We Are Change Atlanta - Pink Elephant 9/11

 March 19, 2010 — We Are Change Atlanta, AE911Truth and the Pink Elephant Collective - Popular Atlanta Neighborhood Gets a Dose of 9/11 Truth



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Very nice. It's good to see something creative like this promote conversation about truth in a busy neighborhood. I do think the 9/11 truth cat has three paws out of the bag. Those who don't see it, aren't looking at the cat or the bag.

The Great 9/11 Insurance Bonanza - Shady Insurance Policies Set Up Weeks Before WTC attacks on 9/11

by Gene Cappa
Source: OpEd News
March 26, 2010

“An Insurance Policy that had been set up for the WTC Complex only weeks before the Twin Towers went down” says Investigative Journalist Laurence De Mello.
Larry Silverstein – “The Harder I Worked The Luckier I Became”

De Mello continues, “In 1980, Jewish real estate tycoon Silverstein, won a bid from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to construct 7 World Trade Center to the north of the WTC. Building 7 World Trade Center was situated above a (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints.”

When the building first opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building.

But this building was also losing money. Silverstein was interested in acquiring the entire World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. (he had waited over 20 years for this!).

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was initially outbid by $50 million by Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties with Vornado Realty, who were also competing for the lease”. Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial lease applicant and the Port Authority fell through, Silverstein signed the lease on July 24, 2001, only weeks (48 days) before the towers were destroyed on 11th September of the same year.

Larry Silverstein had acquired what was considered a very expensive ”white elephant”. Here comes a Red Flag; After Silverstein closed his deal he stated; “This is a dream come true,” “We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights.” Yet this was a comment that was meant to make the public think this was a good investment. He didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that he was buying the dead asset which the WTC was immediately before 9/11. Why ? Because he already knew what was going to happen!

This was written in “‘Business week” with regard to the WTC before 9/11. From an economic standpoint, the Trade Center — subsidized since its inception — has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace.

The Port Authority had made several attempts over the years to get the permits required to demolish the entire site but were always refused because of the “asbestos problem” and the serious danger that “asbestos” would cause to the local community should the buildings be “demolished” in the conventional manner.

His only consent to get around that risk to health was that the building could be literally dismantled “‘floor by floor”, which could never have been a viable operation. Other New York developers had apparently been driven to bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations and the prospect of $200 million to plug those losses, which represented an entire year’s worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers at full rental capacity.

So even after Larry Silverstein’s multi billion dollar acquisition in July of 2001 the Towers still required further funds of some $200 million in renovations and improvements to make the buildings rentable. Most of the 200 million renovation funds related to the removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.

Here we see a Red Flag; Where would that money have come from if Silverstein already had to invest 14 million of his own money to close the deal? This 14 million of Silverstein’s personal funds being used in the deal tells us there was no more investors money available when he bought the lease in July 2002, so how would Silverstein have found another 200 million dollars to bring the WTC up to the standard for it to start to pay its own way?

Red Flag; One has to ask why would the biggest real estate developer in the USA acquire a group of buildings that were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars per month? Especially as this new lease did not give him the right to redevelop the WTC site to make it a viable investment.
Now here’s the interesting clause to the 99 year lease that was “‘turning Silverstein on”; although Silverstein was not permitted to redevelop the site, HE DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURES SHOULD THEY BE DESTROYED.

Now remember, Silverstein invested not only 3.2 billion dollars of other people’s money into the deal, but also 14 million dollars of his own money! Now that’s a very unusual investment step to take by a real estate genius, putting all that money into a site that was continuously a monumental financial loss.

A site that can never be developed in a way that was financially feasible! How does one justify that move to ones 3.2 billion dollar investors? I would love to have seen the Business Plan for that! We should certainly ask for those!

After closing the WTC deal in late July 2001, Silverstein immediately insured his “‘white elephant” buildings. The insurance coverage on the property ‘fortuitously’ covered acts of terrorism.

And more curiously, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein’s view, separate attacks.

The total potential payout was $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

From Forbes.com 6th Dec 2004, “A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes”.

The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. “That means Silverstein got his buildings demolished in hours, he gets his insurance payments giving him 1.3 billion dollars more than he paid for the WTC 99 year lease, he gets free rein to build a state of the art, healthy, cost effective complex in the centre of Manhatten.

And all only 48 days after he signed the contracts! No wonder he used his own 14 million dollars, he KNEW he was getting it back!

Here we also start to think, hold on, if so many BIG people knew that the buildings were not permitted to be demolished due to health risks from asbestos, why were the locals told the air was “safe to breath” immediately after the 9/11 collapse?

The Port authority had applied for years for permits and had been refused yet they lied saying the air was safe. Why?

Then we have those famous words of Silvestein days after the 9/11 horror, “I remember getting a call from the, uh, Fire Department Commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, “You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, uh…and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.” ~ Larry Silverstein, owner of New York’s World Trade Center Building 7, which was demolished on 9/11/2001.
So they just pulled it, in just a couple of hours, just like that!

Hhmmm, go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and our very qualified friends will tell you just how many weeks of planning it takes to just “pull it”.

Take action — click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Support Criminal 9/11 Investigation-Use of Explosives/Insurance Fraud
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Judge Rejects 9/11 Settlement - "Will Not Preside Over Settlement Based on Fear Or Ignorance"

Judge rejects 9/11 settlement

Deal 'not enough' for those ailing from dust and ash

Saturday,  March 20, 2010 2:52 AM

 

By David B. Caruso

Associated Press 

 

Louis Lanzano | Associated Press

New York City resident Lori Angelone, after leaving federal court, holds a banner describing husband Louis' ailments, which they contend should be covered as 9/11-related.

NEW YORK -- A federal judge yesterday rejected a legal settlement that would have given at least $575 million to people sickened by ash and dust from the World Trade Center, saying the deal shortchanged 10,000 ground-zero workers whom he called heroes.

"In my judgment, this settlement is not enough," said U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who delivered his pronouncement to a stunned gallery at a federal courthouse in Manhattan.

The 76-year-old jurist said he feared that police officers, firefighters and other laborers who cleared rubble after the 9/11 attack were being pushed into signing a deal that few of them understood.

Under the terms of the settlement, workers had been given 90 days to say yes or no to a deal that would have assigned them payments based on a point system that Hellerstein said was complicated enough to make a Talmudic scholar's head spin.

"I will not preside over a settlement that is based on fear or ignorance," he said.

Of the proposed settlement of $575 million to $657 million, workers stood to get amounts ranging from a few thousand dollars to more than $1 million.

Hellerstein said the deal should be richer. Too much of it would be eaten up by legal fees, he said.
A third or more of the money set aside for the workers was expected to go to their lawyers. Some plaintiffs had agreed at the start of the case to give as much as 40percent of any judgment to cover fees and expenses. That might have meant $200million or more going to attorneys.

Hellerstein, who presides over all federal-court litigation related to the terrorist attack, ripped into the agreement after hearing several ground-zero responders speak tearfully of their illnesses, and after receiving letters and phone calls from others expressing confusion about the deal.

It was unclear whether the judge's actions will kill the settlement. It took years to negotiate and was announced March 11, about two months before the first trials.

A spokeswoman for the law partnership that negotiated the settlement on behalf of the workers said she had no comment.

Hellerstein laid out a number of proposed fixes for what he saw as deficiencies in the settlement. He told the two sides to resume negotiations.

Hellerstein said workers should have ample opportunities to ask questions and get answers about the settlement, and he offered to go on a mini-speaking tour to get information to the plaintiffs.

He said more money should be set aside for people who later develop cancer that might be linked to ground-zero toxins. He said he wants to retain ultimate control over which workers are entitled to have claims paid.

Hellerstein acknowledged that he felt a personal connection to the case, calling it "the greatest burden in my life," but he insisted that his unusual intervention was legally and morally necessary, given the importance of 9/11 to the country.

"This is no ego trip for me. This is work," he said.

Congress has appropriated federal funds for the settlement.
 
Source: Associated Press

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Thank goodness for this man. I hope that more people with the power to change lives will learn something from his example. Compassion still exists in high places.

Follow Up: ABC Nightline coverage of Treason In America Conference

A few days ago I posted this video of an ABC reporter interviewing the creators of Loose Change at the Treason In America conference. It seems that he likes to use the term "lunatic fringe". In the video that they didn't air, he asks Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe (Loose Change creators) the same question using the "lunatic fringe" phrase.

As usual, ABC acts is if there is no real evidence coming from 9/11 truthers, only theories, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Wallace even goes so far as to state that the theories have been discredited. Well, that really depends on which exact theories he is referring to. Of course, there is no distinction so that really can't be refuted.

One only needs to look at the evidence presented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and the evidence of thermite at ground zero, and the WTC Building 7 collapse to learn that there is indeed much evidence of a controlled demolition at the very least.

THIS is what was recorded.






and THIS is what ABC aired



Here is the link to the original story at the ABC Website. "The Truther Movement: Meet the people who don't believe the governments explanation of 9/11".

New Interviews With Jessie Ventura - American Conspiracies

Here are some new videos of interviews with former Minnesota Governor, Jesse Ventura, talking about 9/11, and several other American Conspiracies (New book title), like the JFK assassination. Jesse is making the rounds to promote this new book. When questioned about his theories, he says that his book is factual although he adds his own opinions at the beginnings and ends of chapters. He states that he isn't making this up.  He is presenting information and evidence. The information comes from government documents, articles, and interviews.

Here he is on the Today Show - 3/9/10.  MSNBC 'Today Books' posted an article titled, 'Jesse Ventura claims gov't involved in 9/11'. These are fairly forthcoming interviews compared to what Fox & Friends (sort of) attempted to report. The cast of Fox & Friends (below) makes it clear they won't be talking about 9/11, though all of the other interviews do. The arrogant plasticity emanating from the screen in their video is so glaringly obvious it is difficult to take seriously.  I don't know why anyone would want to watch those people in the morning. What a terrible way to start the day. All jokes aside, it's nice that Jesse is able to go on the air and talk about these things. Here is a different interview from Fox News with Alan Colmes. They DO talk about 9/11.

Fox News Interview on 'Fox & Friends' 3/9/2010



The ladies at The View chimed in with their 3 cents. Here we have the usual, "that is a terrible accusation, how could you suggest such a thing" types of statements.  Notice the implication that it's terrible to even think it or suggest it, rather than looking at the evidence and research. Maybe, do some research yourself to find out why so many intelligent professionals, military, etc. are calling for a new independent investigation.

"We hate to disagree with former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, but his conspiracy theories on 9/11 just seem a little, well, out there. Today on 'The View' (weekdays syndicated), Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Barbara Walters criticized Ventura for his assertion that the Bush administration was somehow involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.

"That the government would deliberately kill 3,000 people, to accuse the President of this, because ... he's protecting oil interests, Governor, that's a terrible accusation to make,' Walters said."

It may seem out there to people who've done no research. Merely suggesting that it's offensive to do so is not acceptable. That needs to stop. There is now enough evidence to conclude that a controlled demolition was involved at the Twin Towers and even more suspiciously, Building 7.  Unfortunately, anyone who has researched objectively can clearly see that the controlled demolition evidence is not preposterous at all.  How do they explain that? They don't.  In fact, with evidence of nano-thermite at ground zero, there is more evidence for controlled demolition than the impossible free-fall explanation. But, they don't mention any of that on Fox News.

If you're looking for a more in-depth interview you can listen to his interview with The Young Turks. It's about 20 minutes long.

Huffington Post Pulls Ventura 9/11 Article Shortly After Posting

Shortly after this Huffington Post article written by Jessie Ventura was posted, it was removed and replaced. Below is the original article that was removed. Reason given? They don't do "conspiracy theories".

""...this morning, Jesse had a front-page piece on 9/11 up at Huff Post: a front-page piece that quickly slipped off that front page — and then completely disappeared."-Infowars.com

Read the rest at: Infowars.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huffington Post/Jesse Ventura – Article #2 (”American Conspiracies”)

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH?

You didn’t see anything about it in the mainstream media, but two weeks ago at a conference in San Francisco, more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.
That’s right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy – because they don’t buy the government’s version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible – or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this: “The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.” He’s especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 447 stories came down in “pure free-fall acceleration” that afternoon – even though it was never hit by an aircraft.

This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies , published this week by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows:

Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed. Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9/11 were going 440 and 550 miles an hour.
Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage. So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings? I don’t claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy’s underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a “gravity driven collapse” without demolition charges defies the laws of physics. These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately ten seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started its investigation on August 21, 2002. When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Steven E. Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9/11, with Governor Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures. These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever. And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal , in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the Twin Towers and the nearby Building 7:

“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.” [i]

Richard Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to point out the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”

Read the Entire Infowars Article

ABC Interviews Loose Change

This interview was filmed at the Treason In America conference on March 6th, 2010. ABC News interviews the creators of possibly the most well-known documentary about 9/11, Loose Change. Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe thoroughly impressed me with how well they fielded these, as Avery puts it, "loaded questions". I am sure they have had a lot of practice fielding questions. Loose Change is hugely popular on the internet. In fact, it is one of the most viewed videos of all time on Google Videos.

Loose Change has indeed gone viral and back with over millions of views on YouTube.  There are 3 versions if I am not mistaken,. The most recent version is titled Loose Change: An American Coup (09/09). I think Dylan and Korey set a positive example of how people should be responding to these kinds of questions about 9/11. I am looking forward to seeing what ABC does with it. It's a good thing we get to see these full videos. I would be surprised if they (ABC) kept it honest.

Washington's Blog Lists 9/11 Truth Supporters You May Not Expect

Great new post from Washington's Blog:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous

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, to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are all dangerous nut cases.
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.

• A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11." (and see this).

• A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)

• 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.

Congressmen:

• According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here)

• Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

• Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

• Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11

• Current Republican Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11

• Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11

• Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation

• Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg says that the U.S. government "assisted" in the 9/11 attacks, stating that "I think there was a lot of help from the inside"

• 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

9/11 Commissioners:

• The Commission's co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"
  

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up"
  

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

• 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."

Other government officials:

• U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."

• 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."

• The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

• 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

• Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt"

• The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

• 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!"

Numerous other politicians, judges, legal scholars, and attorneys also question at least some aspects of the government's version of 9/11."

9/11 Eyewitness - Top Documentary

Thanks to Top Documentary Films, I came across this: "Best Historical Documentary 2007 - New York International Independent Film Festival" winner that I had not seen about 9/11. This is another excellent and rare set of footage due to the quality, angle, transcript and calls of the news report. This video is another very tastefully presented addition to the pieces of evidence we have available to us of the WTC tragedies. Like the last few of these posted, I highly recommend that everyone see this.

"And there was just a hole and black smoke. It just looked like a cigar standing up on end with burning tip and black smoke. Which again, why black smoke? It’s ready to go out. And then it went on and the building was just burning away and it wasn’t too exciting until all of the sudden it’s disappearing and there was no real sign, there was no sign that this was going to go down because of all the black smoke. And the black smoke is really indicative that the fire is out.

Local news radio coverage was recorded by the on-camera microphone while Rick Siegel videotaped the events of 9/11 from the Hoboken pier. Scientific analysis is presented in an easy to understand manner. The pictures tell the story and this is one story that all New Yorkers, and anyone who was traumatized by the shocking attack on the WTC, must see. In memory of all those who perished, 911 Eyewitness is a voice of the victims that must never be forgotten.

This powerful documentary features eyewitness testimony and scientific analysis of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Seven World Trade. The American Public and American Republic have been betrayed and now it’s time to learn the truth and share it with your skeptical friends. (Excerpt from 911eyewitness.com)"

Click here to see this documentary now. You can download it at the link above. Part 1 appears to be a combination of part 2 and 3. Not sure what is going on there because when I checked on 2 and 3 they appeared to be shorter versions of what was in Part One. If anyone else notices differently, please post a comment and let me know. Thanks.

9/11 Conspiracy FACT Video

9/11 Conspiracy FACT Video


Disclose.tv 9/11 Conspiracy FACT Video

Missing pieces of the story:

In the first ‘Loose Change’ they mention that Flight 93’s tail number matched a plane that landed at Hopkins International Airport in Cleveland...

According to these reports, people were evacuated off 2 commercial planes and the people on the mystery plane, which we have identified as Flight 93, moved into the NASA Hanger at Hopkins...

Both AA11 and UA Flight 175 out of Boston appear to have been swapped for military AWACS drones at Stewart AB in Newburgh, NY where they both crossed over the airport at the exact same time. So if the original flights landed at Stewart AFB, what happened to those passengers?

Finally, It was obviously a missile and not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, so what happened to the original Flight 77 and all the people with Top Secret clearances who were aboard? Were they assassinated or did they have their death’s faked so they could go work on an even more top secret mission? We can find a TriState Airport extremely close to the point where Flight 77 was "hijacked"...Could Flight 77 have landed there?

The same Coroner signed off on all the bodies from all 4 Flights... Furthermore, he claimed to have identified the terrorists using DNA evidence which would require them to have samples of the Terrorist’s DNA prior to 9/11…

I believe an Air Force AWACS Fighter Jet shot the missile at the Pentagon, because the Pentagon is surrounded on all sides by SAM (Surface to Air Missiles) sites which automatically shoot down anything approaching that doesn't display a "friendly" signal. Only "Friendlies" would have that signal, and only our own Military Air Craft can fly over the Pentagon without being shot out of the sky. Never mind do an impossible 220 degree dive maneuver in plain view and clear range of these SAM sites...
Besides if terrorists were really flying this plane they would have dove straight into the North Wing where all the main offices were, not the West Wing...

Bush-Bin Laden meeting:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/030316post

Mahmoud Ahmed 9/11 meeting:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/041203metwithbinladen.html

Porter Goss:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern07062004.html

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/nist-s-ua175-impact-simulation-wrong-t181.html

The end result...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175.htm
http://femr2.ucoz.com/draft175-part2.htm

Source: 9_11_Conspiracy Fact

Hilarious Satire - How To Destroy A 9/11 Truther

WTC Power Down Weekend Before 9/11

Disclose.tv Power Down before WTC Demolition and Marvin Bush Video

Scott Forbes, employee on the 97th floor of the south tower of the World Trade Center in 2001, reported that the World Trade Center was powered down the weekend before September 11th, 2001. The power-down took place on September 8th and 9th, 2001, which is the Saturday and Sunday prior to 9/11. All systems were shut down, including security. He states that they were given 3 weeks notice and that this was an unprecedented event. He claims that he witnessed some suspicious behavior and saw "engineers" coming and going. For some reason, this information was left out of the 9/11 Commission Report. The WTC buildings were the first and only steel framed buildings to ever collapse due to fire. Building 7 was not hit by a plane and had small fires on a few floors of the 47 story skyscraper. Yet, it collapsed around 5p.m. on September 11th. If they simply collapsed, there would be more than the dust and rubble that was left behind. They were pulverized. 99.7% of the steel evidence was moved and destroyed. It does not make sense to accept that they all simply collapsed due to fires.

There is solid, published evidence that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The red-grey chips and presence of a highly advanced military-grade explosive composite found at ground zero are indeed a smoking gun. It is unlikely that terrorists would be able to obtain these types of explosives as they are produced by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL).

".. it is important to remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials. It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillotson et al 1998, Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002)."

Watch this excellent presentation: Emerging Science Around The World Trade Center Destruction by Kevin Ryan.
Thank you, Kevin for creating this. You're right. It IS the right thing to do.

Keene Sept 12 Final

View more presentations from Dainin.

Joe Robertson Responds To Glenn Beck attack on 9/11 Truthers

A Message to Glenn Beck: What Are the Dangers of 9/11 Truthers?
Joe Robertson
Feburary 15, 2010
Your Debra Medina attack really got me asking why it was a top priority for you to “expose” her “9/11 truther” connections.

You even asked:

“Do you have advisors that advise you or people that are around you that are 9/11 Truthers? … Would you, if you found out that there were, would you disavow them like the president should have but I mean, he escorted them out in the middle of the night.” Benedict Arnold Glenn Beck

It’s enough to get me wondering if these truthers are a “National Security Threat” or what hideous crimes they may have committed against the U.S. of America.

Glenn, you seem pretty on top of this, besides “thought crimes”, what are the crimes or “threats posed” by “9/11 truthers” to the country or yourself?

It’s a good question… huh, Glenn?

I decided to do a Google for “9/11 truther crimes” and guess what? It gave me answers like “war crimes”, “9/11 crimes” and “crimes against humanity”.

All crimes “truthers” are asking questions “Of” … but NO crimes committed “By” them…

Then I had this crazy thought, you know Glenn…. I’m thinking “this Glenn Beck guy can’t be a ‘Thought-Nazi’, can he? … you know… just controlling the reasoning of his viewers for political or monetary gain.”

Well gosh, Glenn, what should we think? Help us out here… First, have you explained what a “9/11 truther” is … you know… your definition of a “truther”…

Yes, I see you have on your popular Fox News show where you are able to tell people how… or, I mean what to think… I mean what you think…

Here it is – from THE Glenn Beck Show on Sept. 3, 2009: (the intro is classic)



BECK (that’s you): If you don’t know what a 9/11 Truther is, let me quickly tell you about them. Here’s a statement from a 9/11 Truther group; after the attacks they demanded: “A call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.”

(My comments are in blue)

Glenn, if evidence suggests an inquiry… I don’t have a problem with an inquiry… do you?… Really, I mean if evidence suggests… would Jefferson?

Beck: They also have a list of questions on their site that, I guess, is supposed to peak your interest in the conspiracy theory that the Bush administration let the attacks happen on purpose.
Is “conspiracy theory” a buzz term to trigger bias in the malleable minds of your audience? And your “guess is” the reason the questions are there… is to “peak” interest in “conspiracy”, like a Fox News show would? I mean, that’s your thinking?

BECK: I too had a lot of questions shortly after 9/11, but none of them had anything to do with the “alleged” Flight 77 that “allegedly” blew up at the Pentagon. Nor was I asking if steel can melt or anything like that.

So Glenn, what were your insightful question? Why do you say “alleged”? Is it that you don’t believe Flight 77 “blew up” or that it was a “flight”?

BECK: Here’s what Truthers want answers to:

• “How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington, D.C., for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA’s radar or the even superior radar possessed by the U.S. military?”
• “Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?”
• “How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?”
• “Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?”

The Truthers have also questioned things like: “Was Flight 93 actually shot down by the military as a cover-up?”

That last one there, Glenn, about military cover-up… I’m not finding that quote anywhere… You wouldn’t be just tossing that in for arguments sake? You know like pace, pace, pace … LEAD.
And… though, I had not read these prior to you suggesting… the questions asked do look, frankly, pretty reasonable (aside from your psyop) and…
Guess what… the 911truth.org site mentions 8 more like…

• Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
• Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
• Why hasn’t a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
• Why haven’t authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
• Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
• What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
• Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
• Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

Glenn Beck, even though I never took the time to read all those questions before, I think you might think that if those are legitimate questions then they are questions that can be asked … (did I get that right Glenn?)
BECK: If you believed our own government was responsible (as opposed high-level government officials?) for the 9/11 attacks, right there on the 9/11 Truther statement, you could proudly sign your name along with such luminaries as:

• No. 2: Ed Asner, actor, activist
• No. 31: Janeane Garofalo, actress, Air America radio
• No. 51: Mimi Kennedy, actress, progressive activist
• No. 62: Cynthia McKinney, 5-term congresswoman from Georgia

And coming in at No. 46: Van Jones, executive director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
OK Glenn, naturally you have reached your own understanding of what the 9/11 Truther statement said… and it’s your show, your boss, so your spin is your (or your boss’s) prerogative along with the progressive selection of signers you offer…
I did happen to go to the source (yes, I know… few do) and noticed you skipped many of the other signers like:

• Catherine Austin Fitts, Asst Sec Housing in the first Bush administration
• Edward L Peck, former US Ambassador, former Deputy Task Force Terrorism
• Eric H May, former Army military intelligence officer and media essayist
• Fred Burks, presidential interpreter for Bush, Clinton, Cheney, and Gore
• J Michael Springmann, former Foreign Service Officer, US Depart of State
• John McCarthy, former Special Forces, president Veterans Equal Rights
• Melvin Goodman, Center International Policy, CIA, professor War College
• Morton Goulder, Deputy Sec Intelligence Warning Nixon, Ford, Carter
• Philip J Berg, Esquire, former deputy attorney general, Pennsylvania

And many more including 1st responders and victim’s family members… check it out at 911truth.org.
BECK: So on top of all the radical, progressive and communist nonsense coming from Obama’s green jobs “czar” Van Jones, you can now add “thinks the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Centers and covered it up.”

Do you know what people are saying about me on the Internet — that I’m a conspiracy theorist? If you actually believed this stuff — forget green jobs — wouldn’t you want to find out who was trying to kill innocent Americans? Wouldn’t that be a top priority?
 
OH MY Glenn, People questioning (with “real” boldness) the completeness of the official 9/11 Report (same Gov that deny using blackwater) are as bad or worse than Marxists and Communists… I did not know that… and we can thank you, Glenn, for that understanding… truly.
BUT WAIT… did I understand people are also calling you a “conspiracy theorist”? Is that it? You are debunking because people are calling you names?
Back to those crazy truthers… They also have this on their site:
As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:

1. An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
2. Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
3. Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
4. The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

Looks like it is a top priority for some but Glenn…
I’m still trying to understand the risk, threat or danger posed by this “9/11 Truther” group. Clearly, Glenn, you are alarmed.

Why is that? The name calling you receive and being lumped in with other “conspiracy theorists”, no doubt, is traumatic for you, but beyond that, is there more to your fear of “truthers”?

Again, we have the good fortune of you, Glenn Beck, producing a wildly popular show that tells people what and how to think and of course what not to think…

From Jan 20, 2010, where you may have shed some light…

(as a side note you used the words President and Danger at least 5 times leading up to this…)
BECK: So he’s surrounded. By radicals. Surrounded by radicals here’s why the republic is in danger. And the president is in danger first. 

You had also mentioned that there are two groups of radicals surrounding the president. A peaceful activist group and unrepentant bomber William Ayers groups (even though as you point out, he is not actually around the president).

BECK: Now why is the president himself in trouble. — let me use him as an example 9/11 truther – Another guy surrounding the president.
Glenn, If you remember, this is where you physically put Van Jones picture next to Ayers to make an association and said:
BECK: Okay 9/11 truthers… here’s a guy who thought the government was evil enough that it would murder thousands of US citizens just blow it up. Destroy a building and kill 3000 people.
I know it’s semantics to you but is that what he signed?
So… for understanding, even though you think all progressives are evil and George Bush is a progressive and you suggest that we currently have eugenicists as advisors… the real alarm for the safety of the Republic and the President is….
BECK: Well gosh. Are these people like you do you think that.
Maybe not, but, evidently like someone… Glenn…
BECK: Do you think anyone who does think… that we could just kill our own people should be… near the president.
Fear-mongering Glenn? And for the record… No I don’t think anybody that does think should be near the president… what do you think the THREAT IS?
BECK: I mean he (9/11 truther) thinks anybody who sits or sat in the chair of the presidency must be evil. He goes to church with a guy who thinks that America intentionally murdered people all throughout history.
BECK: Put yourself in the mindset of a 9/11 truther – you have access to the president of the United States the guy who was always been evil.
OK, Glenn… It’s a good thing that TV is not hypnotic because people could really ramp up the power of suggestive ideas even something as nut job as a view that people seeking truth (“truthers”) are by default dangerous Marxist Communist wackos that want to wack our leader…
To be clear Glenn…
The Danger… the National Security Threat of the “9/11 Truth Movement” is that the President is in Danger?
Glenn, you are asking your audience to intellectually associate everyone that signed (gov officials, celebs, victim families, 1st responders) that “911truth.org” petition (“truthers”) with an intent to murder?
That’s what you are saying Glenn Beck? … really?
Oh… I see you used a clip from a Air-America shock jock – Mike Malloy – to support your conspiracy theory…
Now, of course his name is not on that list and he is not part of that site… but he IS evidence to support YOUR conspiracy theory… GOT IT.
Master of “doubletalk” you are…
It seems to me Glenn, that you being the great champion of Jefferson and the Founding Fathers…
It seems Glenn, you, the great self-professed crusader of liberty…
You, would want to ask the signers of the 911truth.org … WHY do they question so boldly knowing the consequences of MSM?
Instead, you vilify them and accuse them of possessing designs of destruction and murder…
You Glenn Beck… take these people and slander them for what? Asking questions?
Benedict Beck, it is amazing to witness the seduction of money and power…
Will people follow the money…
Does your audience even know who bought You?
It’s interesting to see how Rupert Murdoch just happens to sit as Co-Chair with Lloyd Blankfein(Goldman Sachs CEO) on Rockefeller’s PFNYC which is the NYC Chamber of Commerce…
Which just happens to have influence (power, control that kind of thing) over ALL of media (MSM) and banks (NY FED, JP Morgan, GS) …
Also, interesting to notice that the Hearst Corp CEO is a Board Member of PFNYC, which just happens to own National Geo and Popular Mechanics…
And, these two Hearst companies, just happen to be the main source of ALL debunking the 9/11 truther questions… You know Popular Mechanics, even you use them as a credible source without any disclosure of interests…
But then… that’s another post.
Makes one even ask questions about you, Glenn Beck, and if it could be possible that you might have personal gain in the positions you take which seem to be almost confusing at times… and then not? (Did I get that right, Glenn?)
And for the record Glenn…
I was not one who considered myself to be a “911 Truther”, but…
After actually reading the 911truth.org statement and hearing you slander these people…
Add me to the List Glenn Beck…
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent”. Thomas Jefferson
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
SOURCE: Joe Robertson - Infowars.com

With Glenn Beck leading the charge, mainstream media swarms on TX Gov. candidate Medina for not disavowing 9/11 Truthers

With Glenn Beck leading the charge, mainstream media swarms on TX Gov. candidate Medina for not disavowing 9/11 Truthers

"Today, in a move that illustrates exactly why Glenn Beck has painstakingly tried to portray himself over the past year as some kind of man of the people while hosting a show on the infamous Fox News Channel that cheered the War in Iraq, he turned an interview with Debra Medina, a candidate for the TX Governer seat, into a PR ambush on her and the 9/11 Truth movement."

As usual, FOX News and Glenn Beck continue to try and discredit anyone who questions the official 9/11 story.

She has posted a followup on her website:

Medina Campaign Responds to Glenn Beck Interview
by Debra Medina on Feb 11, 2010

I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.

The question surprised me because it's not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.

The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it's Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that's the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be."

New 9/11 Ariel Photos - Russia Times Video

New pictures released thanks to a FOIA request show the Twin Tower collapse from a police helicopter on September 11, 2001. It's too bad the Russia Times didn't interview someone else in response to the release of these photographs. While I agree that it's good to point out when "we the people" have been lied to about the causes of climate change or the September 11 attacks, Badillo of WEARECHANGE was probably not the best choice for this news interview. I have nothing against him, I just don't think the interview helped the cause toward awakening people to the obvious points of evidence for a controlled demolition.

This subject is surrounded by multiple conspiracy theories and it is therefore best if people stick to the scientific evidence of thermate and the plausibility of 3 steel-framed skyscrapers collapsing for the first time in history, due to a fire that should not have been hot enough to melt steel. There isn't a lot of time to talk about this on TV so it's important that those that represent the call for an independent investigation always stick to the facts and get the important ones out there quickly and as thoroughly as possible. 

Perhaps Dr. Steven Jones or Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth would have been a more sound, qualified and credible choice. There was no mention of the evidence of explosives/ thermite/thermate found at the scene of ground zero.

I've read the comments at the Daily Mail and it still shocks me that the people can be so blindly convinced that this was not a controlled demolition and that for the first time ever not one, not two, but 3 steel framed skyscrapers "collapsed due to fire" all on the same day? Building 7 was not even hit by a plane and the owner said he made the decision to "pull it".(Which just happens to be controlled demolition lingo for bringing down a building with explosives). It too fell at nearly free-fall speed.

Not all "truthers" think it was an inside job. Some are only asking for a new independent investigation because there are many good reasons to doubt the official story.  Controlled demolition evidence is just a small part of it.  If there is nothing to hide, what is wrong with another independent investigation? Don't we owe the victims, first responders, American citizens, citizens of the world and especially the victims families at least that much? I don't think a new investigation is too much to ask for when one considers that the "official story" has been shown to be seriously flawed time and time again.




You can see Blueprint For Truth 2008 Edition (2 hour presentation) here. If you see this and still don't think controlled demolition was involved, I would be very surprised.


Web Resoucres Provided By ae911truth..org.
NYCCAN.org
The Journal of 9/11 Studies
9/11 Blogger
WTC7.net
0x1a.com
Patriots Question 9/11
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
C.S.I. 9/11
9/11 Facts and Questions - Akira Doujimaru
Kevin Ryan - U.L. Whistleblower
Visibility 9/11
9-11 Commission Report
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice