By Peter Barber
June 7 2008
When Cynthia McKinney speaks the words of Martin Luther King Jr, they resound through the church with some of King’s cadence. “A time comes,” declares the former US congresswoman from Georgia, “when silence is betrayal.” The congregation answers with whoops and calls of “That’s right!” King was talking about America’s war in Vietnam. More than 40 years later, before the packed pews of the Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles, McKinney is speaking of the American government’s war on its own people. The shock and awe phase of this conflict, we had been told earlier, began on September 11 2001, when the Bush administration launched attacks on New York and Washington, or at least waved them through.
According to a show of hands that February afternoon, several hundred people in the immaculate church believe this to be true. Some came in T-shirts bearing the words “9/11 was an inside job”. One wore a badge demanding that you “Examine your assumptions”. Quite a few bought the DVDs on sale in the foyer, most of which bore photographs of the Twin Towers spewing smoke. They had all come to hear the message of Architects, Engineers & Scientists for 9/11 Truth, one of the dozens of groups across the US which campaign to persuade us that everything we think we know about 9/11 is wrong.
Marion Cotillard, actress–“There was a tower in Spain which burnt for 24 hours. It never collapsed”
Last winter, “Investigate 9/11”… Continue reading
For Immediate Release
Contact: Senator Karen S. Johnson (602-926-3160)
Senator Karen Johnson Blasts Congress for Failure to Defend U.S.
In a formal Floor speech in the Arizona Senate tomorrow (Tuesday, June 10),
Senator Karen S. Johnson plans to blast Congress for their failure to defend
U.S. citizens who were killed on September 11, 2001, and their failure to properly
investigate those attacks.
“It has been nearly seven years,” says Johnson, “and we are
faced with new evidence that turns the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission upside
down. We are fighting a war because of 9/11 – and we still don’t
really know what happened. We have spent billions of dollars on the war, with
an additional $340 million per day. Thousands of U.S. servicemen and women have
lost their lives, not to mention the lives of innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians.”
Johnson revealed in a committee hearing in April that she did not accept the
official report of the 9/11 Commission and has since defended supporters calling
for a new independent investigation of the attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon. “Ground Zero was treated like little more than the site
of a building demolition – which, of course, is exactly what it was,”
says Johnson. “Everyone who has studied it recognizes that the Twin Towers
and Building 7 came down as a result of controlled explosions – not because
of the airplanes and fires.”
Johnson has joined forces with local 9/11 activists who for more than two… Continue reading
Tim Russert, Dick Cheney, and 9/11
by Prof. David Ray Griffin
Information Clearing House
While we are remembering Tim Russert and his years as moderator of “Meet the Press,” we would do well to recall his interview with Vice President Dick Cheney at Camp David on September 16, 2001, just five days after the 9/11 attacks. 1 In fact, Cheney himself, during an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer the morning after Russert died, reminded us of that Camp David interview, saying: “I always, when I think of Tim and think of ‘Meet the Press,’ that’s the show that always comes to mind. . . . It was a remarkable moment in American history.” 2
Commenting that he himself “remember[ed] that interview vividly,” Lauer asked: “Anything stand out from that interview?” In his reply, Cheney said: “We went back and reminisced to some extent about what had actually happened on the morning of 9/11. So it was—it was a remarkable moment in my career.” 3
It was indeed. In reminiscing about his movements that morning, Cheney contradicted what was to become a crucial element of the account that the 9/11 Commission would give of those movements.
In praising Russert’s tenure on “Meet the Press,” Cheney said: “He would ask you tough questions, he would remind you of quotes you made previously in other settings or on earlier shows, so you never got away with anything going up vis-à-vis Tim.” 4
Given Cheney’s appraisal of his interview with Russert as… Continue reading
From Steven Jones
July 4, 2008
Kevin Ryan shows his skills as both a chemist and a “private investigator” in his paper, “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites” — Published July 4, 2008, in the Journal of 9/11 Studies — http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf.
Kevin Ryan discusses nano-thermite (“super-thermite”) and provides very important results of his own investigation of connections between NIST and researchers studying/developing nano-thermite.
Several of us have been discussing nano-thermite for quite a while now. For instance, I announced in Boston last year the observation of red-gray chips which I found in WTC dust samples. (If you need to catch up, please see this short video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147&hl=en). Research papers on this material are now being written/reviewed for publication.
Thermite is comprised of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder (or another metal oxide). When the powders are “ultra-fine grain,” less than about 100 nano-meters, then nano-thermite is formed. This form of thermite, also known as “super-thermite,” is not just an incendiary — it is EXPLOSIVE!
I explained this distinction and even gave references to the explosive nature of super-thermite/nano-thermite in my first-published paper on 9/11, available here: Why Indeed Did theWTC Buildings Completely Collapse.
Here’s a quote from that paper, pp. 16-17 (hope you all have read it, or will do so!):
‘Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project… Continue reading
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
July 15, 2008
A political billboard in St. Cloud, Florida reads “Please Don’t Vote for
a Democrat” over an image of the burning World Trade Center.
Businessman Mike Meehan, who paid for the ad, says he’s "only trying to
help Republicans." The billboard also carries a link for Meehan’s website,
TheRepublicanSong.com, at which he says, “I claim to be a man of God”
and promotes his political song and video.
Meehan’s song, which appears to have racist overtones, begins, “The Democrat
secular progressive move, political correctness is killing us too. They want
to take the money from the hard working man, and give it to the lazy folks that
don’t give a damn.”
Even Republicans have found the billboard “inappropriate,” and many
residents want it to come down. “I’m thinking about the Twin Towers, all
the families that were killed there,” one woman told local TV affiliate
Another local was more accepting, saying, “They can have their opinion.
It’s a free country, you want to pay for the ad.”
However, the posters at right-wing site Lucianne.com were enthusiastic about the billboard. “Why isn’t Mike Meehan the Republican presidential candidate?”
asked one. “Liberals get abjectly hysterical whenever the truth about them
is pointed out,” wrote another. “People who refer to the terrorist
attack as a tragedy are morons,” added a third.
The company which owns the billboard says it’s a free speech issue and has
no plans to take Meehan’s ad down before… Continue reading
British Broadcasting contorts itself again to blast 9/11 conspiracy advocates
(“The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower,” BBC 2, July 6, 2008)
If you want to kill a dangerous animal, you go for the jugular. If you want to demolish a building, you destroy its main supports. If you want to marginalize the burgeoning 9/11 truth movement, you attack its most popular points. This isn’t brain surgery.
In a recently broadcast documentary, The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower, the BBC presents the second of two programs confronting claims made by a growing activist movement comprised of people who doubt the official story of 9/11. This time the BBC looks into one of the most compelling areas of 9/11 research, the theory that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
The perfect vertical implosion of this enormous building—the last of seven WTC buildings to be completely destroyed on 9/11—was filmed from several excellent angles and is further supported by aerial photos (fig. 1). Those theorists who claim that the Twin Towers as well were brought down with explosives have enjoyed an exponential boost in credence from strong evidence supporting the intentional demolition of WTC 7.
Besides giving the green light to plans on paper since the GHW Bush administration to add Iraq and Afghanistan to the U.S.’s portfolio, many 9/11 truth researchers believe that the destruction of the entire WTC was the ultimate ground breaking, the first step in an epic municipal makeover; the total… Continue reading
August 15, 2008
You may have noticed that lately I’ve been making movies that “force” people to go to www.historycommons.org (www.cooperativeresearch.org). I’m hoping people will see just how important a tool it can be.
Please support www.historycommons.org. They have been invaluable to me, and hopefully will be for you as well.
Debunking NIST’s conclusions about WTC 7 is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel
By George Washington
NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically (sic) collapse as follows:
WTC 7′s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
NIST can’t have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or – at the very least – we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall. See also this .
In real life, the thick structural beams and “stiff [and strong]” exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless… Continue reading
by Sam Vaknin TheConservativeVoice.com
An Interview with David Ray Griffin
On September 11, I entertained a couple of house guests, senior journalists from Scandinavia. I remember watching in horror and disbelief the unfolding drama, as the United States was being subjected to multiple deadly attacks on-screen. I turned to the international affairs editor of a major Danish paper and told her “This could not have been done by al-Qaida.” I am an Israeli and, as such, I have a fair “sixth sense” as to the capabilities of terrorists and their potential reach.
Enter David Ray Griffin. I was introduced to him by a mutual acquaintance. He is emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He has published over 30 books, including eight about 9/11, the best known of which is “The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé.”
On the face of it, his credentials with regards to intelligence analysis are hardly relevant, let alone impressive. But, to underestimate him would be a grave error. Being a philosopher, he is highly trained and utterly qualified to assess the credibility of data; the validity and consistency of theories (including conspiracy theories); and the rationality and logic of hypotheses. These qualifications made him arguably the most visible and senior member of what came to be known as the 9/11 Truth Movement.
In our exchange, he proved to be tolerant of dissenting views, open to debate, and invariably possessed of… Continue reading
by Cynthia McKinney
Wednesday, 10 September 2008
Seven years ago, criminal terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon
were carried out on September 11th by hijacked planes leading to the deaths of thousands
of people. A month later, key figures in the print and broadcast media and members
of Congress were sent envelopes containing very lethal and highly weaponized
anthrax, which led to the deaths of journalists and postal employees. After
the initial shock diminished, there were calls for explanations, investigations,
accountability and a reasoned response that did not include war. The administration
ignored or openly opposed them. Instead we went into a call for permanent wars
that would last beyond our lifetime, changes in civil liberties both overt and
covert, a takeover of state power by the executive branch, and the creation
of a national security emergency state that would somehow protect us.
Cynthia McKinney was one of the few voices of reason during that time in the
Congress. Long an opponent of militarism and wars abroad, she also called for
explanations and accountability when information began to come to light about
multiple advance warnings and apparent foreknowledge of the imminence and methods
of the attack inside government intelligence agencies that still failed to prevent
it. She supported calls by the families of the 9/11 victims for an official
investigation in what was being termed a “failure of intelligence”
even though it more closely resembled a failure of response, of standard operating
procedures, and of government officials and… Continue reading
by Kevin R. Ryan
In a famous book by Antoine de Saint Exupery, a little prince from another planet asks the narrator to draw a sheep. After several unsatisfactory attempts, the narrator simply draws a box and tells the little prince that the sheep is in the box. The little prince then exclaims — “That is exactly the way I wanted it!” 1
Just so, the Bush Administration asked its scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for an explanation as to what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. In response to this request, NIST drew up a series of fanciful stories over a period of years, each story differing from the previous one. Finally, after seven long years, NIST published its last story for WTC 7 by simply saying, in effect: “The explanation is in our computer.” 2
As expected, however, this explanation in a box leaves much to be desired for those of us who prefer to live in reality, instead of in a fictional world. On the other hand, we are learning something from NIST with this new report, and that is that when government scientists begin working for a political agenda above all else, there is no limit to the extent of deception that they will engage in. We also know that those who have produced the NIST WTC reports must now assume personal responsibility for the ongoing 9/11 Wars, and the millions of deaths that will result from those wars.…Continue reading
via Electronic Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
WTC Technical Information Repository
Attention: Mr. Stephen Cauffman
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
September 15, 2008
Re: Public Comments on WTC 7 Draft Reports
Dear Mr. Cauffman,
I am writing on behalf of a group of scientists, scholars, engineers and building professionals who are dedicated to scientific research regarding the destruction of all three high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001. We have examined the draft reports recently released by NIST purporting to explain the demise of WTC Building 7 (collectively referred to herein as the “Report”). We have found many areas that need to be revised and re-examined by NIST personnel before they release a final report on this matter. We have provided our names and affiliations at the end of this document, in accordance with the guidelines for submittal of comments promulgated by NIST at (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/comments2008.html).
At the outset, we would like to call attention to the fact that we requested a reasonable extension of time for the public to submit comments. Given the rate at which we were finding incorrect or contradictory statements in the Report, we would likely have found many more areas NIST needs to re-examine before issuing a final report. As we pointed out in our original correspondence with you requesting the extension, the original three week deadline was completely unreasonable. First, it took NIST more than three years to compile this 1000+ page Report. Why, then,… Continue reading
by David Ray Griffin
September 17, 2008
Shortly after the first strike on the World Trade Center, which occurred at 8:46 AM on 9/11, Michael Hess, New York City’s corporation counsel, and Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority, headed to the Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operating Center, which was on the 23rd floor of WTC 7, where they assumed that Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be. But when Hess and Jennings arrived, the place was empty. Jennings then telephoned someone to ask what they should do and was told that they should leave immediately. Finding that the elevators would not work, they started down the stairs. When they reached the sixth floor, however, there was a powerful explosion beneath them, which, Jennings told the makers of Loose Change Final Cut,1 caused the landing on which they were standing to give way. Making their way back up to the eighth floor, they were able to break a window and call for help. Hess later reported: “[W]e were trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half [before] the New York Fire Department . . . came and got us out.”2
Hess made this statement while being interviewed by Frank Ucciardo of UPN 9 News “on Broadway about a block from City Hall,” almost a half mile from WTC 7. This interview began before noon, most likely at 11:34.… Continue reading
By Matt Taibbi and David Ray Griffin
October 6, 2008
A poll of 17 countries that came out September of this year revealed that majorities in only nine of them “believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.” A Zogby poll from 2006 found that in America, 42% of respondents believed the US government and 9/11 Commission “covered up” the events of 9/11. It’s safe to say that at least tens of millions of Americans don’t believe anything close to the official account offered by the 9/11 Commission, and that much of the outside world remains skeptical.
Over the years, AlterNet has run dozens of stories , mostly critical, of the 9/11 Movement. Matt Taibbi has taken on the 9/11 Truth Movement head on in a series of articles, and most recently in his new book, The Great Derangement .
In April, I asked Taibbi if he would be interested in interviewing David Ray Griffin, a leading member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice , Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University and author of seven of books on 9/11 , about his recent book, 9/11 Contradictions . After months of back and forths between them and some editorial delays, I’m pleased to share their written exchange — all 24,000 words of it. What we have here are the preeminent writers on both sides of the 9/11 Truth argument; a one-of-a-kind debate.… Continue reading
The nearly 40% of American people who doubt the official account regarding
the September 11, 2001 attacks will be gratified to learn that their misgivings
have become recommended reading by a pillar of the book trade, Publishers
The leading starred review on PW‘s “Web
Pick of the Week” is Dr. David Ray Griffin’s newly released The
New Pearl Harbor Revisited (Interlink/Olive Branch press, 2008).
In its November 24, 2008 online issue, PW writes:
Griffin “addresses many points in exhaustive detail, from the physical
impossibility of the official explanation of the towers’ collapse to
the Commission’s failure to scrutinize the administration to the NIST’s
contradiction of its own scientists to the scads of eyewitness and scientific
testimony in direct opposition to official claims.
“Citing hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, [Griffin's] detailed
analysis is far from reactionary or delusional, building a case that, though
not conclusive, raises enough valid and disturbing questions to make his call
for a new investigation more convincing than ever.”
Weekly reviews from this trusted and prestigious publisher have guided the
book trade, including booksellers, publishers, librarians, and literary agents,
for 136 years.
Dr. Griffin’s book can be found at good bookstores or purchased at a discounted price from 911Truth.org.
The review is copied below.
Victoria, BC, Canada
Web Pick of the Week
The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé
David Ray Griffin. Interlink/Olive Branch, $20 (386p) ISBN 9781566567299
Author and professor Griffin (9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press) knows his work is referred to by officials and the media as conspiracy theory, and he has a rebuttal: “the official theory is itself a conspiracy theory.” In this companion volume to 2004′s The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, Griffin provides corrections, raises new issues and discusses “the two most important official reports about 9/11,” the 9/11 Commission Report and the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the Twin Towers, both “prepared by people highly responsive to the wishes of the White House” and riddled with “omission and distortion from beginning to end.” Griffin addresses many points in exhaustive detail, from the physical impossibility of the official explanation of the towers’ collapse to the Commission’s failure to scrutinize the administration to the NIST’s contradiction of its own scientists to the scads of eyewitness and scientific testimony in direct opposition to official claims.…Continue reading
David has a BS from Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA (IPS major–independent program of studies with emphasis in physics and engineering); MA in education from Claremont Graduate University; MS in mathematics from Cal Poly, Pomona and has taught Physics/Mathematics/Astronomy at K-12 and Jr. college levels. He is also an author and served formerly on the editorial board of The Physics Teacher, an AAPT journal. David is also an active designer and inventor of educational materials emphasizing quantitative visualization.
David’s recent article, WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall focuses on some of the significant errors and discrepancies in the final NIST report on the collapse of tower 7 and includes excerpts from a technical briefing held by NIST on August 26, 2008. During this briefing, questions were put to the panel by David Chandler as well as Dr. Steven Jones.
Intermission music by Libra Project.
Ending music by Prymal Rhythm.
Source URL: http://911blogger.com/blog/106
Dec 15, 2008
by David Chandler
Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911Truth.org)
In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at freefall, but the coverup was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged freefall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. Part I [of this video] chronicles NIST’s attempted obfuscation and eventual admission of freefall. Part II demonstrates that their replacement theory is based on fabricated evidence and is a continuation of the coverup. Part III will spell out the significance of NIST’s admission of freefall.
Go to www.AE911truth.org and sign the petition for a REAL investigation.
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors. The starting point of their 5.4 second interval is totally arbitrary. This new video highlights the August 26 technical briefing and allows Sunder and Gross to shoot holes in their own feet.
[Ed. Note: 28,393 views as of this posting]
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)
Comment at YouTube: Some viewers have questioned the details of the measurements shown in this video. I have created a FAQ page to deal with these questions. See www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measurement-FAQ.pdf
[Ed. Note: 2,974 views… Continue reading
by Steven Jones
The 116th peer-reviewed paper was published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies : “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis” by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Take a look! http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf
This fine paper underwent several months of rather arduous peer-review preceding its publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The paper supports work by James Gourley published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and recent analysis by David Chandler. A few quotes from the paper should wet your interest:
“In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false.
In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:
[snip] Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely… Continue reading