By Lars Sobiraj
May 24, 2009
Questions to Niels Harrit concerning the study “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”.
Some time ago, gulli.com featured the news about the work of a team of independent scientists from Denmark, USA and Australia. They claim to have found a substance called Nano Thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York City. Nano Thermite is an explosive, normally only used by the military, not available on the normal market. It is a relative to thermite, a substance used for welding.
On the Gulli board one of the biggest discussions ever broke loose between so called conspiracy theorists and people who trust the official version about 9/11. More than 28.000 views. More than 800 postings. We gave sceptical gulli users the chance to ask their questions directly to Dr. Niels Harrit, one of the scientists. The gulli users asked really tough questions and didn’t censor anything. We gave all those questions to Mr. Harrit and were really curious how he would respond. He answered. So now, here’s the promised interview. The whole interview is released under this Creative Commons license, so you can copy it and spread it everywhere at no charge and without asking. You can download the PDF here.
Copenhagen / Düsseldorf, May 2009
gulli.com: Your full name and title?
Dr. Niels Harrit: Dr. Niels Holger Harrit.
gulli.com: Your age?
Dr.… Continue reading
By the now, it’s maddeningly familiar. A scary terrorist plot is announced. Then it’s revealed that the suspects are a hapless bunch of ne’er-do-wells or run-of-the-mill thugs without the slightest connection to any terrorists at all, never mind to Al Qaeda. Finally, the last piece of the puzzle: the entire plot is revealed to have been cooked up by a scummy government agent-provocateur.
I’ve seen this movie before.
In this case, the alleged perps — Onta Williams, James Cromitie, David Williams, and Laguerre Payen — were losers, ex-cons, drug addicts. Al Qaeda they’re not. Without the assistance of the agent who entrapped them, they would never have dreamed of committing political violence, nor would they have had the slightest idea about where to acquire plastic explosives or a Stinger missile. That didn’t stop prosecutors from acting as if they’d captured Osama bin Laden himself. Noted the Los Angeles Times:
Prosecutors called it the latest in a string of homegrown terrorism plots hatched after Sept. 11.
“It’s hard to envision a more chilling plot,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Eric Snyder said in court Thursday. He described all four suspects as “eager to bring death to Jews.”
Actually, it’s hard to imagine a stupider, less competent, and less important plot. The four losers were ensnared by a creepy FBI agent who hung around the mosque in upstate New York until he found what he was looking for. Here’s the New York Times account:… Continue reading
World for 9/11 Truth (W9T.org), which started on May 12th, 2009, is a grassroots
campaign to unify the world behind one single idea: a new independent investigation
Millions of people around the world doubt the official version of the Bush
administration and the 9/11 Commission, and this number is growing everyday.
Our goal is clear: we want all these people to sign our petition. To sign our petition… click here.
We are also calling on all 9/11 Truth Movement local groups to support this initiative. We hope to work with all of you very soon. Check this page for networking tools.
Let’s all unite behind a new independent 9/11 investigation and let’s show the world how big this movement really is.
Guest Editorial by Sibel Edmonds
May 22, 2009
"In politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows
how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill…we do not ask for the
handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one." — Plato
During the campaign, amid their state of elation, many disregarded Presidential
Candidate Senator Barack Obama’s past record and took any criticism of these
past actions as partisan attacks deserving equally partisan counterattacks.
Some continued their reluctant support after candidate Obama became grand finalist
and prayed for the best. And a few still continue their rationalizing and defense,
with illogical excuses such as ‘He’s been in office for only 20 days, give the
man a break!’ and ‘He’s had only 50 days in office, give him a chance!’ and
currently, ‘be reasonable – how much can a man do in 120 days?!’ I am going
to give this logic, or lack of, a slight spicing of reason, then, turn it around,
and present it as: If ‘the man’ can do this much astounding damage, whether
to our civil liberties, or to our notion of democracy, or to government integrity,
in ‘only’ 120 days, may God help us with the next [(4 X 365) - 120] days.
I know there are those who have been tackling President Obama’s changes on
change; they have been challenging his flipping, or rather flopping, on issues
central to getting him elected. While some have been covering the changes… Continue reading
By Thomas C. Fletcher
Review of new book by David Ray Griffin, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?
OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States under its new president is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the “hunt for bin Laden” is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the “AfPak” border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.
In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls “the long… Continue reading
Peter Dale Scott
Here is an excerpt from the text of what Cheney said at the American Enterprise Institute on May 21, 2009:
“For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.
There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.”
The first radar sighting of a plane approaching Washington was at 9:21 AM. In other words Cheney has confirmed his first account (and ours) that he was taken from his office earlier than 9:36 AM (as claimed in the… Continue reading
The US’s political discourse and foreign policy in recent years has been based on the assumption that Osama bin Laden is still alive. George W. Bush promised as president that he would get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” and has been widely criticized for failing to do so. The US’s present military escalation in Afghanistan is said to be necessary to “get Osama bin Laden.” The news media regularly announce the appearance of new “messages from bin Laden.” But what if Osama bin Laden died in December 2001–which is the last time a message to or from him was intercepted?
In this book, David Ray Griffin examines the evidence for the claim–made by everyone from former CIA agent Robert Baer to Oliver North–that bin Laden is surely no longer with us. He analyzes the purported messages from bin Laden and finds that, as many have suspected, they do not provide evidence of bin Laden’s existence after 2001. This leads naturally to the question: if Osama bin Laden did indeed die in 2001, how and why have dozens of “messages from bin Laden” appeared since then?
Griffin’s meticulous analysis supports above all one simple and urgent conclusion: if Osama bin Laden is dead, the US should not be using its troops and treasure to hunt him down.
David Ray Griffin has published 35 books on philosophy, religion, and politics. His most recent book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, was a Publishers Weekly “Pick of the Week” in 2008. His… Continue reading
By Kevin Fenton
May 22, 2009
History Commons Groups
Zelikow made the claim he was not involved in the initial stages of the dispute in response to an allegation made by commission staffer John Azzarello and relayed by Shenon. After the staff investigators drafted a memo for the commissioners in early April 2004 outlining why they thought NORAD and FAA officials had deliberately lied to them to overstate the military’s readiness during the attacks, Zelikow “just buried that memo,” according to Azzarello. In response, Zelikow claimed that he had not even known of the issue at the start. The implication was that, as he had not known of it, it could not be him that was orchestrating–or even involved in–a dispute between the staff investigators and the commission’s lawyers, Daniel Marcus and Steve Dunne.
However, the newly found e-mail chain shows Zelikow did know of the issue in April, raising the question as to why he falsely told Shenon he did not. Zelikow is not known to be linked to the FAA, but, if the commission had referred the matter to the Justice Department and it had started a perjury investigation against NORAD officials, this would certainly have had the potential to embarrass his friends at the Pentagon. Zelikow is alleged to have husbanded the issue to ensure a less potentially embarrassing referral to the inspectors general of the FAA and Defense Department, who in the end blamed the false statements on innocent mistakes and poor logkeeping.
Zelikow wrote to… Continue reading
‘Work for us or we will say you are a terrorist’
By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
21 May 2009
Five Muslim community workers have accused MI5 of waging a campaign of blackmail and harassment in an attempt to recruit them as informants.
The men claim they were given a choice of working for the Security Service or face detention and harassment in the UK and overseas.
They have made official complaints to the police, to the body which oversees the work of the Security Service and to their local MP Frank Dobson. Now they have decided to speak publicly about their experiences in the hope that publicity will stop similar tactics being used in the future.
Continued at source
Ventura: I question my government on 9/11 because–for most lay people out there they accept what they hear on TV, they accept the government’s explanation–but once you start getting in and studying what actually happened that day, there are a lot of problems.
Stern: Bottom line, what are you saying?
Ventura: I believe if our government didn’t actually participate in it they certainly knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen.
Stern: That’s mind blowing. And you’re going to write a book backing that up?
Woman co-host: What would be the purpose of letting it happen?
Ventura: We’re in two wars, aren’t we, that we wouldn’t have been in? How much money has Halliburton made in the war? How much money has Blackwater made in the war? People fail to realize there are war profiteers out there.
Stern: So you’re talking about treason. Who are you accuse them of treason in your next book.
Ventura: Mass murder. I’m simply writing about the questions I have about it.
Stern: Is this the reason you called Bush administration the worst administration ever?
[Continues, with Ventura answering a caller by discussing building collapses...]
by Fred Burks
May 21, 2009
Remember Star Wars? Do you remember the Pentagon’s Strategic Defense Initiative to build a massive missile defense system that raised so much controversy during the Reagan and first Bush years? 130 billion of our tax dollars were poured into developing that system. It was designed to detect and intercept missiles fired from an unknown destination traveling at well over 10 times the speed of a commercial airliner, and to shoot them down in 15 minutes or less, before they reached their US targets.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) website, “a defensive system may need to hit a warhead smaller than an oil drum that is traveling above the atmosphere at speeds greater than 13,000 miles per hour.” The CBO report states that missile defense and intercept systems must take down an ICBM in a matter of minutes or it is all over.
You may remember that before 9/11, there were a number of tests of the Pentagon’s missile defense systems. Some tests failed, while others succeeded. But there is an important question here. If these sophisticated military systems were designed to detect missiles fired from unknown locations at over 13,000 mph and shoot them down in mere minutes, why on 9/11 could they not detect any one of the four large airliners traveling at a mere 600 mph, especially when two of them were known to be lost for over 40 minutes before they crashed?
This question applies especially to… Continue reading
Thank you! As a result of your generous support in the last week, NYC CAN has
been able to TRIPLE the size of its petitioning staff. For the next two and
a half weeks, we will be able to collect 1,000 signatures everyday and skyrockect
our total to nearly 60,000.
On Sunday, May 17, 2009, we eclipsed the milestone of 40,000 signatures!
With that number, we are almost guaranteed to have over 30,000 valid signatures
— the magic number that requires City Council to vote on putting the referendum
on the ballot. In six weeks, we will have enough that City Council’s vote
will not matter — it will go on the ballot automatically. On November
3, 2009, millions of New Yorkers will go to the polls to vote on the formation
of a new, independent Commission to finally conduct a real investigation of
We urge you now more than ever to dig deep so we can continue this effort past
the next two weeks and reach our final goal of 75,000 signatures.
We need only 1,200 of you out there to act now and become members of NYC CAN
by donating just $25, and we will surpass the $30,000 required to fund the rest
of our petitioning effort.
Thinkers think and talkers talk. Patriots ACT.
Please Donate Now: http://nyccan.org/donate.php
Donna Marsh O’Connor
The New York City… Continue reading
by Alan Miller, alan.miller@PatriotsQuestion911.com
May 18, 2009
Official Account of 9/11: “Terribly Flawed,” “Laced with
Contradictions,” “a Joke,” “a Cover-up”
2009 — More than 40 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans
have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and most have called for
a new investigation. It is outrageous that most Americans are entirely unaware
of their publicly stated concerns — a direct result of the refusal of national
print and broadcast news organizations to cover this extremely important issue.
There is no denying the credibility of these individuals or their loyalty to
their country as demonstrated by their years of service collecting and analyzing
information and planning and carrying out operations critical to the national
security of the United States.
These 41 individuals formerly served in the U.S. State Department, the National
Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and
the branches of the U.S. Military. They are listed in the article by their branch
The counterterrorism officials speaking out include, for example:
Terrell (Terry) E. Arnold, MA — Former Deputy Director, Office of Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Planning, U.S. State Department. Former Chairman, Department of International Studies, National War College. Graduate of the National War College. Retired Senior Foreign Service Officer of the U.S. Department of State. http://patriotsquestion911.com/#TArnold
William Christison — Former National Intelligence Officer. Former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit responsible… Continue reading
May 20, 2009
INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION: Islamist dies in Tripoli shortly after human
rights group visit from Fred Bridgland in Libya
THE ISLAMIST terrorist who was the key source of the false intelligence used
to trigger the US and UK 2003 military invasion of Iraq has been found dead
in a Libyan prison cell.t
Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi allegedly committed suicide by hanging in the prison where
he was being held in the Libyan capital, Tripoli. His death followed a visit
by a team from Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s leading independent organisations
dedicated to defending and protecting human rights.
The al-Libi affair opens a window on an extraordinarily close espionage link
that existed between the government of the former US president, George Bush,
and the authoritarian Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi.
Al-Libi was the unnamed source that Bush, his former secretary of state, Colin
Powell, and other administration officials relied upon prior to the Iraq invasion
to assert that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was helping a terrorist organisation
run by al-Qaeda. Al-Libi was known to Powell and Bush by the codename “Curveball”.
Powell’s speech to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003
was largely based on al-Libi’s coerced testimony – which was extracted from
him in Egyptian torture chambers – even though many US intelligence officials
questioned it at the time and later dismissed it completely. In his address,
aimed at drumming up support for the invasion, Powell said he could “trace
the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training
in these chemical and biological weapons to al-Qaeda”.…
by Chris George
May 19, 2009
The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled today that the White House Office of Administration (OA) does not need to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith, writing for the 3-0 majority, concluded: “the Office of Administration is not [covered by FOIA] because it performs only operational and administrative tasks in support of the President and his staff and therefore, under our precedent, lacks substantial independent authority.”
The Office of Administration, “which handles personnel, technology and financial support for the White House,” had complied with FOIA for much of its history, “until 2007, when the Bush Administration abruptly asserted that the office was exempt.” The reversal prompted a lawsuit in August 2007 from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) after millions of Bush White House e-mails were allegedly lost.
CREW filed a FOIA request seeking “records about the EOP’s e-mail management system, reports analyzing potential problems with the system, records of retained e-mails and possibly missing ones, documents discussing plans to find the missing e-mails, and proposals to institute a new e-mail record system.” Initially, CREW and OA agreed on a time table for the release of these records, but shortly thereafter the Bush administration claimed that the office was exempt from FOIA. The administration’s position was that the administrative support and services provided by the OA to the Executive Office of the President placed it “outside FOIA’s definition of ‘agency.’”… Continue reading
The Loss of Civil Liberties Timeline has new entries about the roots of the
modern US state, including President Theodore Roosevelt sowing the “seeds
of the Imperial Presidency” at the start of the last century. It also
covers Franklin D. Roosevelt’s increase in the size of the government
during the depression over the Supreme Court’s opposition, and his later
violation of the Neutrality Acts at the start of the Second World War.
The Detainee Abuse Timeline has new entries about the recently disclosed Red
Cross report on torture and a really interesting 1943 memo about the respectful
interrogation techniques the US used in World War II.
In the International Relations Timeline a contributor points out that former
President George Bush banned officials from discussing negotiations with North
A contributor to the Kosovar Albanian Self-Determination Timeline has added
entries about the Italian invasion of Albania in 1939.
Finally, the Domestic Propaganda Timeline has a new entry about the recent
tea parties organised by Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works.
The History Commons needs funding to continue its operations, including maintaining
and updating the site, and undertaking new projects. Everything we do depends
on our generous readers. You can donate by credit card, PayPal, or check. Please
donate today. Thank you.
Dr. David Leifer – www.arch.usyd.edu.au/staff/homepage/davidleifer.shtml
When: 6:30pm, Thursday the 4th of June 2009
Where: Sydney University, Architecture Faculty, Lecture Hall
Title: The Life and Death of World Trade Centre One
Dr. David Leifer, Architect and Senior Lecturer at Sydney University continues to question the veracity of the “official explanation” of the WTC collapses on September 11th 2009.
In this lecture on Thursday the 4th of June, Dr. Leifer will uncover what is most probable, not what is politically correct about the collapse of WTC 1 that was impacted by Flight 11 on 9/11. It is worth remembering that three Sydney residents died in WTC 1; Alberto Dominguez on Flight 11 and both Craig Neil Gibson and Steve Tompsett working in the building. There is no doubt this issue is relevant to us in Sydney and we hope more academics in Sydney and Australia join Dr. Leifer in serious research of these murders.
Dr. Leifer has been at the forefront of research into the 9/11 Attacks in Australia, being the first registered architect in Australia to become a member of the international group “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” – www.AE911Truth.org, lead by Richard Gage (AIA). This will be the second lecture on this subject matter he has given at Sydney University.
This lecture is open to the public, but it is expected you have a serious interest in the science involved and dress to represent us in the best light! Please challenge the skeptics that you know to… Continue reading
9/11: Blueprint for Truth – WTC Building 7 – 10 minutes – from the new AE911Truth “Companion” Edition DVD
This is one of the three abridged videos on the new AE911Truth Companion Edition to “9/11: Blueprint for Truth — The Architecture of Destruction” DVD. In just 10 minutes Richard Gage, AIA of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth takes you through most of the scientific forensic evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the destruction of WTC 7 was accomplished with explosive controlled demolition.
This DVD is available at the AE911Truth online store, packaged together along with the 30 and 60 minute versions of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth. See the extended 2 hour Research Edition for the complete array of evidence and background information! Visit www.ae911truth.org for further details.