flight 77 allegedly took to hit the building.
The article pointed out the lack of debris to support the official story: “There was no tail, there were no wings, no confirmation of the crash of a Boeing 757.” And there were no titanium engines, which would have survived the crash.
Also cited was Sergeant Lauro Chavez of the US Central Command in Florida, who was involved in exercises the morning of 9/11 to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House. He asks why, when it became clear that the attacks were real, were the rogue planes not intercepted?
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission, in which he reported a conversation between Dick Cheney and a young officer prior to the strike on the Pentagon, supports Chavez’ conviction that there had been a stand-down order.
Concluding Comment: (Corporate). This 5,400-word article presented strong evidence against the official 9/11 account to Germany’s economic and political decision-makers.
Case Study 17: Televised documentary, “The BBC’s Conspiracy Files: Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive?” January 10, 2010
In January 2010, a BBC News article53 summarized evidence supporting both sides of the question stated in the title of its upcoming documentary, “Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive?” – a title taken from the David Ray Griffin book that was previously discussed in a Daily Mail article.54
The documentary, which was part of the BBC Conspiracy Files series, opened by presenting evidence that bin Laden has long been dead, including the following points:
Bruce Riedel, chair of President Obama’s policy review on Afghanistan and Pakistan, says the bin Laden trail is cold, “frozen over,” meaning that there has been no intelligence on bin Laden since Tora Bora, either by sightings or intercepted communications.
Various lines of evidence suggest that bin Laden was suffering from advanced kidney disease: CBS News reported, for example, that he was being treated in the kidney ward of a hospital in Pakistan the night before the 9/11 attacks, and the last of the undoubtedly authentic videotapes showed him frail and gaunt, with a whitish beard.
There were reports of his funeral in mid-December 2001 in Pakistani and Egyptian newspapers.
Former CIA agent Robert Baer, who believes bin Laden to be dead, reported that none of his friends in the CIA could state for certain that bin Laden was still alive.
Colonel Iman, Pakistan’s former troop trainer, also believes him to be dead.
The only proof of bin Laden’s continuing existence is the audio and videotapes, and Dr. Griffin has presented evidence (about the structure of bin Laden’s face and hands, and the secular content of his messages)that some of them are clearly faked, leading to the suspicion that they all are.
Pakistan’s former Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, who knew bin Laden, supports this conclusion with regard to the alleged confession video.
Professor Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, a student of the bin Laden tapes, also declared it a fake, especially because bin Laden always loved the spotlight. He asks why bin Laden has been seen so infrequently on video and why his contemporary, Ayman al-Zawahiri is seen so often.55
The BBC narrator says that only six of bin Laden’s 40 messages were videotapes, and only two have appeared since Tora Bora in 2001.
Dr Griffin says the first video appeared conveniently just before the 2004 US election, which helped Bush to win; and the second appeared in 2007, showing a very black beard, which had formerly been almost white.56
CIA agent Robert Baer confirmed that the alleged bin Laden audio and video tapes could have been faked through digital manipulation.
The BBC program also presented evidence that is believed by some to show that the US may not have been intent on capturing or killing bin Laden:
Dalton Fury, commander of the secret Delta Force, says it was “odd” that Washington denied him nearby troops and artillery when he had bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora in December 2001.
Mike Scheuer, formerly of the CIA bin Laden Unit, said the US had ten chances to easily kill bin Laden between May 1998 and May 1999. Each time the CIA briefed the White House of the opportunity, the decision was made not to shoot.
In the final third of the program, the BBC provided rather weak evidence against “the theory that Osama bin Laden died 8 years ago and the US government is keeping him alive, faking videos, and sending troops to battle and allowing them to die in pursuit of an imaginary foe.” However, a reviewer for the TV and Radio section of the The Independent, one of London’s leading newspapers, complained that this rebuttal was too little, too late, saying:
“The Conspiracy Files film about Osama Bin Laden was a dubious affair, which gave regrettable amounts of air time to an obsessive 9/11 “truther” called David Ray Griffin. . . . Griffin only got the airtime, as it turned out, so that Conspiracy Files could systematically work their way through his claims and dismiss them. But I think they grievously overestimated the capacity of common sense to mop up the pollution of paranoid fantasy that they actively helped to spread around in the first 45 minutes of the film.”57
This seemed to be the commentator’s way of saying that the BBC’s show probably increased the number of people who believe that bin Laden is probably dead.
Concluding Comment: (Public). This program attempts to neutralize the evidence that bin Laden has been dead for 8 years, which if true would mean that fabricated tapes are helping to justify a continuing Western offensive in the Middle East. That the program was made at all shows how seriously the BBC is taking the growing challenge to the official story of 9/11.
Case Study 18 : An American Union Paper Calls for a New Probe, February 1, 2010
The New Hampshire Union Leader is a daily union newspaper seen by 143,000 people per month in the United States.
Beth Lamontagne Hall of the Union Leader wrote in February 2010 that “Keene resident Gerhard Bedding doesn’t buy the government’s version of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, so he’s working on a statewide campaign calling for another investigation into the terrorist attacks.58
Bedding and others, she reported, are petitioning New Hampshire’s congressional delegates to push for an independent investigation into “all the evidence and unanswered questions” pertaining to the 9/11 attacks.
Quoting Bedding’s statement that a new investigation is needed “in light of new evidence that has appeared in the last two years,” she pointed out that he mentioned, in particular, the report that scientists had found traces of explosives at the World Trade Center.
Concluding Comment: (Independent). This article in a daily union newspaper is a significant indicator, more than eight years after the attacks, of the broadening concern over the truth about 9/11, and is another example of the widespread influence of the nano-thermite paper published by Dr. Harrit and his co-authors.
1. In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired examinations of the issue, which were all – with the exception of the National Geographic special – reasonably objective, examining the issue as a legitimate scientific controversy worthy of debate (not as “conspiracy theorists” vs. science and common sense).
2. Eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.
3. These developments may reflect a relaxation in the international media following the change in the US and British leaderships.
4. These developments definitely reflect, in any case, the fact that scientists in the 9/11 Truth Movement have recently succeeded in getting papers, such as the nano-thermite paper, published in peer-reviewed journals.
5. These developments surely also reflect the general professionalism of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as exemplified by the emergence of not only Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth but also Firefighters, Intelligence Officers, Lawyers, Medical Professionals, Pilots, Political Leaders, Religious Leaders, Scholars, and Veterans for 9/11 Truth.
6. These developments seem to reflect, moreover, an increased recognition of the importance of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which is demonstrated by two honors given to its most influential member, Dr. David Ray Griffin, that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago: the choice by Publishers Weekly of one of his books as a “Pick of the Week,” and his inclusion in the New Statesman’s list of the most important people in the world today.
This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media – might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country’s foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge.
Elizabeth Woodworth is a retired professional health sciences librarian, and a freelance writer. She is the author of two published books and many articles on political and social justice issues.
Notes
1 “The 50 People Who Matter Today,” New Statesman, September 24, 2009 (http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2009/09/world-fashion-gay-india-church ). Note that Part I of this series, entitled “The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9 /11 Truth Movement: Reflections on a Recent Evaluation of Dr. David Ray Griffin,” was published by Global Research, December 12, 2009 (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16505)
2 Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (April 3, 2009): 7-31 (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm)
3 Ibid., p. 29.
4 Ibid., p. 29.
5 Dr. Harrit is Associate Professor of the Department of Chemistry, and has been a faculty member at the Nano-Science Center at the University of Copenhagen since this Center started in 2001. (http://nano.ku.dk/english/ )
6 “Danish Scientist Niels Harrit on Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust (English subtitles),” TV2 News, Denmark, April 6, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o).
7 By Lars Sobiraj, May 24, 2009,”Germany’s gulli.com (link obsolete now) Interviews Dr. Niels Harrit on Nanothermite at the WTC,” Sunday May 24th, 2009 1:28 PM, http://911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20090525150347423
8 Kevin R. Ryan, “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermite,” July 2, 2008, (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf )
9 Dr. Andrzej W. Miziolek, “Nanoenergetics: An Emerging Technology Area of National Importance,” In: US Department of Defense. “Special Issue: DOD Researchers Provide a Look Inside Nanotechnology,” Amptiac Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 2002, p. 44 (http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf ) The article reports that, “Very simply, nanoenergetics can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and one can use them in unprecedented ways to tailor the release of this energy so as to maximize the lethality of the weapons.” p. 43.
10 See the IoN Advisory Group at http://www.nano.org.uk/aboutus/ukboard.htm
11 My italics. [News]: “Active Thermitic Material Confirmed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” June 15, 2009 (http://www.nano.org.uk/news/jun2009/latest1881.htm)
12 Thomas Hoffmann, “Danish scientist: an explosive nano material found in dust from the World Trade Center”, Videnskab.dk, April 3, 2009 (http://www.videnskab.dk/composite-1945.htm )
13 Thomas Hoffmann, “Niels Harrit: Scientific evidence of long-time knowledge of 9/11,” Videnskab.dk, April 3, 2009 (http://www.videnskab.dk/composite-2019.htm )
14 Milla Mølgaard, April 4, 2009, (http://politiken.dk/indland/article684567.ece )
15 “Niels Harrit presents evidence for nano-thermite in WTC, on GoodMorning Denmark,” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAUUKPfdeQA )
17 “Did nano-thermite take down the WTC?” (http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html , and
http://rt.com/Politics/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html?fullstory ) . Also available on youtube as “Dr. Niels Harrit on Russia Today – We need a real 9/11 investigation,” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVbF1ndquZI&feature=PlayList&p=4B3A9D67894B7184&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=20 )
18 Brian Stelter, “The Political Suspicions of 9/11,” New York Times, February 1, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/business/media/02fx.html?_r=2&ref=business )
19 Fox News, “‘Rescue Me’ From 9/11 Conspiracy Theories,” February 4, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487906,00.html )
20 The mock trial is available on youtube in 4 parts: “911 Devil’s Advocate – English subs – Part 1 of 4″, starts at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOdlA_eu-Lw
21 This is said at the beginning of “911 Devil’s Advocate – English subs – Part 2 of 4″, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJX-rIaAbA4&feature=related. See also, Craig Morris, “Mistranslated Osama bin Laden Video – the German Press Investigates,” December 23, 2001 (http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801 )
22 Joshua Rhett Miller, “Dutch TV Show Feeds Conspiracy Theories on Bin Laden’s Role in 9/11,” Fox News, April 25, 2009 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516195,00.html )
23 Johanthan Kay, “Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire,” Financial Post, Saturday, April 25, 2009 (http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=f54cf9ee-4637-44de-8819-19d918b3241b&k=21893 )
24 The radio program may be heard at this link, in Norwegian, without subtitles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHZHGUd82wc )
25 Norwegian State Radio initiates public debate on 9/11 Truth (update), (http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/ )
26 Richard Gage interviewed by Kim Stephens and Kopi Sotiropulos on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA, May 28, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&feature=related )
27 “9/11: Science and Conspiracy”, (http://www.shallownation.com/2009/08/31/national-geographic-9-11-science-and-conspiracy-video-photos/). National Geographic Channel is a joint venture of National Geographic Television & Film and Fox Cable Networks.
28 Tom Conroy. “‘9/11: Science and Conspiracy’ not quite,” Media Life Magazine, August 31, 2009 (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/TV_Reviews_21/9_11_Science_and_Conspiracy_not_quite.asp )
29 Maxine Shen, “The Story Behind 9/11: Hit or Myth? Taking on the Truthers,” New York Post, September 2, 2009 (http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/item_tPXUgMFRZVQywHJg28ON7J;jsessionid=5113BAC6DC385827B1486E60DAA759A8#ixzz0eY7F97Dx)
30 The website for this publication is http://www.tvhus.de/home/home.html
31 Hannes Wellmann, “Die Geheimakten von 9/11,” TV Hören und Sehen, August 31, 2009. The article and its English translation have been downloaded to http://www.911video.de/news/020909/
32 Whereas the article focuses primarily on Bay-Area resident Richard Gage, Santa Barbara is the home of David Ray Griffin, so the Independent version gave more space to him, even including his photo.
33 Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, “Twin Towers, Twin Myths?” Santa Barbara Independent, September 17, 2009 (http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/17/twin-towers-twin-myths/ )
34 Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, “Explosive Theory,” MetroActive, September 9, 2009, (http://www.metroactive.com/metro/09.09.09/cover-0936.html)
35 “Is conspiracy behind the World Trade Center’s collapse?” (http://www.independent.com/polls/2009/sep/wtc09/results/ )
36 “Norwegian TV examines 911 part 1,” September 10, 2009, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlHuYt_u-kI ) The TV program was followed by a written account of it: Lars Ole Skjønberg, “World Trade Center ble sprengt” (“World Trade Center was Blown Up,”) September 10, 2009, http://www.nrk.no/programmer/tv/schrodingers_katt/1.6769275 ). Further information and partial transcripts are available at “Norwegian State Television presents 9/11 Truth (en subs), (update)
(http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/norwegian-state-television-presents-911-truth/ )
37 Sue Reid, “Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years – and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?” Daily Mail, September 11, 2009 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years–U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html )
38 New Statesman, “The 50 People who Matter Today.”
39 “French comedian apolgises for claiming 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government,” Belfast Telegraph, September 10, 2008 (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/french-comedian-apologises-for-claiming-911-was-orchestrated-by-the-us-government-13968453.html )
40 “L’objet du scandale, 11 septembre, Bigard, Kassovitz,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uc4Mb9rF0c The program is also available with English subtitles, at http://world911truth.org/911-debate-with-kassovitz-and-bigard/ . The debate was originally intended to include journalist Éric Laurent and Prof. Niels Harrit, but apparently France 2 could not find anyone to debate them. See “France 2 backs away from real debate, censors Niels Harrit and Éric Laurent,” October 24, 2009, http://world911truth.org/france-2-backs-away-from-real-debate-censors-niels-harrit-and-eric-laurent/ .
41 Hervé de Saint Hilaire, «L’objet du scandale» : sophismes bruyants, Le Figaro, 30 octobre 2009 (http://www.lefigaro.fr/programmes-tele/2009/10/30/03012-20091030ARTFIG00348-l-objet-du-scandale-sophismes-bruyants-.php )
42 Andrew Ryan, “Was 9/11 a conspiracy? ‘Truthers’ make their case: CBC’s fifth estate airs The Unofficial Story,” The Globe and Mail, November 26, 2009
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/was-911-a-conspiracy-truthers-make-their-case/article1378976/ )
43 CBC. The Fifth Estate. “The Unofficial Story”, November 27, 2009 (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/ )
44 The Fifth Estate has won 243 awards, including an Oscar for best documentary, three international Emmy Awards, and 31 Geminis.
45 McKeown’s awards include two Emmys, two Geminis, two Edward R. Murrow awards, two Gracies, two National Headliner awards and a National Press Club award. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McKeown )
46 It is worth noting that attempts to derail critics of the official story have often framed the issue as “conspiracy theorists” vs. “the science” or vs. “the facts.” But as the current essay illustrates, the debate is now increasingly being framed in the media as science on one side of the issue vs. science on the other side.
47 The Fifth Estate, at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/links.html
48 “Richard Gage AIA on New Zealand National Television,” November 27, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2INIOXe_WI )
49 “Conspiracy Theory Episode 4 Big Brother with Jesse Ventura,” December 29, 2009 (http://conspiracytheoryjesseventura.com/forums/index.php?board=2.0 )
50 “9/11 Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura,” TruTV, Premiere Wed, December 9 at 10PM (http://www.conspiracytheoryjesseventura.com/2009/12/watch-episode-2-911-conspiracy-theory-jesse-ventura/ ) Also at “Conspiracy theory with Jesse Ventura – 9/11 part 1,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uw5Bz-oL3w )
51 Marcus Klöckner, “Das schreit geradezu nach Aufklärung,” December 15, 2009 (http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/31/31729/1.html ). The English Google translation is at http://translate.google.ca/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Ftp%2Fr4%2Fartikel%2F31%2F31729%2F1.html&sl=de&tl=en )
52 Oliver Janich, Focus Money, No. 2/2010, January 8, 2010 (http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/terroranschlaege-vom-11-september-2001-wir-glauben-euch-nicht_aid_467894.html ). For English Google translation, see http://translate.google.ca/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.focus.de%2Ffinanzen%2Fnews%2Fterroranschlaege-vom-11-september-2001-wir-glauben-euch-nicht_aid_467894.html&sl=de&tl=en . For English introduction and commentary, see http://www.911video.de/news/080110/en.html .
53 Mike Rudin, “The Conspiracy Files,” BBC News, January 9, 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8444069.stm )
54 David Ray Griffin, “Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?” Interlink Books, 2009. The documentary, “The BBC’s Conspiracy Files: Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive?” January 10, 2010, is now periodically available on BBC stations throughout the world, and presently available on youtube:
“BBC: Osama Bin Laden; Dead or Alive (1/6),” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpqg9SF2×50&feature=related ).
55 A Wikipedia article lists 34 videos of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri that have been released since May 2003. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Ayman_al-Zawahiri)
56 Frames from the 2004 and 2007 videos may be seen side by side in the online article: David Ray Griffin, “Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?” Global Research, October 9, 2009 (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15601 )
57 Tom Sutcliffe, “Last Night’s Television: By The People: The Election of Barack Obama, Sat, BBC2; Conspiracy Files: Osama Bin Laden – Dead or Alive?, Sun, BBC2,” The Independent, January 11, 2010 (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/last-nights-television-by-the-people-the-election-of-barack-obama-sat-bbc2brconspiracy-files-osama-bin-laden-ndash-dead-or-alive-sun-bbc2-1863741.html )
58 Beth Lamontagne Hall, “NH group cites need for new 9/11 probe,” New Hampshire Union Leader, February 1, 2010 (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=c2822a9b-f0c3-4f03-b8c3-09c3e0765b2f&headline=NH+group+cites+need+for+new+9%2f11+probe )
Elizabeth Woodworth is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
World for 9/11 Truth will present Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Dr. David Ray Griffin on May 3rd, 2010 in Montreal, Canada.
This is our first public conference and we need your financial support now to ensure its success (see below).
Our main goals with this conference
To mobilize the students of Universities.
The conference will take place in one of the largest University in Montreal. The hall offers a possibility of over 700 attendees.
We will keep the admission fee for student to a low minimum (to be announced soon).
Our advertising campaign toward students will be aggressive.
Aggressive campaign
Media: We will invite every possible media to the conference: national, local, and student press. They will all be exposed to AE911Truth’s video 9/11 Blueprint for Truth – The Architecture of Destruction, to the nano-thermite paper and to other important information.
Politicians: We will invite every politicians from the city, the province of Quebec and the federal politicians of the Parliament of Ottawa (Canada’s capital city). They will be exposed to the same information the media will be exposed to (nano-thermite paper, etc).
Firefighters & Police: We will try to get many of them to attend our conference.
Architects & Engineers: We will send special invitations to architects and engineers of the Montreal area in the hope that they will sign the AE911Truth petition.
Advertising: Depending on our budget, we will do our best to make sure this event will not be unknown. Montreal is the home of over 2 million people. We will do our best to expose them to our information.
Sponsors and volunteers
The main sponsor of the event will be Global Research (thanks to Michel Chossudovsky). We will also get the help of several committed 9/11 truth activists in Montreal. If you are in the Montreal area and wish to help us, please contact us now.
Financial support
Although Global Research has kindly agreed to sponsor a part of the conference, this will be a very expensive operation and event. From renting the hall, to the traveling fees of our special speakers and the aggressive advertising, one things is clear: we need our readers’ support now. The more you support us now, the more we will accomplish.
If this event is a success like we believe it will be, World911Truth might organize more events like this anywhere in the world. So help us make it a huge success that will resonate throughout the Canadian society and in the beautiful city of Montreal.
To donate now via credit card or PayPal, simply click the “ChipIn” button below:
Richard Gage, AIA founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth held a national press conference on Friday February 19th, 2010 to announce the important milestone of 1,000 licensed architects and engineers who demand a new investigation into the 9/11 events.
Dr. Steven Jones, Prof David Ray Griffin and Erik Lawyer, founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth were also part of this historic conference in San Francisco, CA.
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Richard Gage, AIA, architect and founder of the non-profit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. (AE911Truth), announced a decisive milestone today at a press conference in San Francisco, as more than 1,000 worldwide architects and engineers now support the call for a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. After careful examination of the official explanation, along with the forensic data omitted from official reports, these professionals have concluded that a new independent investigation into these mysterious collapses is needed.
Mr. Gage delivered the news around this major development, accompanied by signers of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition and other activists of the 9/11 truth movement including David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones and Erik Lawyer. The press conference was held concurrently in 38 cities in 6 countries. http://www.ae911truth.org/info/160
“The official FEMA and NIST reports provide insufficient, contradictory, and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction. We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials.”
—Richard Gage, AIA
These prominent architectural and engineering professionals discussed the organization’s findings and concerns. A brief presentation of the explosive evidence they have compiled was followed by Q & A. The presentation is an important update of “9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The Architecture of Destruction,” the DVD produced by the organization, andavailable on their website AE911Truth.org, which analyzes the scientific forensic evidence concluding that the three skyscrapers in New York City were demolished with explosives on 9/11.
The petition was delivered today to every congressional representative by AE911Truth petition signers throughout the country. Government officials were notified that “Misprision of Treason”, US Code 18 (Sec. 2382), is a serious federal offense which requires those with evidence of treason to act.
AE911Truth Calls for Grand Jury Investigation of NIST Officials
Gage and his group base their conclusions on forensic evidence. Gage states, “The official FEMA and NIST reports provide insufficient, contradictory, and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction. We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials.” Gage points out the destruction of the third high-rise, World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper which was not hit by an aircraft, yet came down in pure free-fall acceleration for more than 100 feet, a significant fact that NIST has been forced to admit, due to research conducted by AE911Truth petition signers. Other disturbing facts emerging from the forensic evidence include:
Complete destruction of both Twin Towers in just 10 to 14 seconds at near free-fall acceleration
Over 100 first-responder reports of explosions and flashes at onset of destruction
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
1200-foot-dia. debris field: no “pancaked” floors seen in the debris pile
Several tons of molten metal found in debris.[Note: NIST denied the existence of molten metal while numerous public video and pictures prove otherwise]
Evidence of advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists
AE911Truth’s conclusions are shared by thousands of scientists; senior-level military, intelligence and government officials; pilots and aviation professionals; firefighters; scholars and university professors; and 9/11 survivors and their family members. The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial.
The 9/11 Truth Movement, which Time magazine in 2006 called “a mainstream political reality,” continues to gain momentum. As AE911Truth’s own influence grows, Gage has embarked on well over 130 speaking events, covering 20 states and 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. He has been interviewed by media around the world – including the BBC, CBC, NatGeo, and Fox TV.
SOURCE Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. – AE911Truth.org
As of January 2010, over 1,000 architects and engineers have signed the AE911Truth’s petition demanding a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.
This press conference with Richard Gage, AIA, founder of AE911Truth, will underline this major achievement.
Also present to the conference: Prof. David Ray Griffin, Dr. Steven Jones and Erik Lawyer, founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth.
Live AE911Truth broadcast coming up on:
Friday February 19th @ 11 am Pacific — 2 pm Eastern
As of January 2010, over 1,000 architects and engineers have signed the AE911Truth’s petition demanding a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.
To underscore the importance of this milestone achievement, AE911Truth is launching a massive publicity campaign nationwide and holding a Press Conference in San Francisco, California on February 19, 2010 followed by an exclusive keynoteto include Prof. David Ray Griffin, Prof. Steven Jones and others.
Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, accompanied by other distinguished AE911Truth speakers and prominent petition signers, will announce this milestone with a brief presentation of the evidence which has convinced over 1,000 architects and engineers to support the demand for a real investigation.
If you wish to help make this event a success, here’s what you can do:
Help AE911Truth by volunteering right now to contact radio stations in your area to propose on-air interviews and encourage them to cover this extraordinary and timely story. Please contact Ralph, AE911Truth’s publicity coordinator at allenbrothers[at]hotmail.com for more info.
Download the AE911Truth’s radio interview request document and email it to every radio, TV and newspaper in your community after Feb. 5, 2010.
We would like to take a minute to salute the hard work of Richard Gage, AIA, all the volunteers at AE911Truth who make it all possible, and of course, all the AE911Truth petition signers. Your contributions are important and will help us all, including the families of the victims, shed some light into what really happened on 9/11. Keep it up.
As the number of verified architect and engineer petitioners at AE911Truth passes 1,000, the number describing themselves as aerospace engineers, or as engineers who have contributed professionally to the aerospace field, exceed sixty. These sixty-plus engineers were motivated to place their names on the public record as a matter of professional and social responsibility. While the skills necessary to conduct professional forensic analysis of destroyed buildings is largely distinct from those experienced in aerospace engineering, the basic physical laws involved in an analysis of the speed, symmetry, and energy input/output balance of the World Trade Center’s destruction involve only high school physics and chemistry, some lookups regarding the energy necessary to crush concrete, and basic arithmetic.
Here is a listing of these sixty-plus aerospace engineers, together with brief bios and their statements made at the time they signed: The engineers are listed alphabetically, grouped with those having full careers in aerospace listed first, and those with less than 30 years in aerospace listed second.
Engineers with Full Careers in Aerospace
Phil R. Bales, Aerospace Reliability and Life-Cycle Engineer. Employers have included major commercial engine companies, Teledyne CAE, Raytheon, and US Navy Civil Service.
“I was acutely aware of Engineering Cost Analysis and Life Cycle Cost Analysis, with many post graduate courses in these disciplines. My career was heavily biased toward statistical analysis and Warranty Cost Forecasting, requiring me to consider all possibilities, emphasizing the likelihood that the less likely events should be considered less heavily.
“Perhaps, this is why I was extremely reluctant to even consider the possibility that 9/11 could have been a staged event. ‘What is the chance that our own government could pull that off and get away with it?’ I pondered. When I was confronted with the facts, and I considered the reality that the temperatures of jet fuel combustion do not support the suggested failure modes posed by the government’s official report, I was forced into a paradigm shift. This reality has changed my entire perspective on the groups that I had previously dismissed as emotional, uneducated fools. I was wrong and I am grateful to the 9/11 Truthers for holding me accountable for the Truth! Now, I too am a 9/11 Truther.
“The facts about the collapse of three WTC buildings on 9/11/2001 just do not support the theory posed by the PBS Report, or the US Government’s publication. There must be further explanation to satisfy my hunger for the truth about the horrible realities of the WTC and Pentagon murders.
“As an engineer, as a patriot, as citizen of the United States of America, I demand that the government which is accountable to its citizens appoint an independent commission to investigate and report on the Truth of 9/11/2001.”
Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret; Exec VP, Millennium III Corp; Vice-Pres, Space Communications Co; Director of Advanced Space Programs Development, US Space Division (USAF); 101 combat missions F4, Vietnam; Head of Aero. Eng. Dept & Asst Dean, AF Inst of Tech, WPAFB.
“The official explanation in the NIST report violates the laws of physics. It is physically impossible for a building (or anything else) to fall at near-free-fall speed and do work (smashing steel and concrete) on the way down. An external energy input (like explosives) is absolutely essential. In addition, for the top of one of the towers to tip about 30 degrees and NOT continue tipping and falling off violates the law of conservation of angular momentum. The symmetrical collapse of building 7 due to highly asymmetrical damage is also unbelievable. We have not yet been told the truth. If the government has nothing to hide, why continue to hide everything? Why not a new and truly independent investigation?”
Dr. Alvin M. Bloom, Engineering consultant. BS, MS, PhD in Aerospace Engineering from University of Texas at Austin 1967
“Building collapses (straight down) at free fall speed could only be caused by a controlled demolition.”
Paul Browning, M.S. 35 years engineering experience with a NASA contractor, Bell Labs, Bellcore, AT&T Labs and Cingular/AT&T Mobility (12 years Engineering Management)
“The only steel framed skyscrapers to have ever collapsed as a result of a fire were WTC 1, 2, and 7. These buildings were built to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707, an aircraft about the same size and weight as the aircraft that hit them on 9/11.
“Temperatures produced by the fires simply did not reach those required to have a significant impact on the building’s structural integrity. Firemen 2 floors beneath the impact area in one building radioed out that the fire was controllable. Obviously he was not confronting a temperature of 2000 degrees only two stories above him. Pictures showed survivors of the impact standing in the hole made by the aircraft. These people wouldn’t have been there under the kind of conditions assumed by the official story.
“Fireman recalled hearing a series of secondary explosions exactly like those that would have been used to cause a controlled demolition and that the collapses looked exactly like that’s what happened.
“WTC 7 was hit by nothing and yet collapsed in the same way as the towers. Molten metal containing sulfur, indicating thermate, remained underneath all three buildings for weeks after 9/11. The structural steel debris was carted away as soon as possible without inspection. Taking pictures of ground zero or even stopping to look at it was made a criminal offense.
“The impact of the aircraft and the resulting fires could not possibly have caused the twin towers to collapse and saying that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to the impacts is simply absurd.”
Dr. David Chen, PhD in EE from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Worked at various aerospace companies doing artificial intelligence work, networked, real-time systems, and network security. Currently an Associate Technical Fellow at the Boeing Anaheim, California site.
“NIST & the US Congress should be ashamed of the poor investigation.
“Thanks to the architects & engineers of this site for carrying the torch for truth.”
Malcolm Davis, Degree in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Texas (Austin) in 1961.
“It is absurd to think that WTC 7 collapsed as a result of the events, as generally promoted, surrounding September 11.
“It is indeed depressing to observe that a large number of United States citizens didn’t even know that WTC 7 even existed.”
Joseph L. DeClue, Graduate MIT Class 1951, Retired Pres. Database Multitech, Designed analog and digital circuits. Eventually managed as Chief Engineer and V.P. Engineering of several companies and founded Database Multitech as a design and service company.
“The Government’s politically-correct explanation is not credible. It seems highly likely that our government must have had some part or at least been aware of the pending attack. Also the lack of response by the Air Force was not credible.”
Dwain A. Deets, Former Aerospace Research Engineer. While at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, held positions of Chief, Research Engineering Division, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager.
“The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved.”
Thomas James Dolan, 45 years as mechanical/project engineer on Apollo manned lunar landing program, X-15, B-70, T-39, aircraft accident investigator (USC & FAA certified), Boeing 767, Space Shuttle, Navstar Global Positioning System and the Space Station.
“I have seen on TV commercial buildings collapse under controlled demolition prior to 911. I have been told that no certified US demolition companies will comment officially on 911. I personally saw and heard in real time 2 firemen (one dirty and exhausted, seated outside on a low brick garden wall) and another just reporting for action – nice and clean. Both were looking at Building 7 in the near background (1 block?) away and to the question for the exhausted one by the fresh one regarding its status the exhausted one looked at his watch and said as clearly as I can remember, ‘Its going down about 4:30! I didn’t think too much about it at the time but now I think about it a lot whenever 911 comes up!’”
Larry Erickson, Retired NASA engineer (33 years). Performed research in the fields of structural dynamics, aerodynamics, aeroelasticity and flutter.
“Serious technical investigations by experts seem to be lacking from the official explanations.”
Edmond (Monty) John Forbes, In 1981 joined MITRE Corp, Bedford MA as Lead Sys Engineer for airborne Wide Body Presidential assets. This extended to Special Service classified systems in both fixed wing & rotary wing platforms until retirement in 2004.
“True, both WTC 1 & 2, North & South structures were impacted by commercial “767’s” killing innocent passengers, crew & hijackers along with occupants in the building floors at point of impact. The devastation and human loss beyond the impact site was due to other influences because of the proven design and features of the Towers.
“The temperatures in the impact areas due to burning Jet-A fuel and the office furnishings and business tools could NOT rise to the level of 3000-4000 deg. F necessary to deform and fail structural steel joints and the total collapse of the structures.
“Such ‘failure’ could only be caused by man-made features of pyro-technical assets pre-placed by ‘outsiders.’ Look at the destruction of WTC 7. No aircraft or heavy debris collateral from the Towers struck that building.
“All destruction was in the classical method of building REMOVAL to make way for new assets.”
Marc Graziani, Engineer and engineering manager for Sperry Utah and Univac for many years, primarily in the aerospace industry.
“There is no degree required for simple common sense, if all structures fell as these structures did then why do we spend millions of dollars each year paying demolition experts to demolish structures for minimal collateral damage? This is not a perfect world, no structure of this magnitude could weaken perfectly and collapse in on themselves.”
Dr. Jay Kappraff, Assoc. Professor of Mathematics. Chemical engineer with Dupont 1960-1961, Aerospace Engineer with NADA 1963-1965, Ph.D. in mathematics from NYU Courant Inst. specializing in Plasma Physics, Assoc. Prof of Math. at New Jersey Inst. of Technology 1974-present.
“The analysis of the 3 collapses of the WTC as narrated by Richard Gage is very convincing. That the building collapsed near the speed of gravity has no other explanation other than controlled demolition. The symmetric collapse reinforces this hypothesis.”
Kathleen McGrade, B.S. Materials Engineering at NMIMT, class of ‘78. Joined a start up named Starstruck formed to launch a rocket for delivering satellites into near earth orbit. Was with two other start ups, Metcal and Crystallume. Now owns a “regular” company that inspects and tests fire trucks throughout CA & CO.
“After reading everything I could find for four months on the subject to where my head was spinning, I realized that all the evidence you need to see the truth is in the 10-second video of the Bldg. 7 collapse. You don’t need an engineering degree to see it.”
David Wayne Nicholson, Windhunter Corporation President. Worked in the nuclear, automotive, aerospace and pharmaceutical industries concentrating on the design of machinery. Some equipment contained 3,000 degree F gases that were used to test gas turbine components.
“My professional experience with metals in high temperature environments convinced me that the three buildings could not have been demolished with jet fuel fires.”.
Keith Emanuel Noren, Senior Systems Engineer. 35 years engineering mostly in Missile Defense (IR Sensors, Discrimination, Flight Test Planning).
“Way too many questions unanswered – 3 Towers apparently destroyed (pulverization of concrete, melting temp not reached, free fall speed, upward steel beams, chem analysis showing explosives, molten steel in basement, rapid removal of debris), too many advance intel notices to be pure incompetence, insider trading, virtual Air Defense shutdown, Norm Mineta/Richard Clarke vs Dick Cheney testimonies, Pentagon withholding of surveillance cameras, black hole/no aircraft debris at Shanksville, …”
Robert W. Poltz, President and CEO of Design Analytx International, world leader in high tech systems reliability design analysis. Published 19 articles on Reliability Engineering 2000-01. Member of the Society of Reliability Engineering, IEEE, and ASQ (American Society for Quality).
“I became keenly aware that something wasn’t right about the whole scenario surrounding the collapse of two skyscrapers. Having grown up in the shadow of the Empire State Building in New York City in my youth and young adult life, I remember hearing in school that lower Manhattan was ‘Ground Zero’ in the event of nuclear attack. Living and working in skyscrapers is the norm in NYC. They are virtually indestructible given the amount of steel used and a history of over-building these structures. Then I saw the Loose Change video and that opened my eyes in disbelief that our government could do something like this and hope to get away with it. Let’s start with independent hearings to determine the cause of failure of these buildings from a scientific analysis. Let the evidence lead us from there towards criminal prosecution of the guilty.”
Attila M. Revesz, Senior Member of IEEE and Senior Member of AIAA, Worked as a research engineer and taught college level physics and math in Hungary. Worked as a design engineer in aerospace industry and business manager in California.
“Watching the rapid and symmetrical collapse of the building to its own footprint contradicts the official story. The sound of explosion at ground level shortly prior to collapse suggests controlled demolition.”
Eddy Shalom, Over 30 years of experience working in NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in flight electronics and other areas, as an engineer and as a technical manager.
“As a physics major, it has been clear to me for some time that the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ is totally absurd.
“It is not clear to me why so many intelligent people with the same education and training refuse to even review the evidence with an open mind.
“This is our greatest challenge and underutilized resource.”
Engineers with less than 30 years in Aerospace
Melissa Allin, P.E., B.S. Aerospace Engineering, University of Oklahoma. Over 15 years in mechanical design, pumping systems and fluid systems design and testing.
“I have spent five years researching and discussing the events of 9/11. The reason I would like to sign this petition for a new investigation is due to the unanswered questions, informational gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies of the 9/11 Commission Report in general, and because of the unacceptable work of the NIST in investigating the collapse of the towers specifically.
“The tragedy of 9/11 and the mass of civilian deaths that occurred that day demand a proper investigation, unbiased fact-seeking, and full-disclosure. The American people have been charged $16 million by the NIST and received nothing of value in return for that price. I would lose my engineering license if I pulled that stunt.”
William J. Blanch, Aerospace Controls Engineer, formerly with NASA Ames and Lockheed Martin.
“As a Controls Engineer I worked with angular momentum and I just couldn’t understand how the vector of the collapse was perpendicular to the ground and straight down the center of the buildings. The expansion of the trusses would need to be ‘linear’ for this collapse vector to be possible.”
Raymond William Blohm, Aerospace Engineer, formerly with Boeing Vertol, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, and Warner Robins Air Logistics Center.
“Since the ‘attack’, I have been perusing the credible books and documentaries concerning either the actual event or the greater political — intelligence agency — corporatocracy — financial setting. Books like James Bamford’s The Shadow Factory & Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine and documentaries like Zeitgeist, The Movie: World Trade Center and Core Of Corruption have caused me to doubt the official story (including the building collapses). We need to know what kind of world we live in.”
Arthur L. Carran, P.E., Commercial Pilot Certificate with Instrument Flight Rating; B.S., Aerospace Engineering Technology, Kent State University; Professional Engineer, State of Ohio; Employed in Aerospace Engineering field since 1983.
“WTC 1, 2, and 7 show that the official story is false because of the symmetrical collapse, the free-fall speed of the collapse, the pulverization of the concrete to dust, the cutting of the columns to convenient lengths, and the persistent molten pools of steel. The Pentagon event shows that the official story is false because of the improbable flight path flown by the 757. The Shanksville event shows that the official story is false because of the characteristics of the aircraft debris field.”
Thomas Edward Carter, Optical Engineer for over 14 years. Have worked in the defense industry, semiconductor industry, biological industry, R&D and aerospace industries.
“The Tower 7 collapse needs to be investigated more thoroughly. Physics is a tough competitor.”
David M. Clifford, Aerospace engineering graduate from Cal Poly SLO with emphasis on mechanics of composite materials.
“It is a sad day for humanity when institutions are killing their own for conquest/monetary gain. The evidence clearly shows demolition was behind the collapse of all THREE towers.”
Erwin DeJong, MS (Mechanical and Structural Engineering). Currently occupied in offshore (steel structure) and aerospace engineering.
“From a technical point of view it is not explainable that a steel structure sinks down into its own footprint with obviously no resistance after intense fires or even a plane crash.”
Paul Dewey, Mechanical Engineer. Over 25 years experience developing products and systems, and analyzing failures in the aerospace, electronics and medical fields.
“The official report describing the cause of the collapse of the three structures at the World Trade Center seems to reach conclusions not based on the evidence presented and does not address evidence that does not support the conclusion. It is not credible.
“Many actions costing many lives and billions of taxpayers’ money have been initiated based on the story repeated in that report. The American people, and the people of the world, deserve a thorough review of all the relevant data and facts and an open analysis and conclusion from a reputable and diverse professional group. Please find the courage to support revisiting the facts surrounding the collapse of the buildings on 9/11. Thank you.”
Maurizio Di Pierro, Graduated in Aerospace Engineering at Politecnico di Torino, Italy.
“I am convinced that a steel frame building has a very small probability of collapse in an event of fire. The WTC 7 collapse is not explainable without resorting to controlled demolition. The symmetry and velocity of collapse, the dynamics of collapse in general point toward the controlled demolition as a cause of collapse.
“Also, certain footage fully qualifies as forensic evidence.
“As for the airplane hitting the Pentagon, I support PilotsFor911Truth.org, and find it implausible that the airplane ‘vaporized’ upon impact scattering so few debris and showing a narrow and deep penetration into the building.”
Robert G. Doniacour, E.E., Trained as an Electrical Engineer. I’ve worked for NASA and other companies designing control systems for mechanical motion control systems.
“We must perform publicly and with peer review an extensive analysis of the WTC collapse. The official explanation stops at the onset of collapse. To even explain the start of the collapse without explosives requires some far-fetched ideas. There are lots of energy analyses to do that I have not seen done.
“How can multi-ton steel beams be ejected with enough force to embed themselves in buildings far away?
“What explains the symmetry of the collapse? Uncontrolled phenomena are seldom symmetrical.”
Benjamin Erwin, B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from M.I.T. with specialization in structural engineering. M.A.T. in Physics Education.
“The lack of any core columns still standing even though the fall was straight down is certainly puzzling.”
Jean Evrard, Univ of Brussels (1963, engineering), Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago (1967, aerospace), von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics in Brussels (1968, fluid mechanics). After having worked as a researcher for NASA, moved from science to business.
“Compare the WTC steel beams with the Madrid tower steel beams … Madrid fire photos
“Unlike the twin trade towers (and WTC 7), this 32 story steel beamed building remains standing after burning for 17 hours straight.
“Does steel act differently in Spain and the USA?
“When and how will we legally sue the Bush Administration?”
Christopher Thomas Fagan, Project engineer for NASA battery backup unit on mobile launcher. Worked for 5 years before company went off shore.
“3 buildings coming down with 2 planes doesn’t work out. The new stories of superthermite in the dust at four locations shows that the demolitions were planned. As an engineer with statics and dynamics classes as well as properties of materials, I want to see the equations. Smarter people I trust will analyze these with a fine-toothed comb. It is hard to hide from a complete set of questions.”
Dr. Edwin L. Force, Experience includes 20 years Oil & Chemical Industries, 10 years NASA, now retired.
“Information available suggests thorough, unbiased, complete investigation is warranted. Credentials of critics are impressive.”
T. Mark Hightower, Worked initially in the chemical industry. For the last nearly 20 years, worked in aerospace. Member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, as well as a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
“I woke up to the problems with the building collapses in January 2004 when I stumbled upon a web site that showed evidence that they were brought down with controlled demolition. It is clear that the buildings had help to bring them down. The collapses of WTC towers 1 and 2 were obviously far more energetic events than can be explained by some sort of progressive gravitational collapse initiated by a simple weakening of the structure by hydrocarbon fire. Here I am thinking of the tremendous dust clouds (pyroclastic flows) and the nearly free-fall speed. Building 7, not hit by a plane, appears to have been a classic controlled demolition, and perfectly symmetrically executed.”
Brett M. Hoffstadt, Advanced degree and nearly 20 years experience in engineering and aerospace.
“WTC 7 had no logical or physical reason to collapse as it did. That event deserves an honest investigation and explanation.”
William T. Holmes, Degree in aeronautical engineering, but with interest in architecture and structural engineering. This continued even with aeronautical engineering career.
“No question of demolition. See voluntary society, where you’ll find a chronology of U.S. false flag events and Tower profitability information. Also there is documentation of Tower bi-metallic corrosion, and a demand by the EPA that Towers 1 and 2 be disassembled by 2007 rather than demolished. Disassembly was prohibitively expensive. Corroborating evidence of this is needed.
“Is it possible that every tall building is wired for demolition to avoid toppling due to an earthquake or bomb, and in the case of the Towers, the buildings were demolished to avoid collateral property damage the moment they started to topple, despite being occupied? Building 7 would argue against that.”
Scott Nigel Hudson, Aeronautical Stress Engineer for three years in Bristol, England. Helped design primary flight control actuators for helicopter & U.A.V. applications. Worked on aircraft landing gear also.
“Theoretical impossibility for a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse symmetrically virtually into its own footprint at near-free-fall speed due to office fires, while looking like a controlled demolition.”
Bruce C. Jenkins, Design Engineer on several upper stage and satellite structures including satellite boosters and aircraft fuselage, with Lockheed Missiles & Space Corp and Aerospace Corp.
“It is beyond engineering comprehension that the WTC buildings could have collapsed the way they did by any other means than a controlled demolition.”
David C. Lasich, B.S. in Aerospace Engineering in 1990. Worked in the field of engineering for over 15 years. Also earned a secondary teaching credential and have taught math up to the high school level.
“The few videos I have seen and interviews I have heard were taken with much skepticism. However there are many troubling questions that I feel the 9/11 Commission did not answer. The most troubling to me is that the investigation was obviously not done in a completely objective and scientific way. Much evidence was neglected, and those on the panel most likely had prejudices to the findings.”
Eli Aaron Meyer, Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1998.
“I tend to view “conspiracy theory” material as a skeptic, and this is how I approached this issue. After reading peer-reviewed studies done at Brigham Young University, I began taking the issue seriously. The fact that many other high-rise structures have sustained fires for long durations without structural failure really makes me question how Jet A fuel burned at atmospheric conditions (sustained fires, post-explosion) could possibly generate the heat necessary to compromise the structural integrity of the steel to result in structural failure. The near free-fall collapse speeds (documented on video) of the buildings doesn’t seem possible from a localized structural failure. If there was structural failure as a result of fire and impact, I would expect an asymmetrical failure of the buildings; however the buildings almost entirely [came straight down] upon themselves. I would like to see some more research done upon this subject.”
Terry Petersen, E.E., Served six years in the Army. Got my degree and went straight into an aerospace company and have been there for 12 years.
“My main problem is the amount of rubble that went over the sides combined with rapid collapse.
“My opinion is that contrasting the South Tower core standing after the collapse to what Bazant presents may be the best way to get “skeptical” engineers on board.”
Gregory A. Prinz, Mechanical Engineer. I graduated in 1986, worked in the aerospace/telecommunications industry as a production engineer, building countermeasures defense systems for the military until 1990.
“I originally (immediately after the attacks) thought that the official story of collapse made sense from an engineering standpoint. However, after spending countless hours reading reports, looking through comprehensive engineering analyses, studying the tower’s design aspects, and seeing what a poor, non-technical report/explanation was produced by our government, there is no doubt that there needs to be a more thorough investigation into what happened. It does not add up.”
Samuel Lowndes Ready, Received MSEE from University of Southern California with an emphasis on computers in 1958. Then worked in Aerospace for 26 years for several different companies in So. Cal.
“From all the different videos I have seen it seems very clear that the collapse of the 3 WTC buildings was due to controlled demolition.”
David Roark Redick, 5 yrs rocket engineer and 30 years telecom sales, eng., and management; CEO and co-founder Silicon Valley startup Fiberstreet in 2000.
“No way except controlled demolition do all parts of a floor collapse at once; plus sequence of floor collapses top to bottom on WTC 1&2.
“The Twin Towers were built with an exterior structure of large vertical I-beams. No way do these disintegrate into short pieces…”
Michael Remington, Composite Design Engineer. B.S. Aerospace Engineering, UCLA. Structural Composite and Material Design, Aerojet
“I do agree that the implosions of each WTC building appear to have many more characteristics of a controlled demolition, than not. Significant quantities of thermite present in the rubble is sufficient evidence, alone, to warrant a thorough investigation.”
John C. Rice, P.E. (ret.) Retired Transportation Engineer. Worked in aerospace defense for Martin Marietta on the Gemini and Prime projects. As a transportation engineer, specialized in traffic signal systems.
“Since September 11 I have collected hundreds of photos and articles that point to 9/11 being an inside job. I want to see the criminals brought to justice.”
Daniel W. Richard, P.E., LS (retired). Graduated from University of Arizona 1950 and worked for various companies (Fluor Corporation, Fisher Contracting, Pan American World Airways Guided Missile Range Department) and also the U.S. government (Federal Aviation Agency, U.S. Forest Service).
“I accepted the government’s conspiracy story as given out by the mainstream media and did not give much, if any, thought to it until a neighbor on March 1, 2006 brought me a story from the Desert Morning News in SLC, Utah.
“It was dated 1-28-06. I contacted the journalist and asked if there were any other stories and she sent me two others. After reading them and finally thinking about it and based on my engineering education and experience, I realized that we have been lied to and that there was a coverup. For instance if the floors pancaked and fell one on the other from the fires, which could not possibly melt and cut the steel, the 47 massive columns over a quarter mile high would still be standing!
“There was no forensic investigation and the steel fell in lengths that could be loaded and trucked to the west coast and shipped to Asia. Also the 9/11 Commission Report did not mention the 47-story WTC 7, which fell the afternoon that the two towers fell in the morning! A sure sign of a false report.
“My opinion is that the 3 WTC buildings fell as a result of planted cutting charges — an inside job. …”
Roland R. Rodriguez, Worked in the aerospace and defense industry for almost 25 years developing, integrating, troubleshooting, and testing complex electronic and software systems.
“It is inconceivable that the World Trade Center buildings collapsed as they did because of fires as the public has been led to believe. This is not just an opinion, but a very well educated guess. Although I studied electrical engineering, Georgia Tech–as most engineering universities–required that I take courses in physics, statics, dynamics, thermodynamics.”
Marc Salesse-Lavergne, Graduated as an Engineer from the Institut Superieur d’Electronique de Paris in 1987 (major in solid state physics and micro-electronics). Electronics engineering for Aerospatiale, then aeronautics engineering for Eurocopter company from 1990 to today.
“From the elements presented so far, I understand the 2 main hypotheses are:
1) WTC towers’ structural damage by the initial impact, followed by softening of this steel and concrete structure from fire exposure, until the upper building weight crashed the lower weakened structure. Since no other case is known of such equivalent buildings being destroyed by fire, then this explanation only holds if the initial damage was large enough. Are you aware of any evaluation of the energy dissipated by the initial impact, and simulations or computations of how much damage it could have caused?
2) Controlled destruction by coordinated explosions all along the fall path. Although most of what is left of the towers have disappeared, explosives traces are no doubt to be found in what remains.”
Dick W. Scar, Experimental Test Engineer, Pratt & Whiney Aircraft ‘65-’68; Powerplant engineer, United Air Lines ‘68-72. Owned and operated family retail business ‘72-04. Now Retired
“Of all the astounding events on Sept. 11, ‘01, I was most started by how the WTC buildings collapsed. I would never have expected that to happen.”
James Edwin Seymour, Mechanical Engineer. In-depth, widely varied technical experience in both aerospace and commercial areas with major accomplishments on many top high-tech projects for Fortune 500 companies. Heavy MIL-STD experience.
“I think 9/11 was an inside job. I’m less certain about the bombs in the buildings. I saw a video on the web showing controlled demolitions. The explosions were huge concussions and louder than the sound the fall made.
“I’m signing this petition because a real investigation needs to be done.”
Mike Strasser, Product Design Consultant. Have worked at NASA Ames. Founded and manage a product design firm in San Francisco.
“There seems to be some very compelling facts that lead me to believe that it’s not a simple terrorist attack that destroyed all three buildings.”
Dr. William F. Stubbeman, 1987 BSE in Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Princeton; 1992 medical degree from Columbia University in New York; 2000 began private practice in psychiatry; 2009 2000-present private practice psychiatry in LA, CA
“The results of the peer-reviewed study published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 contains clear scientific proof that unreacted nanothermite explosive fragments were found in the dust from the world trade center collapse. Methods used for analysis include optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, spectroscopy, and calorimetry. They witnessed and photographed triggered micro-explosions from the nanothermite fragments. These micro-explosions produced the same heat and force output as laboratory nanothermite. The dust was sampled from four different locations soon after the collapses. One sample was collected about ten minutes after the collapses of WTC buildings 1 & 2. All dust samples produced essentially the same findings. The unreacted explosive fragments can clearly be seen under low-power magnification, as photographs from the paper illustrate. This type of explosive is apparently untraceable, unlike most kinds of demolition materials. Eight different authors from universities and organizations around the world including Denmark, Utah, Indiana, Australia, Berkeley, Dallas contributed to this paper. This kind of science cannot be fudged. After reading this I became convinced that the reason for the clear and undeniable presence of explosive residue in the dust should be thoroughly re-investigated, especially since the NIST & FEMA reports did not even look for or mention these findings.”
Anthony Szamboti, Mechanical Design Engineer with over 20 years experience in the Aerospace and communications industries, where I have designed a large variety of structures required to perform in dynamic environments.
“After watching the twin tower collapses live I wondered to myself where all of the energy came from to cause such rapid collapses. At the time I did not know how the buildings were designed and also heard a few days later about a civil engineering professor saying there was a 30g dynamic load. This was probably Dr. Bazant of Northwestern University. I somewhat accepted this but still wondered. After hearing about Dr. Steven Jones bringing up issues with molten metal in the rubble in early 2006 I decided I should read his paper. I found it on the Internet and after reading it started looking much harder at those collapses myself. Unfortunately, there is little doubt that the collapses were caused by controlled demolitions and it appears the aircraft impacts were causal ruses.”
George Vega, Quality/Manufacturing Engineer with experience in aerospace and defense, telecommunications, and computer chip manufacturing industries. Specialist in statistical quality control and computer aided design and manufacturing.
“The 9/11 building collapses have the appearance of a demolition. The Pentagon has the appearance of a missile strike. I would like to know the truth about why WTC Building 7 collapsed.”
James Vogt, Graduated from Univ of NH in 1979. Design engineer for Raytheon Missile Systems Division. Self-employed as programmer since 1985.
“After 5 semesters of physics in college it is clear to me that these buildings were brought down via controlled demolition.”
Robert R. Walker, 35 years experience in instrumentation supporting structural testing. I worked in aerospace for 28 years testing strength of spacecraft materials. I am still active in material testing and hold US patents for load sensors.
“After viewing the building 7 collapse, I have to say if somebody told me that a demolition expert was reducing building 7 to rubble I would agree. The thermite connection is strong evidence that somebody orchestrated cutting the under-pinnings of building 7 and probably had the twin towers prepared for demolition.”
Christopher Wilder, 30+ years of wide mechanical engineering experience; Consulted with internationally known entities Kaiser Aluminum, Bechtel, Lawrence National Labs, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), Applied Materials, Intel, NASA, and BOC.
“I concluded early on that the ‘official explanation,’ even before the 9/11 Commission report, did not add up. The first couple of items that I found suspicious were 1) the pulverizing of the concrete and 2) the free fall of the Towers in less than 10 seconds. Since 2001 I have read many books on the subject starting with Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid, The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin (I saw him speak in Berkeley a year ago with Peter Phillips) and Towers of Deception by Barrie Zwicker—the latter of which included the CD The Great Conspiracy. From the latter book I agreed with the author (and Richard Gage whom I heard on KPFA today) that there needs to be another, more thorough, investigation of the events of 9/11/2001.
“To add to my list of suspicious items, I saw a public showing of a CD, in 2004, where the focus was on experienced criminal investigators and how they were making the case about the rapid shipment of the steel from the Towers to India and China and that act was ‘destroying evidence at the scene of a crime.’
“I worked at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center from 2001-2005. I was amazed how otherwise very savvy physicists and engineers didn’t want to entertain the thought, or evidence, that the ‘official explanation’ did not add up. They willingly accept the official ‘pancake theory.’ I have my own theory about their willingness to accept the official explanation. Several years ago I came across a term called ‘cognitive dissonance.’ The psychological description goes like this: the term describes an uncomfortable mental tension that arises from results from having two (or more) conflicting thoughts at the same time i.e. ‘The Towers falling was a bad, terrible event’ and ‘My government is here to help me and they couldn’t have had anything to do with the destruction of the Towers.’”
Dr. Frank Wolstencroft, Research in metal deformation (and in particular machining). Industrial experience in the aerospace industry.
“There are too many unanswered questions about 9/11 in order to believe the official version of events. A more thorough investigation is needed to arrive at a more accurate assessment. There is not enough energy contained in jet fuel to explain the total collapse and destruction of the central core. The molten steel found in the basements of the towers needs to be explained scientifically. The collapse of WTC 7 is also very suspicious.”
Brian Wright, Graduated Wayne State University, BSME 1975, several years working as a design engineer in aerospace, product engineer in automotive, and project engineer in biomechanical engineering.
“One does not need to be an engineer to understand that contradictions cannot exist. If the pancake theory is true then we should sure have seen some pancakes, not pulverized concrete and steel. Further, buildings such as WTC 7 do not spontaneously collapse from being hit by debris or from fire.”
Dear Friends and Fellow Advocates for Answers and Accountability,
As we look ahead to 2010, we at NYC CAN would like to offer our deepest thanks to everyone who contributed to a remarkable and historic campaign, and we would like to take a moment to celebrate the achievements that give us much to build upon in 2010.
2009 was a year of tremendous progress for our cause. Among a long list of successes, a peer-reviewed paper was published in a mainstream scientific journal documenting the discovery of active thermitic material in the World Trade Center dust; the petition of architects and engineers calling for a new investigation into the WTC destruction has leaped to nearly 1,000 signatories while founding member Richard Gage, AIA travels the world delivering his analysis of the buildings’ demise to thousands of concerned citizens and leaders. The increasing strength and credibility of our message is evidenced by the ever greater frequency of media breakthroughs casting a positive light on the questions we pose.
Thanks to your support, NYC CAN is proud to consider the ballot initiative campaign in New York among the many victories that furthered our cause in 2009. 80,000 New Yorkers – nearly 8% of the number who voted in the 2009 mayoral election in America’s largest city – signed a petition calling for a new 9/11 investigation. Just last week we learned one of those 80,000 signatories is a councilmember elect, intent upon helping us advance our cause with the local government once in office. A few hundred thousand more New Yorkers, while not prepared to take the leap of faith and sign the petition, were directly educated about the need for a new investigation. A dozen mainstream news outlets in the United States and Europe covered the campaign’s success, and perhaps most importantly, a tectonic shift occurred – after eight years of research and education, we have begun to collectively hone in on the endgame.
It is this “endgame” to which NYC CAN will continue to dedicate itself in 2010. In the months since the ballot initiative campaign ended, we have recuperated, reflected and regrouped. After committing more than a year to the single objective of a ballot initiative, NYC CAN’s approach in 2010 will expand to a multi-pronged pursuit of educational, legislative and legal avenues to bringing about a true investigation:
1) Vote For Answers 2010, a national campaign of local ballot initiatives aimed at moving 9/11 into the light of open public discussion and manifesting the public’s will for a new and truly independent 9/11 investigation.
2) Continuous education and lobbying of supportive New York City officials.
3) A civil law suit to be filed by 9/11 families to bring real 9/11 evidence into federal court.
4) “Common Sense”, an educational campaign tying all of NYC CAN’s efforts together, comprised of credible, expert spokespeople capable of winning the hearts and minds of the American people.
The first step on the promising road ahead is already underway. NYC CAN has teamed up with the Monadnock 9/11 Truth Alliance and other New Hampshire advocates to launch Vote For Answers New Hampshire.
Because only 25 signatures are required for the insertion of an article on New Hampshire town ballots, Vote For Answers New Hampshire has set an ambitious goal of placing its article on 40 town ballots across the state at local elections this spring. The article reads:
Shall New Hampshire’s Congressional Delegation be instructed to pursue a new and independent investigation to address thoroughly all of the evidence and unanswered questions related to the events of September 11, 2001? (The record of the vote on this article shall be transmitted by the Town of ________ to New Hampshire’s Congressional Delegation.)
Already, petitioning efforts are underway in 21 towns, and several Town Halls have confirmed the wording is appropriate to be placed on their ballot.
The campaign has been publicly endorsed by the Former Mayor of Keene Michael E.J. Blastos, as well as by a bipartisan lineup of current and former State Representatives including Peter Allen, Peter Espiefs, Betty B. Hall, Paul Harrington, Barbara Hull Richardson and Charles Weed. All seven local New Hampshire leaders have signed their names to the following statement to be printed in the Keene Sentinel and other local newspapers next week:
“As current and former public servants, it is our duty to raise our voice with those from across the country and around the world to call attention to the omissions and falsehoods in the official account of the events of September 11, 2001. The good people of New Hampshire are asked to sacrifice ever more in the War on Terrorism and yet there has been no true investigation into the events of September 11th for which this war is being fought. So long as our policies continue to be based on those tragic events, it will never be too late for honest answers to reasonable questions that to this day go unanswered. In defense of our nation and in defense of freedom itself, we must get to the bottom of what happened.”
If you live in New Hampshire or if you have friends in New Hampshire, please contact us at info@nyccan.org so that we can expand the reach of the campaign to include as many towns as possible. With success in New Hampshire we will pave the way for Vote For Answers 2010 to be carried out next November in a dozen other states that allow non-binding voter initiatives.
We will keep you updated as this effort and our other efforts unfold over the coming months. If you have skills or experience related to political organizing, public relations, legal work, graphic design or web design and you are looking for ways to contribute, we invite you to contact us and help shape the next step forward in 9/11 advocacy.
In closing, Janette MacKinlay – the courageous 9/11 survivor who gave the first sample of WTC dust to Dr. Steven Jones and has been an invaluable member of NYC CAN’s Executive Council – created a holiday arrangement of Ikebana art called “Flame of Truth” that she wanted to share with everyone to wish us all a warm and happy holidays. Her work is dedicated to finding solace and hope after September 11th – you can view more of it at JanetteMacKinlay.com.
From everyone at NYC CAN, we thank you for your incredible support, and we wish you a happy and enriching New Year. Together we can make 2010 a breakthrough year.
2009 in Review: Top 10 News Stories About 9/11 You Don’t Want to Miss
Important 9/11 news stories were almost daily this year.
The news stories about 9/11 in our top 10 have one thing in common: most of them didn’t make it in the U.S. mainstream news and we cannot start this review without underlining this fact.
We feel like each of these stories should have been covered on prime time TV and become headlines for all major newspapers. They should have been investigated thoroughly by journalists. After all, 9/11 is still used as a pretext for war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and now Yemen which seems to be joining the extended “axis of evil” of the 21st Century. War against the invisible enemy called ‘terrorism’ is expanding and has no end in sight, and the press should lead the way to accountability.
It is a sad realization to know these stories were only covered by alternative medias like us, 911blogger.com, 911truth.org, etc, and we are grateful for the hard working activists who spend countless hours informing the public.
It is our deepest hope that the journalists who will read this review will understand the importance of talking about these stories, especially the two first stories of our top 10. We invite them to report on it. It will never be too late.
“Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.” —Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States
Apologies to President Barack Obama
Before we start, we would also like to send our sincere apologies to President Barack Obama. He warned us in his historic speech titled A New Beginning this past June in Cairo, Egypt, that the elements of the 9/11 official story “are not opinions to be debated, but facts to be dealt with.”
Sorry M. Obama. We don’t buy that. Millions of us don’t. We hope our 2009 Top 10 News Stories about 9/11 will enlighten what you consider to be factual.
2009 was a great year for the 9/11 truth movement. We are growing by millions, now faster than ever, and we are going nowhere. One day or another, the U.S. administration will realize that our questions and the evidence that was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report are not simply opinions, but the result of a worldwide awaken public demanding more and more answers. Answers to critical questions that will have to be dealt with and debated. Hopefully in the peaceful context of a new independent investigation with subpoena powers. We can and should do this sooner than later.
We invite you to share this article with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, Digg, Reddit and others (see the buttons on top and bottom of page). Help us make it go viral.
All comments are welcome on our website (bottom of page) and on our official Facebook page.
OK. Time to go get yourself a coffee, sit back and enjoy our 2009 Top 10 News Stories about 9/11.
It is not everyday that the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, FEMA and other agencies are nervous regarding leaks from internal communications.Wikileaks did just that, for a period of 24 hours by releasing over half a million text pager intercepts from official agencies and ordinary citizens.
The messages were broadcast “live” to the global community — synchronized to the time of day they were sent. The first message was from 3AM September 11, 2001, five hours before the first attack, and the last, 24 hours later.
Messages in the archive range from Pentagon, FBI, FEMA and New York Police Department exchanges, to computers reporting faults at investment banks inside the World Trade Center.
The archive is a completely objective record of the defining moment of our time. Wikileaks hopes that its entrance into the historical record will lead to a nuanced understanding of how this event led to death, opportunism and war.
As official videographer for the U.S. government, Kurt Sonnenfeld was detailed to Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, where he spent one month filming 29 tapes: “What I saw at certain moments and in certain places… is very disturbing!” he says.
He never handed the tapes over to the authorities and has been persecuted ever since. Kurt Sonnenfeld lives in exile in Argentina, where he wrote El Perseguido (the persecuted). His recently-published book tells the story of his unending nightmare and drives another nail into the coffin of the government’s account of the 9/11 events.
Our original article features an exclusive interview with Kurt Sonnenfeld by Voltairenet.
“It was very odd to me when I learned that FEMA and several other federal agencies had already moved into position at their command center at Pier 92 on September 10th, one day before the attacks.” — Kurt Sonnenfeld, former Director of Broadcast Operations for FEMA’s National Emergency Response Team
This news story was the most popular story on World911Truth.org this year. It was meant to be a historic debate as it was first announced that Niels Harrit and Éric Laurent would also be part of it. But their presence was judged inconvenient by TV channel France 2 and they both were censored from the debate at the last minute.
This French 9/11 debate turned out to be an orchestrated attack against Kassovitz, Bigard and the 9/11 truth movement by France 2 “L’objet du Scandale” who had obviously no intention to create a fair and open debate in the first place. We deplore this and hope that a true debate will take place on the French scene soon and that experts like Niels Harrit and Éric Laurent will not be censored in the future.
Jean-Marie Bigard also makes it to the 7th place of our Top 10 9/11 News Stories of 2009.
French comedian Jean-Marie Bigard proposed to laugh at the 9/11 official story once a week during the summer… and we loved it.
After being vilified by the French press for his comments on the 9/11 attacks in 2008 on the Europe 1 channel for “denying the 9/11 events” — which is ludicrous and as far from the truth as you can get, and which resulted in an onslaught of hate mail and death threats — Bigard, one of France’s most successful stand-up comedians, came back strong in the 9/11 truth ring to deliver punch lines and punches at the 9/11 official story.
He created a series of 11 short videos viewed by millions (available with English subtitles, thanks to ReOpen911.info), each “laughing” at different disturbing elements of the official 9/11 Commission report.
#6 – AE911Truth at the AIA Conventions in Washington, DC and San Francisco
2009 clearly was a very good year for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) founded by Richard Gage, AIA. They almost doubled their numbers of professionals architects and engineers supporting their call for a new investigation based on the evidence of explosive controlled-demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 they present. They will very soon reach the 1,000 members mark and 2010 will most probably be one of their most important year, with several members sharing the public lead of this organization, notably Dwain Deets a former NASA engineering executive of 37 years.
But back to 2009. AE911Truth did something almost impossible. They were present at the huge annual AIA Convention in San Francisco in April to meet with hundreds of architects. They had a professional booth, flat screen monitors showing the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Banners, DVD’s, fliers, etc. Many A/E present at the convention were curious and ended up signing their petition. Most were exposed to Building 7 for the first time.
The fact that AE911Truth was present at this convention is historic by itself and is one of the reasons why they made it to our #6. Later, in July, they repeated this feat at the AIA convention in Washington, D.C.
During both conventions, local 9/11 truth groups and WeAreChange local members were there to help with many aspects of the organization. It is also important to point out that these successful events were only made possible because of our collective financial support which clearly made a huge difference. We invite you to keep on supporting them in the coming year because the more they progress, the more they will need us.
Watch one of the videos from the AIA convention in San Francisco in which Richard Gage, AIA gives a tour of the AE911Truth booth and talks to several architects. This video is a little bit long but the reaction of the last architect makes it all worth watching.
AE911Truth at the annual AIA convention in San Francisco
FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds was finally allowed to speak about much of what the Bush Administration spent years trying to keep her from discussing publicly on the record. Twice gagged by the Bush Dept. of Justice’s invocation of the so-called “State Secrets Privilege,” Edmonds has been attempting to tell her story, about the crimes she became aware of while working for the FBI, for years.
Thanks to a subpoena issued by the campaign of Ohio’s 2nd District Democratic U.S. Congressional candidate David Krikorian, her remarkable allegations of blackmail, bribery, espionage, infiltration, and criminal conspiracy by current and former members of the U.S. Congress, high-ranking State and Defense Department officials, and agents of the government of Turkey are seen and heard here, in full, for the first time, in her under-oath deposition. Both the complete video tape and transcript of the deposition are available on BradBlog.com.
“I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban – those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.” —Sibel Edmons during an interview with blogger Brad Friedman
Richard Gage, AIA of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) makes it to the #4 of our 2009 Top 10 News Stories about 9/11. AE911Truth’s recent successes are the testimony of the growing audience of the 9/11 truth movement. We believe AE911Truth is the most important organization in the 9/11 truth movement now and they deserve to be in our Top 10 again for their determination, their hard work, and especially for the quality of everything they produce.
Gage’s excellent presentation The Blueprint for Truth hit a high note on Saturday November 21st, 2009 at the Te Papa Museum in Wellington, New Zealand’s capital, home of nearly 400,000 people, when over 650 turned up to hear Richard Gage, AIA as part of The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under 2009.
It was the largest crowd Gage has ever spoken to since he began spreading his lecture about the scientific and forensic evidence of 9/11, evidence that demonstrates that World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition with explosives.
Many dedicated 9/11 truth activist would do many things to spend 20 minutes with the President and talk about 9/11. If only to debate the need of a new 9/11 independent investigation. And to present, on record, a series of evidence which cannot be ignored. Actor and activist Charlie Sheen did just that. Well, almost…
Alex Jones from Infowars.com described this news story as one of his most important story the day before its release. For those who know about the man’s work, this was quite an announcement. Jones and Sheen decided to bring 9/11 under the spotlight, nearly one week before the 8th anniversary. Sheen released a letter called 20 minutes with the President on Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. The first hour after its release lead to some confusion as many people thought this was a real interview with Obama by Charlie Sheen. But this fictional interview was meant to get the full attention of a sleeping mainstream media, and of President Obama himself, whom Charlie Sheen has asked to meet with later on.
As one could expect, Sheen was vilified by the US press… for asking questions they should have asked a long time ago. Instead of looking at the carefully crafted letter, self-called pundits look the other way and used their name calling tactics against Sheen. Sheen replied by inviting them to a fair public debate on 9/11, and they all backed away.
Enough said. We will let Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen give you more details on this courageous effort that we salute.
Alex Jones on Charlie Sheen’s 20 minutes with the President
Charlie Sheen Video Message to President Barack Obama
This could have easily been our #1 if our actual top news story of 2009 wasn’t so explosive (pun intended). Despite the fact that the NYC CAN story is so important that it could be produced as a movie, the mainstream media – again – decided to completely ignore it. Shame.
NYC CAN, or New York City Coalition for Accountability Now is a collective of 9/11 victims’ families, of first responders, 9/11 survivors, 9/11 truth activists and volunteers. They have walked the streets of New York City during the spring and summer of 2009 to get petition signatures of New York City voters supporting a referendum on a new 9/11 investigation . They needed 30,000 signatures to make it to the November ballot. They got an impressive 80,000 signatures.
We expected that this democratic exercise would have lead to a referendum this past fall. Well, not in New York City.
The city did everything they could to block them. They rejected NYC CAN’s petition.
The tireless NYC CAN collective, supported by an army of volunteers didn’t stop there. They went to the State Supreme Court to try reverse the city council’s decision and validate the important petition. But Justice Edward Lehner of the State Supreme Court rubberstamped Referee Louis Crespo’s recommendation that the decision to establish a local commission to investigate the events of September 11th not be put before the voters.
It is quite ironical to point out that a 1993 voter initiative established a limit of two consecutive terms for the city mayor, and that in a 1996 referendum, the only successful referendum in NYC, voters rejected a Council-led effort to change the limit to three terms. The very ironical part is this year, while nearly one hundred thousand citizens were denied their right to call for a referendum by a well established bureaucracy, the city council voted to extend this term limit, which nullified the previous referendum.
Billionaire Micheal Bloomberg spent a record $102M to win a third term while denying his citizens right to democracy.
This was a dark day for democracy, the patriotic call for answers by hundreds of 9/11 families, first responders and survivors had been stifled, and the will of the people of New York City once again denied.
Watch a video with actor, 9/11 activist and NYC CAN supporter Daniel Sunjata of the NYC CAN march in New York City in September, 2009
This is by far the most explosive 2009 news story about 9/11. Some call it the loaded gun of 9/11. Most agree to say this probably the final nail in the coffin of the official story.
Imagine yourself turning the TV on and hearing a news anchor say “BREAKING NEWS! Ladies and gentlemen, we have just learned that scientists from 3 different countries released a scientific paper detailing what they have found in many samples of the World Trade Center dust. They claim that they have found unexploded particles of a very high-tech explosive, which would be a military-grade explosive called Nano-thermite. We have contacted earlier today, the lead authors of this paper, Prof. Steven Jones from BYU and Dr. Niels Harrit from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark who will join us later. They have both confirmed that this explosive material was used in the destruction of the Twin Towers, and the 47-story skyscraper known as ‘Building 7′. We never really showed you the collapse of Building 7 before tonight because we didn’t really know about it ourselves. We will show you all of this later, but now, let’s move to Washington where President Barack Obama is just about to give a special address regarding this Nano-thermite.”
Wouldn’t that be great to hear?
But back to reality. No mainstream media except a few in Denmark and Russia, ever seriously covered what will most probably turn out to be the most important news story of the past decade. It will probably be called the Nanothermitegate. You have read it here first!
Scientists have discovered residues of unexploded Nano-Thermite, a high-tech military-grade explosive in all samples of the WTC dust. This stuff is not made in a cave in Afghanistan.
They have released their peer-reviewed paper on April 3rd, 2009 in the Open Chemical Physics Journal of Bentham Open. The paper titled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe can be downloaded on the Bentham Open Access website.
It is a matter of the utmost importance to point out that members of WeAreChange handed out – on record – copies of this scientific paper to Vice President Joe Biden, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and to several Congresspeople.
We are waiting for them to take serious action in finding out why this explosive high-tech material is present in the WTC dust.
We are also calling on all journalists and other media professionals to forget about the term “conspiracy theories” for a few minutes and to seriously investigate this story.
These findings alone should be reason enough for a new independent investigation with subpoena powers.
This historic Danish interview with Dr. Niels Harrit, lead author of this paper, was the first (and rare) television interview to talk about nano-thermite since April, 2009.
We hope you enjoyed our 2009 Top 10 News Stories about 9/11.
We can already predict that 2010 will be full of important news stories like these and we invite you to follow us via Facebook, Twitter, RSS and others to stay up-to-date with the latest developments regarding 9/11.
Best wishes to all our readers for 2010. May this coming year bring you lots of love and great moments.
And whatever happens, keep on fighting for answers.
Congressman Mike Capuano and Ed Markey get scientific proof of Thermite in 9/11 dust samples
Again, WeAreChange delivers the scientific peer-reviewed paper entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3rd, 2009 to U.S. Congress representatives.
Since spring 2009, WeAreChange gave this paper, on record, to Vice President Joe Biden, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and several U.S. Congress representatives. We cannot understate the importance of these videos as they demonstrate that the U.S. Congress and the White House clearly know about the disturbing findings in the dust of the WTC collapses.
The question remains: Will they do anything about it?
Shortly after the second World Trade Center tower was hit, at 9:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001, an officer at Andrews Air Force Base, just outside Washington, DC, was notified that the Secret Service wanted fighter jets launched over the nation’s capital. It was now obvious the U.S. was under terrorist attack, and Washington would have been an obvious potential target. And yet the Secret Service’s request came to nothing.
No fighters had taken off from Andrews by 9:37 a.m., when the Pentagon was hit. Nor had any launched by the time Flight 93 apparently crashed in Pennsylvania, shortly after 10:00 a.m., while flying toward Washington. In fact, fighters did not launch from Andrews until over 90 minutes after the second attack in New York. The first fully armed fighters did not launch from there until more than two hours after that attack. So why was the Secret Service’s early request for help not acted upon? Why did fighter jets only take off from this massive Air Force base to defend the capital well after the morning’s attacks had ended?
Secret Service Calls FAA Headquarters
The Secret Service agent who made the early request that fighter jets be launched appears to have been Nelson Garabito. Garabito was responsible for coordinating the president’s movements, and was also the Secret Service’s liaison to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He was in the Secret Service Joint Operations Center (JOC) at the White House that morning. Just after Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m., Garabito called Terry Van Steenbergen, his counterpart at the FAA, who was at the FAA headquarters in Washington. According to the 9/11 Commission, shortly into the call, Van Steenburgen told Garabito “that there were more planes unaccounted for–possibly hijacked–in addition to the two that had already crashed.”
Possibly in response to this information, Garabito appears to have asked Van Steenbergen to arrange for fighters to be launched over Washington. Van Steenbergen asked three of his colleagues at the FAA to call various air bases to see if they could get fighters into the air. One of these colleagues, Karen Pontius, had previously worked at Andrews Air Force Base, so she made the call to the FAA air traffic control tower there. [1] Garabito would have been unable to call the tower himself, because, according to a 9/11 Commission memorandum, the Secret Service “did not have a phone line to the Andrews tower.”
FAA Headquarters Requests Fighters
Pontius spoke to Steve Marra, an air traffic controller in the Andrews tower. Marra has recalled that Pontius “told him to launch F-16s to cap the airspace over Washington.” He relayed this information to the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG), which is based at Andrews, across the airfield from the control tower. [2] Marra appears to have done so when DCANG officer Major Daniel Caine phoned the tower and asked if any air traffic control measures were being implemented in response to the attacks. [3] Caine later recalled that the tower controller–i.e. Marra–told him “that they just received the scramble order.” However, oddly, Caine told the 9/11 Commission that the Andrews tower “would not have been in the loop for any Secret Service orders to scramble aircraft.” [4]
If the DC Air National Guard was notified of this early “scramble order,” why was that order not acted upon? Pilots and others working for the DCANG at Andrews were already well aware of the crisis taking place. Upon learning of the second crash, someone at the unit reportedly yelled, “We’re under a terrorist attack!” [5] And, seeing the television coverage of the burning WTC towers, an officer exclaimed, “Well, holy shit, if this is a terrorist attack, we need to get something in the air!”
Furthermore, a request from the Secret Service should have carried considerable weight. According to author Lynn Spencer, “Given that the Secret Service provides protection to the president–and that the president, and the vice president when the president is not available, is the ultimate commander in chief of the military–the Secret Service also has certain authority over the military and, in this case, the DC Guard.” [6]
Caine Calls His Secret Service Contact
After his call to the control tower, Daniel Caine called his contact at the Secret Service, Kenneth Beauchamp, who was at the White House JOC. Caine later told the 9/11 Commission that, on reflection, he believed it was his hearing that the tower had received the “scramble order” that prompted him to call Beauchamp. [7]
And yet Beauchamp supposedly contradicted the Secret Service’s request for fighters. Even though it was obvious that the U.S. was under attack, and it should have been clear that Washington was a likely target for any further attacks, he said the Secret Service did not require assistance from the DCANG. Caine had asked: “Do you have any additional information? Are you guys going to need some help?” and Beauchamp replied, “No, but I’ll call you back if that changes.” [8]
Caine has said that during this call, which he described as “a very quick, confusing conversation,” Beauchamp told him that “things were happening and he’d call me back.” [9] However, Beauchamp did not call Caine back. [10] (Another Secret Service agent, though, did subsequently call Caine, and asked about getting fighters launched. [11])
According to Lieutenant Colonel Marc Sasseville, the acting operations group commander under the 113th Wing of the DCANG, at the time Caine spoke to Beauchamp, “we weren’t thinking about defending anything. Our primary concern was what would happen to the air traffic system.” [12] But when Brigadier General David Wherley, the commander of the DC Air National Guard, subsequently called the Secret Service JOC shortly after the Pentagon was hit and spoke to Beauchamp, Beauchamp implored him to launch jets to protect Washington. Beauchamp said: “We want you to put a CAP [combat air patrol] up over the city. We need some fighters now.” [13]
DCANG Pilot ‘Standing Back, Waiting’
Between the second WTC attack at 9:03 a.m. and the Pentagon attack at 9:37 a.m., the DCANG fighter pilots on duty at Andrews appear to have been waiting around and doing very little, when they should have been hurrying to get airborne.
One of those pilots, Captain Brandon Rasmussen, was promptly informed of the second crash in New York after it occurred, and immediately realized its implications. He recalled: “I think everybody knew that this was a coordinated attack that was happening. We had no idea who it was by, but it was definitely intentional when you get two airplanes hitting both towers.” And yet, he said: “At that point, we didn’t know what we could possibly do; that’s New York City way up the road. So … like everybody else in America, we’re just standing by and watching the news.”
This is extraordinary! An Air Force base just 10 miles from Washington had learned that the nation was under attack. And yet the immediate response of its pilots was to stand around watching television!
Rasmussen said it was only after the news broke about the Pentagon being hit that “we knew that we were going to be sticking around home and being quite busy,” and “the squadron leadership went into action.” [14] DCANG commander David Wherley only headed across the base from his office to the fighter squadron building, to assist his unit’s response to the attacks, after a woman at his office saw on television that the Pentagon had been hit and started shrieking. [15]
But even after the Pentagon attack, the DCANG pilots were not immediately told to prepare for takeoff. Rasmussen recalled that at that point, “I’m just kind of standing back, waiting for somebody to task me with something.” He added, “I was just waiting at the ops desk for someone to say, ‘Okay, we’ve been cleared to take off and go.’” [16]
First Jet Launches at 10:38
The first DCANG jet to take off from Andrews Air Force Base was an F-16 that had just returned from a training mission over North Carolina. It had little fuel remaining, carried no missiles, and had only practice ammunition. It took off at 10:38 a.m., an hour after the attack on the Pentagon. [17] Two more F-16s took off at 10:42 a.m., but these were also armed with only practice ammunition and had no missiles. [18] At 11:11 a.m., Rasmussen and Daniel Caine took off in their F-16s, the first fighters to launch from Andrews armed with missiles as well as bullets. [19] By that time, the attacks were long over.
Rasmussen has expressed his and the other DCANG pilots’ frustration at having to wait around before being allowed to get airborne. He said that when his unit finally received authorization for its jets to take off, “We were relieved to actually be given permission to go up and do something, instead of feeling totally helpless. I mean, we are fighter pilots, just like guard dogs chomping at the bit, ready to go.” [20]
DCANG Provides ‘Capable and Ready Response Forces’
Although the DC Air National Guard was not part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) air defense force, its mission at the time of the 9/11 attacks included providing “capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency.” Lieutenant Colonel Phil Thompson, the chief of safety for the DCANG, said, “We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things.” [21] The unit was in fact known as the “Capital Guardians,” implying that it was responsible for protecting Washington, DC. [22]
The fact that, in spite of an early request for help from the Secret Service, it took the DC Air National Guard so long to put together a response to the attacks should be of concern to all Americans. The unit’s disastrously slow emergency response needs to be thoroughly probed as part of a rigorous new investigation of the 9/11 attacks.
Please contribute to our 2010 activities and special events by donating any amount. Learn more.
Endorsments
“World for 9/11 Truth has a broad reach and appeal that I hope will quickly draw in massive numbers of people from all over the planet – all demanding a new WTC investigation.”
Coleen Rowley: ABC News Reporter Does a Hatchet Job
The ‘Jersey Girls’ Support AE911Truth
World for 9/11 Truth will present Richard Gage, AIA, founder of 
Live Broadcast :
AE911Truth Major Press Conference
60 Aerospace Engineers Call for a New 9/11 Investigation
In closing, Janette MacKinlay – the courageous 9/11 survivor who gave the first sample of WTC dust to Dr. Steven Jones and has been an invaluable member of NYC CAN’s Executive Council – created a holiday arrangement of Ikebana art called “Flame of Truth” that she wanted to share with everyone to wish us all a warm and happy holidays. Her work is dedicated to finding solace and hope after September 11th – you can view more of it at 
Apologies to President Barack Obama
But back to 2009. AE911Truth did something almost impossible. They were present at the huge annual AIA Convention in San Francisco in April to meet with hundreds of architects. They had a professional booth, flat screen monitors showing the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Banners, DVD’s, fliers, etc. Many A/E present at the convention were curious and ended up signing their petition. Most were exposed to Building 7 for the first time.
bring 9/11 under the spotlight, nearly one week before the 8th anniversary. Sheen released a letter called 20 minutes with the President on 
detailing what they have found in many samples of the World Trade Center dust. They claim that they have found unexploded particles of a very high-tech explosive, which would be a military-grade explosive called Nano-thermite. We have contacted earlier today, the lead authors of this paper, Prof. Steven Jones from BYU and Dr. Niels Harrit from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark who will join us later. They have both confirmed that this explosive material was used in the destruction of the Twin Towers, and the 47-story skyscraper known as ‘Building 7′. We never really showed you the collapse of Building 7 before tonight because we didn’t really know about it ourselves. We will show you all of this later, but now, let’s move to Washington where President Barack Obama is just about to give a special address regarding this Nano-thermite.”
