News items are in order by date, starting
with the most recent.
Dr. Frank Legge
Dr Frank Legge and the Science of 9/11
Dedication by John Bursill at Frank Legge’s Funeral Service in Perth Australia on
the 29th of October 2016.
Good afternoon to you all and my deepest condolences to Frank’s wife Kaye, his children,
grandchildren, greater family, friends and associates. I am here representing the worldwide
9/11 Truth Community to celebrate a great human being,
and to recognise the great body of work Frank undertook over the last ten years of his life
whilst uncovering the truth of the events on September 11, 2001.
I have given many addresses on this controversial issue over many years, on radio, TV and to
large conferences, but this I see as the most important.
Firstly I should introduce myself. My name is John Bursill; I am a Senior Licenced Aircraft
Maintenance Engineer in Avionics for a large Australian Airline and am currently acting in the role
of Engineering Duty Maintenance Manager in Sydney. I have worked in the airline industry
for 30 years in many responsible roles and have served as an Executive of the Australian
Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association.
I currently hold the position of President of the Sutherland Aboriginal Education Consultative
Group working for better outcomes for Aboriginal children. I have served with distinction
in the Australian Army Reserve for over ten years, still being active within the Returned and
Services League of Australia (RSL) in
my local community, where I also work with the Lions and other community organisations.
My role in the 9/11 Truth Movement was as the Australian Spokesperson, including representing
the international group
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
I have been a street
activist, international conference organiser, blogger and podcast host.
Frank spoke at numerous events I held in Sydney including one attended by the Honourable
Senator Yukisa Fujita of the parliament of Japan who at the time was the Chairman of the
Senate Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee.
Frank was a regular guest on the podcast
to discuss with me as host the
science of 9/11, and to help activists understand the misinformation and misguided speculative
theories being presented to and by the movement. He was always the gentle voice of reason.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am like Frank, a conspiracy factualist and a rational
actor for truth, peace and justice.
Frank Legge was not just a friend, mentor and hero to me, but to thousands of others,
becoming an inspiration and a source of hope that a better world was possible. Frank
encouraged us activists that, through exposing the truth of 9/11, which is the pretext to this
endless war, peace on earth was a real possibility.
Frank demonstrated through action that good educated people of high standing with much
to lose would take the hard path and speak truth to power and that brave selfless souls
will stand up for the powerless even when they risk being alienated from their families,
ridiculed by their academic peers and in many cases lose their jobs as a direct consequence
of speaking out.
Today I am primarily here to represent the large Scientific and Engineering Community to whom
Frank was a pillar and to pay their respects to Frank and to his work.
I will do this through their words which have been truncated and edited due to service
These are the reflections of some of his closest scientific and activist collaborators
that have fought stridently with Frank for 9/11 truth and justice, in the name of peace.
Reflections by Some of Frank Legge's Scientfic Collaborators
Dr Steven E Jones
Dr Jones is an American physicist known largely for his work on Cold Fusion at
Brigham Young University.
Jones is also known for his association with 9/11 research and has claimed that mere
airplane crashes and fires could not have resulted in the rapid and complete collapse
of all three World Trade Center towers on 9/11. He suggests controlled demolition instead,
based upon his own experiments and analysis.
Dr Jones has received numerous scientific awards and has been published in many
scientific journals, including Nature, Physical Review Letters and Scientific American,
to name just a few.
"Frank was an intelligent, well-informed colleague who assisted me on several
studies as well as being a good friend.
My sincere condolences to Kaye and his family.
I well remember my visits with Frank in November 2009 during a speaking trip to
Australia at the invitation of John Bursill. It was a wonderful time together,
sharing meals and discussing 9/11 and other issues. I will always remember this
event and our time together.
One argument that I often used in talks about the 9/11 tragedy was around the
rapid collapse of all three buildings. The physics involved applies especially
to World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) where the roof fell at free-fall acceleration
for over 100 feet. Later,
due to our work, this was finally admitted to by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
As I recall, the gist of this argument was first raised by Dr. Legge and I thank him for it."
David Chandler is a retired teacher of physics and mathematics who taught at secondary
and college levels for 35 years. He holds a BS in Physics, an MA in Education and an MS in Mathematics.
"I will state as a fact, at the outset, what Frank and many of us have come to recognize,
that the events of 9/11 were staged by powerful insiders as a pretext for war and profit,
and the official story is no more than an elaborate criminal cover-up.
Railing against the lies of the powerful only gets you so far. The 9/11 Truth Movement
found real traction when independent scientists and engineers like Frank became involved.
In the case of an inquiry into a “State Crime Against Democracy” there are economic,
political, and criminal consequences for the perpetrators. Overt and covert opposition
to our efforts is inevitable. Lives, fortunes, and vast geopolitical ambitions are at
stake. For the powerful, truth is something that gets in the way, but for
democracy truth is essential.
We have had some spotty success in getting our work published in mainstream scientific
journals, but we needed our own journal to allow our research to flourish. Frank was
involved from very early on and contributed significant research to the
Journal of 9/11 Studies,
becoming one of the editors. Some of the best papers have a long list of
contributing authors and Frank was frequently one of them.
I felt a special twinge of sadness when Frank asked recently to be taken off our
internal email circulation list because he no longer had the energy to devote to the work.
The work continues, we have made significant progress and he is part of it.
Through it all we are conscious of Frank’s enduring influence.
I will be maintaining Frank’s extensive web site,
The Science of 9/11.
We miss you Frank.
Ken Jenkins has been active as a leader and organizer in the 9/11 Truth Community in the US
since early 2002. Ken is an Electrical Engineer with an academic interest in psychology
and geopolitics. Ken in later life has focussed on peace activism and documentary film making.
This letter I will read now was sent to Frank as his health was declining. It refers
to the later work Frank did in collaboration with many others, including myself, proving
the official story of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon is correct.
This was important because many good activists had been convinced the Boeing 757 had not hit
the Pentagon primarily due to a lack of a proper transparent investigation by the
US government. This void allowed poorly conceived arguments to be presented forcefully
by misguided, unqualified and in some cases disreputable people. In our opinion this
belief that no plane hit the Pentagon had put all the good work done on the
World Trade Center (WTC) at risk through association.
"Dear Frank: I want to thank you for your tireless and excellent work on behalf of 9/11 truth.
Your commitment to the truth and your integrity regarding science has been an
inspiration to me and I’m sure to others as well.
I particularly admire your courage in moving beyond the more widely accepted
WTC science taking on the controversial Pentagon plane issue. Your pioneering
work, clear scientific approach and information, your common sense and logical
reasoning have all been a major inspiration, particularly while making my Pentagon
I am particularly grateful that you collaborated with me in using your website
to present a stand-alone piece we wrote together. I feel honored to have my name
after yours on what became the “Why Not Use a Plane?” article.
While reviewing our article I was inspired to use it as the basis of a short
video for YouTube and the text as the basis of the script for the voice-over.
I want you to know that I will dedicate both that short video and my longer
Plane Puzzle film to you. In Truth and Peace, Ken."
Dr John D Wyndham
Dr Wyndham has a PhD in Physics and was a former Research Fellow at
the California Institute of Technology and a former Assistant Professor of
Mathematics, Physics, and Astronomy at Pepperdine University.
"Although Frank and I never met in person, we worked closely together for over
five years on the 9/11 Pentagon question. Frank’s approach was that of a true
scientist – open, inquiring, humble, and long-suffering when vilified. Despite
much rejection and opposition, Frank continued his work through solo and joint
papers, actively contributing even after he fell ill.
Society owes him a great debt for upholding the ideals of scientific investigation
in an age of propaganda and the refusal of the scientific community at large to
speak the truth.
His research made fundamental contributions to resolving the 9/11 Pentagon question
in favor of large plane impact. Frank’s work is a shining example of what it means
to be a great scientist."
Kevin Ryan is a former Site Manager for Underwriters Laboratories where he lost
his job after he questioned their analysis of the steel used in the trusses at
the World Trade Center.
Kevin is the editor of the
Journal of 9/11 Studies
since 2006 and together with Frank as co-editor until 2012. He has worked as a chemist and
chemistry laboratory manager for 30 years. Kevin wrote an
about Frank’s scientific and greater life that will be
published on-line. For any that are interested I have numerous copies of this
draft article with me today for distribution. Here is an excerpt:
"Frank was a leader of the international 9/11 Truth Movement. He had been a
co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies and a founding member of both
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
and Scientists for 9/11 Truth. His contributions
to research into 9/11 will be remembered as among the most important in history.
Dr. Legge wrote and co-authored many papers examining the destruction of the
three high-rise towers on September 11, 2001. He believed that the evidence
for explosives in controlled demolition of all three towers was convincing
and that the failure of the U.S. agency National Institute of Standards and Technology
to consider this possibility
was prima facie evidence of corruption and obstruction of justice.
Although a sound scientific approach was characteristic of his work, Legge’s
personality was also important in that he was often the most mature participant
in any discussion. This is not to say he was merely the oldest but that he was
level-headed and composed in many heated, ego-driven, arguments.
In the last decade of his life, Frank Legge was a tremendous influence on many
people around the world. He led scientific inquiry into one of the most
controversial subjects in history and he collaborated positively with many
fellow citizens to reveal the truth. Those of us who worked with him during
this time will remember his intelligence, dignity, and respect for others."
That is the end of these heart felt dedications from Frank’s peers.
I and Kaye hope Frank’s dedication to this subject has encouraged you to think
again about the events of 9/11 and to question the current wars that developed from that event.
I know Frank would be truly happy to know his and others work was not in vain!
Lest we forget; vale Dr Frank Legge!
The Pentagon Plane Puzzle
Members of Scientists and Others Publish New Pentagon Research
Each year around the September 11th anniversary of the 9/11 event the
Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance
hosts a Film Festival. The 2015 Festival in Oakland, California included a
video by Ken Jenkins that presented the
testimonies of Pentagon eyewitnesses given to news media shortly after the event. The narrator points out
that, in an event seen by multiple witnesses, the most accurate description of the event is obtained by
examining "the common threads and recurring words" used by the witnesses. The observation common
to the great majority of the Pentagon witness testimonies given in the video is that on 9/11 a
large plane, identified by some as a Boeing 757, flew toward and impacted the Pentagon west wall.
Going Beyond Speculation
by David Chandler
(b) Going Beyond Speculation: A Scientific Look at the Pentagon Evidence
This is a talk on the Pentagon by David Chandler that was also given at the
2015 Film Festival in Oakland.
The talk was video-taped by Ken Jenkins who added supporting material before presenting it to the public along
with his Pentagon Plane Puzzle video.
Chandler's talk begins at 26:40 minutes in
the video with a review of World Trade Center research that points to the controlled demolition of three buildings,
the Twin Towers (WTC1/2) and Building 7 (WTC7) on September 11, 2001. Chandler then provides a compelling overview
of the Pentagon evidence that points to impact by a large plane, a Boeing 757-200 and most probably flight AA 77.
Chandler's emphasis is on use of the scientific method to draw the right conclusions from the eyewitness and
Plane Damage Path
Clipped tree, downed light poles, trailer/concrete wall gouges,
Impact hole, broken, bent and abraded columns, C ring exit hole,
Debris strewn in A&E driveway including plane parts.
(c) The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted
The new paper is titled, "The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted,"
by Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, James Hoffman, Ken Jenkins,
Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham. The paper can be found in the
Pentagon section of
the Scientific Method 9/11 website or directly at this
Honegger's hypothesis is that no plane impacted the Pentagon on September 11, 2001,
and that pre-planted explosives caused all the deaths and damage. Honegger also
postulates that a large "white" plane was destroyed outside the Pentagon west wall
without causing any damage to the wall.
The authors of the above paper refute Honegger's hypothesis and show that the physical, eyewitness,
radar, and FDR data, plus other data, all support impact by a large silver plane, a Boeing 757,
and most probably American Airlines Flight 77, as the main cause of all the deaths and damage.
IEEE Ethics Symposium Publishes 9/11 Truth Paper
October 7, 2014
Collaborative Effort Between Scientists and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
In a collaborative effort, John D. Wyndham of
Scientists for 9/11 Truth, and Wayne Coste
and Michael Smith,
both members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
as well as members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), have published a joint paper that was presented at the 2014 IEEE International
Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science and Technology. The IEEE is the largest "professional association for the advancement of technology" in the world
with almost half a million members.The title of the paper is Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction
of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study.
The development of this paper over a three month period was supported by a number of individuals who are members of one,
the other, or both of these 9/11 Truth organizations. These individuals are David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Frank Legge, A. Hamid Mumin, Daniel Noel, Gregg
Roberts, and Thomas Spellman. The paper was presented during a poster session at the symposium
held in Chicago, May 23 -24, and attended by two of the authors, Wayne Coste and Michael Smith. View the paper
and the poster
by clicking the foregoing links. French translations are by Il Fatto Quotidiano.
Michael Smith and Wayne Coste at the Symposium
Deficiencies in NIST's WTC1/2 Reports
Many researchers, some of whom are quoted in the paper's extensive list of references, have pointed out the deficiencies in the reports by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the Twin Towers' destructions.
The emphasis in the present IEEE paper is on the ethical lapses by NIST. These lapses include a number of failures such as; failure to study the actual destructions
and their aftermaths; failure to follow the guidelines established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); failure to consider the consequences to
public health; and failure to provide the most essential theory. NIST did not follow the scientific method in many important ways, and did not seek adequate
review by independent engineers and scientists. The paper shows that these failures "go far beyond any reasonable
excuse for their occurrence" and amount to a falsified and fraudulent investigation on NIST's part.
The IEEE Ethics Symposium Process
Throughout the entire process of abstract and paper submissions, and the actual presentation in Chicago, the authors were treated cordially by the symposium's
organizers and those who attended the conference. Initially, authors were asked to submit abstracts. The authors submitted abstracts for two different
papers, one on World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) and the other on the Twin Towers (WTC1/2). The abstract for the paper on WTC1/2 was reviewed
by three anonymous reviewers and accepted for paper submission. The paper itself was presented at the symposium and published by IEEE without further review.
The paper is copyrighted by IEEE. However, according to IEEE guidelines for authors, authors are "free to post the accepted version of their articles on their personal Web sites
or those of their employers." Accordingly, this paper and poster can be viewed here at the links cited above in this article, or in the
Papers section on this website. The paper
can also be purchased on the IEEE Xplore
website ($31 for non-members, $13 for members).
The Symmetrical Fall of WTC7
Researchers Find Flaws in NIST’s WTC7 Theory
April 10, 2014
The Destruction of WTC7 on 9/11
For many years the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7), a 47-storey skyscraper that came down on
the afternoon of 9/11 in a manner highly suggestive of a controlled demolition, was regarded as a mystery.
This fact is well documented in David Ray Griffin’s book, "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7"
(Olive Branch Press, 2010). The building was not hit by a plane. While a government investigation of this event was
in process, many independent researchers concluded that WTC7 had been brought down by explosives in a controlled demolition.
After a number of false starts, the official explanation of this event, developed by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), attributed the "collapse" to small office fires. These fires allegedly led to the thermal expansion of beams
that moved a girder off its seat and to the structural failure of a key supporting column. This theory has been
vigorously challenged by independent researchers, most recently by those affiliated with
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The discovery
of a significant error, and the omission by NIST in its reports of key structural features of the building, recently led
William F. Pepper to write a
to Todd J. Zinser, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of Commerce to seek resolution.
William F. Pepper
The conclusion by independent scientists and engineers that WTC7's destruction was a controlled demolition is
supported by a large amount of physical, eyewitness, and other evidence. Most notably, the sudden onset of collapse
was followed by a period in which the building fell over 100 feet in free fall. This was shown by Scientists'
member David S. Chandler
and presented during the public comment period, forcing the government scientists to
back down on their claim that no physical laws were violated by their theory. For more information on WTC7 and
controlled demolition, see Evidence for WTC7 Ignored or Unexplained By NIST on this site and the article
Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11 by David Chandler.
NIST's Theory for WTC7
NIST’s theory for WTC 7, as set forth in the NIST report
is that a critical girder (A2001) was moved off its seats by thermally expanding beams.
This girder supported the 13th floor in the northeast corner of the building between exterior column 44 and
corner core column 79. According to NIST, this girder failure led to the collapse of eight floors in the area
supported by the girder down to the 5th floor, leaving column 79 laterally unsupported for nine stories. As a
consequence column 79 buckled, leading to a collapse that progressed from north to south on the interior east
side, followed by an east to west collapse of the interior and the subsequent buckling of the now
laterally-unsupported exterior columns.
Recent Findings by Independent Researchers and Engineers
Researchers who examined NIST’s WTC7 theory had, for many years, no detailed information about the
building or NIST’s computer model of the collapse mechanism. In 2011, however, a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request by Ronald H. Brookman, a structural engineer affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, resulted in
the release by NIST of a large number of structural, erection, and shop fabrication drawings
for the steel frame of the building. Independent examination of these drawings has led to the discovery of
significant errors of fact and omission by NIST in its final report on WTC7. This work was carried out over a two year
period by an international group of engineers and researchers affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
This group includes Ronald Brookman, David Cole, Tony Szamboti and others. See the
article by Dennis P. McMahon, Esq for more information.
Ronald H. Brookman
During the past two years, the following error and two omissions came to light. The NIST report:
gave an incorrect value for the width of the seat for girder A2001 at column 79
failed to mention stiffeners that provided support for girder A2001
failed to mention lateral support beams which supported beam G3005 (connected to girder A2001) which allegedly buckled.
You can see here
engineering drawings with the stiffener plates added as well as other views
of girder A2001's connection to column 79.
The locations of the preceding structural elements can be seen in figure 1 in William Pepper’s
Todd J. Zinser. Pepper states that the opinion of independent
structural engineers is that, if included, the combined effect of this error and omissions by NIST is
to “unambiguously” rule out NIST’s “probable collapse sequence.”
Attorney Pepper ends his letter by calling on Todd Zinser, OIG, to open an investigation into potential
negligence and misconduct by the NIST investigators of WTC7, and raises the possibility of legal action
should this request be rejected. At the same time, Pepper suggests that Zinser and NIST officials meet
with a repesentative group of structural engineers who have studied the flaws in NIST’s analysis.
Thusfar, the only
response of the OIG has been to refer the matter back to NIST.
For those wishing to examine the recent WTC7 work in more detail, the following timeline provides links to
documents that describe the research and actions over the past few years leading to Pepper’s letter.
Timeline of Recent WTC7 Research
November 2008: NIST
NIST's final WTC7 report
is released. The structural, erection, and shop fabrication drawings for the
steel frame of the building were not publicly released.
Late 2011:FOIA requests are made by Ronald H. Brookman, S.E. for drawings and calculations for WTC7 by Cantor
(FOIA 11-209 on 08/17/2011) and fabrication and erection drawings for WTC7 by Frankel Steel Ltd (FOIA 12-009 on 10/15/2011).
These requests were filled on 09/20/2011 (drawings, but no calculations) and 11/23/2011 respectively.
Late 2011:Drawings are released. In early 2012, independent researchers find an error and omissions of
structural features in the NIST report:
seat length dimension for girder A2001 at column 79 is wrong - 12 inches NOT 11 inches
stiffeners for critical girder A2001 omitted
lateral support beams omitted for beam G3005 (connected to girder A2001) that allegedly buckled.
This error and the omissions, according to independent researchers and engineers, rule out NIST's probable collapse sequence.
March 19, 2012: A
FOIA request to NIST is made by structural engineer
Ronald H. Brookman, S.E. about seat length and stiffeners for girder A2001 and lateral support beams
for beam G3005. This request was not assigned a FOIA log number,
and it was not processed through the NIST FOIA office due to the lack of written documentation
available. Instead it was forwarded to the NIST Engineering Lab for a response.
June 27, 2012: A
corrects the seat length for girder A2001 at column 79 to 12 inches and gives a new lateral walk-off travel distance of 6.25 inches.
NIST makes no mention of the omitted stiffeners and lateral support beams asked about in the March 19 letter.
On 06/27/2012 Brookman was informed by NIST (Therese McAllister, NIST WTC INvestigation Team) that, in response to his
March 19, 2012 request, NIST had prepared two Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). These can be found at
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation and
Updated Errata File. NIST pointed
Brookman to its responses in answers 34 and 35 in the first of these FAQs, but failed to address Brookman's
questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 from his March 19, 2012 letter.
October, 2012: A
Discussion Paper by Ronald
Brookman, published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, discusses NIST's analysis of the alleged structural failures leading
to the collapse of WTC7. Brookman discusses the evidence for the existence of shear studs on girder A2001 that provided
composite action with the concrete floor slab, the actual 12 inch length of the girder seat, and the existence of stiffeners
omitted from NIST's analysis. Brookman also filed a formal complaint with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Committee on Professional Conduct (CPC). The ASCE refused to publish Brookman's Discussion paper, and the CPC dismissed
the complaint with no action on September 16, 2013
October 25, 2013: Michael Newman, a NIST public relations person,
responds to inquiries made
by David Cole on 26 July, 24 September, and 19 October, 2013:
NIST admits that the stiffeners for girder A2001 were omitted but says
they "did not need to be included."
NIST did not address the omission of lateral support beams for beam G3005.
In NIST's final report, the number of figures that utilized Frankel drawing 9114 (showing the stiffeners) was actually seven,
not five, as originally ascertained by David Cole from the draft report. According to NIST: "The web stiffeners shown at the end
of the girder in Frankel
drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures.
Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses."
According to Ronald Brookman, S.E. (private communication), "... the reason given by Dr. Therese McAllister in NCSTAR 1-9
for the failure of girder A2001 at column 79 makes no sense considering the presence of bearing stiffeners welded to the
flange and web and clearly shown on Frankel Steel drawing 9114." "A loss of vertical support for the critical girder and
its tributary floor area was assumed based on the pretense of a bottom-flange flexural failure even though the flange was stiffened
to prevent such a failure."
December 12, 2013: William Pepper writes a
to Todd Zinser, OIG, US Dept of Commerce.
January 14, 2014: The OIG, US Dept of Commerce,
responds to Pepper.
August 5, 2013 Film: "9/11 in the Academic Community"
9/11 In Academia
December 7, 2013
The Official Story of 9/11
It is common knowledge that since 9/11 the mainstream media in the Western world has adhered to the official government
story of 9/11 that was formulated on that day and the days that followed. This story has 19 Arab hijackers taking over
the controls of four commercial aircraft and flying them unchallenged into iconic buildings, namely the World Trade Center
(WTC) Towers and the Pentagon. A third skyscraper in New York at the WTC, Building 7 (WTC7), is said to have caught some
small fires and then completely “collapsed” from the effects. A fourth plane is said to have crashed in a field in
Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to take control of the plane. In lockstep with the media, the academic community
has also largely accepted this official story.
Conclusions from Independent Scientists and Researchers
Since 9/11, independent investigators including scientists, engineers, architects and other scholars have
conclusively shown that the official story is largely false. Here is a brief summary of what independent researchers
think happened on that day:
There is no strong evidence that any of the so-called hijackers were on board the planes on that day.
It is thought that the planes may have been guided to their targets by remote control. Many of the "hijackers" named in the
reports were later discovered to be still alive.
The damage and fires caused by the two planes that hit the Twin Towers did NOT cause those buildings to “collapse.”
Instead, the evidence shows that the Twin Towers were brought down by some form of controlled demolition.
This evidence includes studies of the acceleration at which the towers fell, high-velocity ejections of massive steel beams,
the presence of unexploded nanothermite in the dust, and the presence of the products of the nanothermite reaction,
namely iron spherules, in the dust. There are many additional items of evidence that point to controlled demolition.
See Summary of Evidence for the Twin Towers.
Despite the claims of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by means of a computer model
whose details NIST will not reveal, WTC7 did not “collapse” as the result of small fires. A period of free fall
of about 2.25 seconds (105 feet) can only be explained if eight stories of the 47-storey building were suddenly
removed by well-place explosives. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess witnessed pre-demolition explosions in WTC7
before WTC7 was said to have caught fire and before the Towers “collapsed”. The destruction of WTC7 has all the
features of a standard controlled demolition including fore-knowledge and even an overheard “count-down.”
Regarding the Pentagon, independent researchers all agree that “hijacker” Hani Hanjour, an inexperienced pilot,
would have found it very difficult to fly the observed final stage of the flight of the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon West wall.
While many theories
have been put forward as to what
caused the damage and debris at the Pentagon, a series of recent papers by scientists show that the evidence is
strongly in favor of a large plane, such as a Boeing 757, hitting the Pentagon, as witnessed and recorded by the overwhelming majority of
eyewitnesses. However, the additional use of pre-planted explosives has not been ruled out at this time.
These recent papers have been collected at Scientific Method 9/11 for study and discussion.
For Flight 93 that is said to have crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, the official story of passengers wresting control
from the “hijackers” and then crashing the plane due to lack of skill is seen as false. The physical evidence indicates
that the plane was shot down and the debris scattered over a wide area.
Academics Begin to Weigh In
Apart from a few lone academics, still active in their universities at the time, who have publicly voiced their
opposition to the official story, academia has
largely gone along with the official story with little questioning. Those who early expressed opposition include
Steven Earl Jones who was placed on leave and elevated to Emeritus status in Physics at Brigham Young University;
John McMurtry, professor of philosophy at the University of Guelph, Canada who was attacked by colleagues and
faculty alike but retained his position; and William Woodward of the University of New Hampshire, who was similarly
attacked by colleagues and state officials but was defended and retained by the university as coming under the
banner of academic freedom.
Other academics working within their universities have successfully hosted both hearings of the evidence and
seminars on selected 9/11 topics. For example, Hearings sponsored by the International Center for 9/11 Studies
took place at Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada during September 8 – 11, 2011
(see the Toronto Hearings).
While these hearings were not
sponsored by the University itself, faculty members at the College of Arts and Sciences in the University of
Indiana in Fall 2011 did present university-sponsored 9/11 topics under the Fall Themester banner of
“Making War, Making Peace.” Some universities have informally organized groups
that discuss and research 9/11, an example being the
University of Waterloo 9/11 Research Group.
Film, Announced August 5, 2013: “9/11 In The Academic Community”
A recent film directed and produced by Adnan Zuberi with the help of departments in the University of Toronto sets
out to capture the mood regarding 9/11 in the academic community 12 years after the event. The film is titled
“9/11 In The Academic Community” and is 75 minutes in length. In keeping with its own theme, that the academic
community has yet to engage with 9/11 as a topic for full and active research, the film tends to be low-key,
preferring peripheral stories about the inconsistencies of 9/11 rather than developing a clear, basic narrative. The
film can be purchased from the website, 9/11 In The Academic
Community, for $15 including shipping and handling.
The following academics are featured in the film and the words following their names are paraphrases of their statements:
Graeme MacQueen, McMaster University
The official story is forbidden for examination, it is taboo and untouchable and unmentionable, it sullies you to bring it up.
Professors are overworked, but also show timidity and laziness where 9/11 is concerned. We need to know what happened on
9/11and who did it!
David M. McGregor, Western University
Universities are normally thought of as places for open discussion – but is 9/11 taboo?
The university will not criticize the official story – it has blind spots, and tends to think in terms of structures where
individual actions have no effect.
Richard P. Lee, University of Toronto
Other academics say there is no taboo, but that the subject matter is confusing.
In 2004 I taught a course at
the University of Toronto centered around David Ray Griffin’s “The New Pearl Harbor.” In 2008 an upper level course in
logic, also centered on Griffin’s book, was taught at McMaster University. Result: The official narrative cannot
withstand rational scrutiny.
Michael Truscello, Mount Royal University
There is a spiral of silence in which literature, such as the many books on 9/11
written by David Ray Griffin, remains unexamined by the larger academic community. There is “an intention to avoid”
these books. The 9/11 Commission Report begins with a history of Al Qaeda in the mid 1990s and portrays it as a
highly organized world-wide organization, whereas Buzzy Krongard reveals Al Qaeda as a “loose amalgamation of
people” who hate the West and are similarly often at war with each other. Fully 25% of the Report’s footnotes
are based on tortured testimony, the Commission members were not allowed to meet with detainees or question them,
and Philip Zelikow, a consummate White House insider outlined the report before it was written and controlled every
facet of the report whilst maintaining contact with Karl Rove throughout the so-called investigation.
John McMurtry, University of Guelph
The official story is itself a conspiracy theory – so we may ask “Which conspiracy theory?”
Those who raise the issue are attacked, as was McMurtry who was vilified in the press and whose colleagues reported him
to the FBI. Operation Northwoods showed all the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreeing to a false flag attack on our own citizens
and soldiers in order to start a war with Cuba and blame it on the Cubans. Kennedy and McNamara said “No” to this plan in
the early 1960s. Why then do colleges now identify with the official story of 9/11, another false flag attack? In a
news/debate segment on TV with Thomas Donnelly, a PNAC signer, McMurtry pointedly explains that preparing for war with Iraq, without
the United Nations Security Council approval, is itself a war crime, the supreme crime that includes all others.
Walter Pitman, Ryerson University
As President of Ryerson University, Pitman was asked by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
to help identify students at risk [of being influenced by terrorists], but declined to do so.
Paul Zarembka, State University of New York at Buffalo
Zarembka spoke at length about the PUTs that were placed on the United and American
Airlines stock in the days before 9/11. Allen M. Poteshman was given information as to the exact nature of the bets
placed at the Board of Trade, bets that showed a 99% probability that insider trading using foreknowledge of the event
was in play. But the 9/11 Commission found that the individuals engaged in the betting had no connection with Al Qaeda,
so dismissed this line of inquiry! Four years later,
Poteshman’s paper has not been commented upon or discussed in any
scholarly venue, a sign that people are afraid to discuss it and would rather ignore it altogether.
Robert Korol, McMaster University
Korol in civil engineering has performed full-scale testing of what happens when a
column is crushed. He finds six times more resistance as the column is folded, compared with the three-hinged model
hastily adopted by Northwestern University professor Zdenek P. Bazant who published a highly theoretical
model of the Towers’ “collapses”
only two days after the event. Bazant’s model pays little attention to what actually happened to the Towers on 9/11.
Omar Ramahi, University of Waterloo
As pointed out by Ramahi, Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering, not enough people are aware of the collapse of WTC7 at 5:20 pm on 9/11. Those who do see the video of
this “collapse” readily categorize it as a controlled demolition of a type already familiar to most. No steel-framed
building before or since 9/11 has ever completely collapsed from fire, but the National Institute of Standards and
Techonology keeps its computer model and explanation of the event secret out of concern for public safety!
Lynn Margulis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
A crime was committed but the evidence was removed. A scientist’s best friend is
one who offers valid criticism that causes an hypothesis to be retained or replaced.
There are also brief segments that mention other academics and their work such as Noam Chomsky, David Chandler, David Ray Griffin,
Philip Zelikow, writer Philip Shennon, Allen M. Poteshman, and Zdnek Bazant. Toward the end of the film, John
McMurtry and Thomas Donnelly, a
square off in a video news segment.
Robert M. (Bob) Bowman: 1934-2013
October 7, 2013
A great American patriot, 9/11 truth advocate, and fighter for truth and justice, Dr. Bob Bowman, passed away in his Florida home on August 22, 2013.
Bob Bowman’s illustrious career spanned almost five decades that at first included military and government service at high levels.
In later years, Bowman founded an organization known as
the Patriots that included many individuals with military and government
experience and credentials. As part of this activity, Bowman travelled the country delivering speeches to a wide variety of groups
working for peace and a more democratic society, including the 9/11 truth movement. In one of his better known speeches, the so-called
Inaugural Speech, Bowman laid out what he would do if elected
as President of the United States.
In higher education, Bowman was an outstanding student who in 1966 gained a PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from the
California Institute of Technology. As a Lieutenant Colonel for the United States Air Force, Bowman completed a remarkable 101 combat missions.
Professor Bowman taught at five colleges and universities, serving as Department Head and Assistant Dean. He has lectured at the
National War College, the United Nations, Congressional Caucuses, the Academies of Science of six nations, and the House of Lords.
He served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the US Air Force under
Presidents Ford and Carter. He was an early public critic of the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, aka "Star Wars")
during the Ronald Reagan administration. In the 1980s and 1990s, Bowman strove to expose the lie that “Star Wars” was a purely defensive project.
It was during this period that he founded “the Patriots.”
Because of his experience as a fighter pilot, Bowman especially challenged the story of hijacked planes flying around on 9/11 for almost two hours
without being challenged, saying that “every time a commercial plane goes significantly off-course, a military fighter plane shows up
next to it within about ten minutes. The fighter pilot rocks its wings as a signal to ‘follow me’ and get back.”
For several years Bowman was active with
Veterans for Peace and
Vietnam Veterans Against the War as a speaker.
In 2000, he campaigned nationwide for, but did not receive, the nomination of the
Reform Party of the United States of America
for President of the United States
In 2006 Dr. Bowman ran for Congress in an effort to unseat long-term Republican incumbent Dave Weldon in the historically
Republican 15th Congressional District of Florida. Campaigning as a 9/11 truth candidate, he won the Democratic primary and, despite being outspent by his
opponent by a ratio of thirty to one, received 97,947 votes to Weldon's 125,596. These counts came from electronic voting machines.
Bowman was a member of many organizations including Scientists for 9/11 Truth. A statement on his
member page reads:
"The truth about 9/11 is that we don't KNOW the truth about 9/11, and we should. There is mounting evidence of possible
complicity by elements of our own government. If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything? Why are they
hiding audiotapes of FAA and NORAD controllers? Why are they hiding videotapes of whatever hit the Pentagon? Why are they
hiding the black boxes? Why did they destroy most of the forensic evidence which appears to show that three buildings at
the World Trade Center were brought down by thermite demolition charges? The above are but a tiny fraction of the unanswered
questions not even raised by those who "investigated" the 9/11 tragedy. The most unbelievable of all the conspiracy theories
surrounding 9/11 is the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory told us by our government."
Projected for Times Square, New York
ReThink911 Coming WorldWide in September, 2013
June, 2013 - Updated September, 2013
The ReThink911 Campaign is a global 9/11 anniversary campaign involving 11 major cities around the world
together with grassroots actions at the local level that include the use of transit advertising, bumper stickers, lawn signs, and so on. ReThink911 is sponsored by
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and
Remember Building 7, a campaign by 9/11 family members to raise awareness of Building 7.
The campaign is supported by a coalition of more than 40 organizations that include Scientists for 9/11 Truth.
Donations are actively solicited.
The focal point of the campaign message is World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7),
a 47-storey skyscraper that came down on the afternoon of 9/11 in a manner highly suggestive of a controlled demolition. The building was not
hit by a plane. The official account of this event
attributed the "collapse" to small office fires. The billboard planned by ReThink911 for Times Square, New York City, is shown in the photograph here. The campaign
begins September 1 and will last the entire month. The Times Square billboard will remain in place until the end of October.
The conclusion by independent scientists and others that WTC7's destruction was a controlled demolition is
supported by a large amount of physical, eyewitness, and other evidence. Most notably, the sudden onset of
collapse was followed by a period in which the building fell over 100 feet in free fall. This was
shown by Scientists' member David S. Chandler
and presented during the public comment period, forcing the government scientists to back down on
their claim that no physical laws were violated by their theory of collapse caused by the thermal expansion of
girders. For more information, see Evidence for WTC7 Ignored or Unexplained By NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) on this site.
For further reading, see Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11 by David Chandler
and the book "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7" by David Ray Griffin (Olive Branch Press, 2010).
Update September23, 2013: New Poll on 9/11
A poll sponsored by ReThink911 on the 12th anniversary of 9/11 reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the
government’s account of 9/11. A new national survey by polling firm YouGov showed video footage of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse.
After viewing the video, 46% suspect that it was caused
by a controlled demolition. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint at around 5:20 pm on 9/11.
Update September 19, 2013: ReThink911 Events in New York City
Last week saw an unprecedented outpouring of activity to educate the public about 9/11 and spearhead a
new investigation. On the streets of New York City and other cities around the world there was
a renewed energy and hope for turning the tide. Meanwhile, ReThink911 made its first major breakthrough into
the mainstream news with Time US’s coverage and with the controversy that has erupted across Canada in response to ReThink911’s Ottawa bus ads.
In the the morning of September 11, ReThink joined 30 other 9/11 groups in observing a vigil and
distributing brochures at Ground Zero. Groups then marched up the street to the New York City Council to deliver ReThink911
VIP Packs to all 51 council members. After that groups went via the subway to Democracy Now, then marched to the New York Times,
MSNBC, FOX, CNN, CBC and ABC to deliver more VIP Packs.The day ended in Times Square under ReThink911’s towering 54-foot
billboard with a historic rally featuring renowned speakers Dr. William Pepper, Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney,
Richard Gage, AIA and several other inspiring voices.
To watch all the speeches and see photos of the event, go to
Featured speakers are Les Jamieson
(NYC Coordinator, ReThink911.org), Richard Gage, AIA (AE911Truth.org), Tom Kiely and Lenny Charles
(Co-founders INN World Report), Cynthia McKinney (Former U.S. Congresswoman), John Di Natale (U.S. Marine, Engineer),
Vance Green (FOIA Researcher, Activist), and Dr. William Pepper (International Civil Rights Attorney).
Update September23, 2013: Time Magazine Article on ReThink911
This article from Times Magazine on September 11, 2013 discusses Building 7, touches briefly on the Pentagon, and details some of
the finances of Architects & Engineers. The article quotes the National Instutute of Standard and Tecnology (NIST) statement reqarding the
destruction of Building 7 and the subsequent findings of Architects and Engineers:
“The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that
caused a key structural column to fail,” the NIST concluded. “The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced
progressive collapse of the entire building.”
"In 2006, Richard Gage, a San Francisco-based architect, founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which doubts Building 7
collapsed because of fire. Gage and other architects and engineers argue that 7 World Trade Center came down in a free fall, which
could only have been cause by a deliberate demolition explosion. More than 2,000 architects and engineers have signed a petition
calling for a new investigation into the building’s collapse.
Update September, 2013: ReThink911’s Canadian Controversy Continues
A controversy has erupted in Canada over placement of ReThink911 ads on Ottawa Buses and a Toronto billboard. Ads in 300 buses in the Ottawa transit system
have been questioned.
While the Chair of the Ottawa Transit Commission, Ottawa councillor Diane Deans, called the ReThink911 ads “insensitive” and said she would request
a review of Ottawa’s advertising policy, the Mayor, Jim Watson, weighed in to say the ads were “disrespectful” yet “protected by free speech”. The Ottawa
Citizen published an editorial arguing for the right to place the ReThink911 ads on Ottawa buses.
The ReThink911 organization responded to the Ottawa officials' criticisms, writing in part:
“To Councillor Deans and to all who question our sensitivity and legal right to run the ReThink911 ads, we would like to make
clear: the ReThink911 coalition includes 9/11 victims’ family members who want nothing more than an accurate and
unbiased accounting of the death of their loved ones,” the statement says.
“To these surviving family members, seeking the truth is the most profound way to honor their loved ones.”
[Portions of this article were adapted from those on the ReThink.org website.]
French Magazine Features Consensus 9/11 Points
The Consensus Panel,
a site devoted to providing the world with a clear statement of the best evidence opposing the official narrative about 9/11, has been publicized in Europe.
A French magazine, Nexus, which sells on news kiosks throughout France, has featured the 9/11 Consensus Panel in 12 pages of its upscale glossy magazine.
The English translation of the title is "9/11: Case Closed?" Each of the 28 Consensus Points is summarized in turn, there is a good selection
of photographs, and a page is devoted to 33 Consensus Panel footnotes
backing up the summaries. The article, by Kim-Anh Lim, appeared in the March-April issue of Nexus, which costs 6.90 Euros and is not published
on the Internet. However, a photograph of the cover shows the heading "11 Septembre: Les 28 points invalident la these officielle." There is
a summary in French of the article online at the Nexus website.
Nexus is a large company that produces magazines in 13 countries around the world.
Here is a description from their corporate web page:
“NEXUS is a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news,
free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained.
NEXUS Magazine is not affiliated with any political, religious or spiritual groups or organizations whatsoever, and has been published since 1986.
The magazine is on sale in shops across Australia, New Zealand, UK, France, Italy, Holland, Greece, Poland, Croatia, Japan, Romania, Serbia and Russia.”
Former NATO Advisor Challenges Official 9/11 Story
In a talk on European TV in 2012, the main proponents for a new investigation were:
Steinhäusler coordinated NATO-SST.CLG research activities
on terrorist risks for nuclear plants from 2001 to 2004. He is also a member of the
Permanent Monitoring Panel on Mitigation of Terrorist Acts
(PMP-MTA), World Federation of Scientists.
Yet, like most physicists studying the topic he proposes questions concerning the collapse of the buildings. Considering that he is not
only a physicist but also a academic in material science, this could make him another important expert in the debate.
During the whole show, the audience was clearly on the side of Ganser and Steinhäusler and the whole way the discussion was
held and led was very fair. The main opponent to Ganser and Steinhäusler was the journalist Stefan Aust (former chief editor
of "Der Spiegel"). He tried in the usual ways to discredit their trustworthiness, but did not succeed at all.
The station broadcasting the talk was ServusTV, a division of "Red Bull". It is available free to air in Germany, Austria and
Switzerland via antenna or cable and via satellite even europewide. This is not a small local TV station.
[Note: This article is adapted, with some additions, from a
post on 911Blogger by 911_bavaria on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:08pm.]
William B. Willers
Professor Emeritus of Biology
Scientists' Members Open Up Dialog with Engineers Involved in Official 9/11 Story
Members of Scientists for 9/11 Truth recently contacted engineers who were involved, at least tangentially, in the official investigation of 9/11.
Those approached included Thomas DiBlasi,
then President of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA);
Dr. Gene Corley, a structural engineer
who served as the lead investigator on the FEMA World Trade Center Building
Performance Study following the September 11, 2001 attacks; and
James G. Quintiere,
Fire Protection Engineering Department University of Maryland. Dr. Quintiere was one of the few individuals within the "official"
circle of those concerned with the investigation to question the results of the National Institute of Standards and Technoogy (NIST).
The initial contacts were made by Bill Willers,
a Scientists' member and Professor Emeritus of Biology, University of Wisconsin, and were supported by
Dwain Deets, also a Scientists'
member and Former Director for Research Engineering, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Willers email correspondence can be viewed
On July 5, 2012 Willers emailed NCSEA asking for the prevailing opinion within the community of
structural engineers about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7). The email exchange was facilitated by Jeanne Vogelzang,
Executive Director of NCSEA. Willers email reached the three associations,
NCSEA, CASE, and
that represent most of the structural engineers in the United States.
In his initial email, Willers pointed to a 9/11 truth "debunking" site whose authors appear to be anonymous. This site quotes an
that seeks to explain the cause of the WTC 7 collapse as "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One
Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7."
On July 10, Tom DiBlasi, then President of NCSEA, responded with
an emailed suggestion that Willers read the "peer reviewed reports" by NIST. However, as noted by Dwain Deets in a letter (see below),
DiBlasi indicates, by his mention of 767's crashing into the buildings, that he is speaking of the
NIST reports for the Twin Towers. He
makes no mention of
Following an email from Willers on July 12 to DiBlasi asking for information on the peer reviews, DiBlasi responded on July 13
that he meant for Willers to read the reports, not the peer reviews, and that he never had a list of the reviewers, but that the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) or the New York Times
might know the reviewers. DiBlasi stated that Dr. Gene Corley would be willing to correspond with Willers after he read the reports. To this email, Corley
also responded with "Good response." Apparently Corley was being blind-copied by DiBlasi!
On July 16 Dwain Deets emailed DiBlasi a
letter and alerted him to the
Consensus 9/11 Panel.
Deets reminded DiBlasi that the NIST final report was the sole support
for the official account of 9/11. Deets offered a list of engineering leaders who question the official account, and ending with the opinion that NCSEA
should facilitate discussion about the issue.
W. Gene Corley
On July 27 Willers emailed Gene Corley explaining the history of correspondence to that point. Corley's July 27 response was to express hope that engineers
involved in the truth movement read this and his mention of the "Code of Ethics" and his reliance on "scientific evidence". Willers, still assuming that the peer reviews
existed, emailed Colrey on August 1 requesting help in seeing these reviews. On August 2, Corley responded with a renewed
invitation to answer Willers' questions regarding "technical issues". As leader of the Building Performance Study (BPS) team leader for the
World Trade Center Study, Corley also facilitated cooperation between this team and the Pentagon BPS team. Corley also led the Building Performance
Assessment Team (BPAT), which conducted a structural performance investigation of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City,
after the bombing there in 1995.
For two months thereafter Willers sought via the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) to get access to the peer reviews. Meanwhile he found reference to James Quintiere of the
University of Maryland who openly questioned NIST's explanation. On October 16 Willers emailed him, explaining that he had not been able to
access his paper.
U. of Maryland
Quintiere's answer the next day, October 17, included his
paper along with his comment that rather than peer reviews
there was an "Advisory Committee," many members of which were not in agreement with NIST's conclusions. At this point, Willers terminated the FOIA request.
Quintiere's short paper on the WTC investigation ends with this statement: "I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."
Despite Quintiere's recommendation and on-the-surface openness to proper investigation (in November 2001 he publicly protested the sale of the WTC steel),
Quintiere, in the case of the WTC building destructions as in the WACO hearings in which he participated, does not step outside the parameters adopted
by the official investigation. Quintiere offers alternatives to NIST's theory while staying firmly within the official story.
On October 17, Willers emailed Quintiere asking for help in seeing the report of the Advisory Committee. On October 18 Quintiere replied that he did not have it.
On November 5, Willers emailed Dr. Gene Corley. Referencing Corley's earlier comment
regarding his Code of Ethics, Willers cited Dwain Deets' email to him, in which Deets listed many engineers questioning NIST.
Willers asked Corley's opinion of the most ethical path forward, a question that Corley has yet to answer.
Willers cut short the FOIA request for "peer reviews" when advised there were none, and states he is disinclined to start a FOIA request all over again
for an "Advisory Committee Report" from NIST, particularly as he is a zoologist and would not know how properly to interpret an answer
that certainly would be in engineering language.
The Case for Controlled Demolition:
The case for the destruction of the New York Towers and Building 7 by some form of controlled demolition is briefly laid out in our
Introduction. Those adhering to the false, official story of why these buildings "collapsed" are careful to stay within the
confines laid out by the NIST reports. For example, the NIST study of the Towers, WTC1 and WTC2, ended before the actual "collapses" began. Thus, all
evidence items for controlled demolition, appearing as the destructions commenced and progressed, were ignored, as were the eyewitness testimonies to
pre-demolition blasts. While Corley and Quintiere claim to have adhered to scientific principles in their analyses, their claim is patently false in light
of their failure to consider all the evidence. If a building is about to fall down, the cause (for example, from ground subsidence, earthquake, controlled demolition)
is revealed most compellingly in the way it falls and in a forensic examination of the rubble. Quintiere's failure
to invoke National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) standard 921 that requires examination for explosives in case of high order damage is particularly egregious
for someone who purports to be a fire science expert.
DiBlasi, Corley, and Quintiere are all supporters of the official story of 9/11. Although it seems highly unlikely that they would step outside this story,
they appear willing to discuss technical issues within the official story. This appears to present an opportunity for
scientists and engineers to pick up this dialog should they feel it is worthwhile to do so.
The above-mentioned individuals can be reached at:
Thomas DiBlasi, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org, Cell: (203) 988-2523
Gene Corley, Email: GCorley@ctlgroup.com
James Quintiere, Email: email@example.com
Citizens Aware and Asking
CITIZENS AWARE AND ASKING Demanding Answers on 9/11 from Scientific and Engineering Organizations
This new organization, founded by Yaz Manley, a voice-over artist, journalist, and author has a website,
Citizens Aware and Asking, and this motto: "Urging the scientific community
to come forward with informed opinions on this science." The science referred to is the science of 9/11, as developed over the
past decade by independent scientists, engineers, architects, and countless other researchers.
On their website, Citizens Aware and Asking state:
"We've picked out some organizations which, we feel based upon their mission statements, would have no excuse for not giving us informed
opinions on this science, and we're trying to get these organizations to actually come forward and provide us with those opinions.
This sounds pretty reasonable, but it turns out to be surprisingly difficult.
"We're starting with the
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in part because they've been around for a long time and have a fair
amount of prestige, but most importantly because;
what we're asking them for. . . is exactly what they claim to provide."
The approach Citizens Aware and Asking recommends for its readers is direct citizen action:
". . . go to our "What's the Plan"
page and print the paper; "Active Thermitic Material found in Dust from the World Trade Center catastrophe",
then mail a copy, certified, to the Union of Concerned Scientists at the address provided. Request that they give you an honest
evaluation of that science, as well as, provide real answers to the questions we asked them on June 13, 2012. E-mail us a photo of your receipt if possible."
Another organization targeted by Citizens Aware and Asking is the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
Working under FEMA, members of ASCE initially investigated the building collapses which occurred on 9/11,
including the collapse of World Trade Tower 7. The ASCE team reached this conclusion: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and
how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time"... "the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this".
In addition to laying out its plans for citizen action with respect to scientific and engineering organizations, the Citizens Aware and Asking
website has informative sections on World Trade Center building 7,
the Twin Towers, Thermite, and on the way the official investigation was conducted.
For letters written to the Union of Concerned Scientists and other organizations by Scientists for 9/11 Truth, see Union of
Concerned Scientists in the
"Recent Articles and Letters" section at the right of this page..
Video: Yaz Manley Asks a Question at a UCS Meeting June 13, 2012 in La Jolla, California
Note: Despite a brief mention of "climate change" in this video, Scientists for 9/11 Truth does not have an official position on this issue.
Richard Gage, AIA
Architects & Engineers
for 9/11 Truth
“9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” World Premiere Tour
The World Premiere Tour of the new documentary from
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
began in San Diego, California on May 21, 2012, then officially in Beverly Hills, California on May 22, and is still ongoing.
Produced and directed by Richard Gage, AIA, Founder of Architects & Engineers, the film has now been shown
in over 30 cities including San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, Seattle, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and New York.
The film features 43 experts in their fields – high-rise architects, structural engineers,
physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled demolition technicians, and others.
They are each highly qualified, often with advanced degrees. Well-known scientists who are also members of Scientists for
9/11 Truth, and who are featured in the film, include
Steven Jones, and
According to Gage, “The official story about the attacks of September 11 falls apart when you look squarely at the facts and apply
basic scientific principles to interpret them. After more than ten years, a high-level investigation
of the evidence is long overdue. Too much is at stake here to sweep the concerns under the rug. Family members
of 9/11 victims speak to the viewers of this film. They explain why they are still not happy with the answers
they've been given by our government. And they are asking you to join them in looking at what our experts have to say."
Purchase or View the DVD "Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out" (ESO)
To purchase the ESO DVD, go to the Architects & Engineers store.
The DVD has some bonus features in the form of a short documentary narrated by
Ed Asner and a trailer for the 2008
Research Edition of "Blueprint for Truth." The bonus features are also included later in this article.
You can visit the
on the website to see more photos, audio interviews, news articles and blog reports
from this influential tour. At
911ExpertsSpeakOut.org you can view the film online, download it onto
your computer, or order the deluxe 2-DVD set.
You are also encouraged to expand the tour’s impact by hosting an independent screening of "Experts Speak Out."
screener’s guide, which provides easy instructions on
how to show this film in your community.
Video: Trailer for "Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out - Final Edition"
Highlights of the Film
Previous films from Architects & Engineers, such as the Blueprint for Truth series, have largely featured Richard Gage presenting the evidence
that proves the case for controlled demolition of the WTC high rise buildings. "Experts Speak Out," as its name implies, builds on this presentation
of the evidence by featuring short clips from many experts - architects, engineers, scientists, demolition experts, and many others with knowledge
specific to the buildings and their destruction. In addition, there are short videos of family members who relate their efforts and desire for an independent
scientific investigation, one that will answer the many questions that were presented to, but ignored by, the
9/11 Commission. To underscore the
difficulty of presenting this information to the public, several professionals in fields such as psychology relate the reasons why many individuals have so much
difficulty looking into the facts of 9/11. However, as Richard Gage has shown over and over again, those who do watch his presentations
almost always accept the clear conclusions reached - that the WTC buildings were brought down by some form of controlled demolition, and not by plane impacts
1938 - 2012
Renowned scientist Lynn Margulis, (now deceased),
who was awarded the National Medal of Science, exposes in this film the fraud of
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and discusses how the scientific method
should have been applied to the evidence rather than hastily destroying it. Despite protests, the rubble from the
"collapses" was hurriedly carted away and sent to places like India and China for recycling. This destruction of the evidence
was almost certainly illegal. Considering that the WTC building destructions are the only known instances of steel-framed buildings
that are claimed to have been destroyed by fire, and that the world is full of such buildings, a complete forensic examination
was warranted. The failure to conduct such an examination in itself reveals the falsity of the official story of 9/11.
Shyam Sunder, Lead NIST Investigator
Despite the widespread evidence of explosions, the lead investigator for the NIST,
claims in a short video clip that there were no such events. Video clips taken on 9/11 prove that Sunder is misinformed or lying. It is particularly
chilling to watch the short clip in which Sunder states that WTC 7 was brought down by normal office fires, and not by explosives,
and to then realize that the NIST investigation never tested for explosives, contrary to the accepted standards for investigating
catastrophic building collapses.
It is also provocative to examine the long list of qualified individuals who contributed to the NIST
reports but failed at many different levels to honor the scientific method. After watching a clip showing President Obama's concern for
to its rightful place in our society, one feels the President could start at no better place than by investigating the NIST scientists themselves and holding
ESO DVD Bonus Feature: Solving the Mystery of WTC7
This 15 minute documentary is narrated by Ed Asner, former President of the Screen Actors Guild.
It features excerpts and statements by Geraldo, FOX News commentator, Danny Jowenko,
Dutch demolition expert, Richard Gage, and footage from 9/11 with statements by witnesses
and unidentified workers such as firemen.
ESO DVD Bonus Feature: Trailer for Blueprint for Truth, 2008, Research Edition
The well-known documentary, "Blueprint for Truth," was distributed by Architects & Engineers in several different editions. The "Research"
and "Companion" editions are still available from the
Architects & Engineers store. This bonus feature
is the trailer for the 2008 Research Edition.
About Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Architects & Engineers was founded in 2006 and now has over 1700 vetted and verified architects and engineers calling for a real investigation.
These professionals say that the three towers were destroyed by some form of controlled demolition.
In addition, there are almost 15,000 other supporters who have signed the petition demanding a truly independent investigation of the
World Trade Center (WTC) building destructions.
The organization is especially focused on separating itself from the rest of the 9/11 truth movement without
being hostile to that movement. It wants it understood that it knows the difference between evidence and speculation.
The organization focuses on WTC evidence and avoids minority theories, even going so far as to avoid discussion of
the Pentagon because there is so much disagreement. ae911truth has around 20 different work teams which meet by conference
calls in different time slots. It has many dozens of vetted local contacts around the USA and Canada. Richard Gage, AIA, has
spoken 250 times on 4 continents. The website generally has 6000 visitors at a time. The organization laments that so many
truth sympathizers react to the hostility they encounter during outreach and then conclude that there is no need for organizing. Most
of the organization's work involves talking to people who do agree to generate various useful projects. For example, ae911truth
is a cosponsor of the Building 7 Campaign, along with family members who lost loved ones on 9/11.
9/11 Activities Falsely Reported for
Vice President Richard Cheney,
President George W. Bush, and
Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Expert Panel Reports False Accounts of U.S. Political and Military Leaders on 9/11
In a Press Release
dated June 5, 2012, the Consensus Panel announced new findings
related to false accounts by U.S. political and military leaders on 9/11.
shows that the September 11th activities of
former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were falsely reported by official sources.
Further questions were raised by massive national war games that also occurred on 9/11.
9/11 Consensus Panel analyzed evidence from press reports, FOIA requests, and archived 9/11
Commission file documents to produce eight new studies, released today. Five panel members are also members of
Scientists for 9/11 Truth: Dr. Robert Bowman, David S. Chandler, Dwain Deets, Dr. Niels Harrit, and Dr. Steven E. Jones. The Consensus Panel
is administered by Dr. David Ray Griffin, William Veale, and Elizabeth Woodworth.
Overview of The Eight New Studies (click highlighted point for more details)
Point ME-1: Did Military Exercises Show that the Military was Prepared for Domestic (as Well as Foreign) Hijackings?
Although publicly denied by The 9/11 Commission Report and by highly-placed officials, including the President, US military
exercises prior to 9/11 involved hijackings using planes as weapons both within and outside US airspace.
Point ME-2: The Claim that the Military Exercises Did Not Delay the Response to the 9/11 Attacks
The Department of Defense and the 9/11 Commission failed to report all but one of an extraordinary number of military exercises that occurred
on the morning of September 11, 2001. They also denied that such exercises slowed down military responses to the attacks,
which evidence shows was untrue.
The rescheduling of military exercises, normally scheduled for different times of the year, included Vigilant Guardian,
Global Guardian, Amalgam Warrior, Appollo Warrior, and Crown Vigilance, all traditionally held in October or November. The only
one of these mentioned in The 9/11 Commission Report was Vigilant Guardian.
In addition, the scrambling of fighter jets was also impaired as follows: At Otis Air Force Base, six F-15′s
(out of 18) took off on a routine ocean training exercise at 9:00 AM (after two “alert” F-15′s were scrambled in response to the first WTC attack;
at Andrews Airforce Base (outside Washington, DC) fighters were not scrambled in response to the "hijackings" until 11:12 AM;
two New Jersey Air National Guard F-16 fighters based in
Atlantic City were on a routine training mission eight minutes flying time from New York, but were not alerted
until after the second Tower was hit at 9:03 AM; two other fighters were on a routine training exercise, and
no jets took off from Atlantic City in response to the attacks until after the Pentagon was hit at approximately 9:37 AM.
George W. Bush
and the school visit
Point MC-Intro: Overview of Contradicted Claims about Key Military and Political Leaders
The 9/11 Commission gave accounts, which are contradicted by considerable evidence, for six men: President George W. Bush,
Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, General Richard Meyers, General Hugh Shelton,
and Brigadier General Montague Winfield. All six men were officials who had positions from which they could have
affected the outcome of the 9/11 attacks.
The question of why President Bush was allowed to remain in the classroom in Sarasota, Florida, a publicly-known location, after
it became obvious that high-value targets were being attacked on 9/11, has never been satisfactorily resolved, nor have the conflicting
stories given by the White House about Bush's visit to the school.
shoot down order
Point MC-4: When Did Cheney Authorize the Shoot-down of Civilian Planes?
At 9:26 AM on 9/11, the Bush-Cheney administration ordered that no more civil planes
were allowed to take off, and at 9:45 AM, all planes in the air were ordered to land. According to the official account,
Cheney gave authorization to shoot down civilian airplanes some time after 10:10 AM.
The 9/11 Commission claimed that the shoot-down authorization
was not given by Cheney until 10:10 AM or later, hence after United 93 had crashed at 10:03 AM. This claim is contradicted by reports
from Richard Clarke, U.S. News and World Report, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, the FAA, and three military
officers: Col. Marr, Gen. Arnold, and Brig. Gen. Winfield.
Point MC-5: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s Behavior between 9:00 and 10:00 AM
The 9/11 Commission absolved Donald Rumsfeld of any responsibility for what happened after 9:03 AM, as well as from any involvement
in the crash of UA 93.
However, testimonies by Richard Clarke, Robert Andrews, and Paul Wolfowitz provided very strong evidence that
the 9/11 Commission made false claims relevant to Rumsfeld’s behavior.
The photo of Rumsfeld helping to carry a stretcher on the Pentagon lawn raises tremendous questions about Rumsfeld's
behavior as being inconsistent with his duties as Secretary of Defense at a time of great crisis.
Point MC-6: The Activities of General Richard Myers during the 9/11 Attacks
Contradictions between 2004 accounts by Myers and the 9/11 Commission and the accounts by Richard Clarke,
Paul Wolfowitz, Captain Leidig, General Shelton, Thomas White, and Myers himself in 2001, together with
inconsistencies between the earlier and later stories told by Myers, and the implausibilities in the accounts by Myers and Senator Max Cleland,
all suggest that the official account about Myers – according to which he was not in the Pentagon during the attacks
and also could not have been involved in a decision to bring down United 93 – is false.
Point MC-7: The Time of General Shelton’s Return to his Command
General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, was scheduled to fly to Europe on September 11, 2001. He left
Andrews Air Force Base at 7:30 AM on that day in a military plane. In his absence, General Richard Myers, the vice chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, was to be the acting chairman. At about 9:10 AM, Shelton was informed of the second
WTC attack, after which he ordered his plane to fly back to the USA.
An account provided by both General Hugh Shelton and his aide Lieutenant Commander Suzanne Giesemann, according to which they
were able to return to the Pentagon without delay – evidently reaching it by roughly 12:30 PM – is contradicted by their plane’s flight
navigator, by the flight tracking strip, by General Richard Myers, and by one of Giesemann’s own statements. It appears that Shelton
and Giesemann falsely claimed that they returned almost five hours earlier than they actually did. Evidence shows that Shelton returned to
Andrews at 4:40 PM.
DDO in charge?
Point MC-8: The Activities of Brigadier General Montague Winfield between 8:30 and 10:30 AM
The National Military Command Center (NMCC) gathers relevant parties and establishes the chain of command between the National
Command Authority – the President and the Secretary of Defense – and those who need to carry out their orders.
The person responsible for gathering these parties was the NMCC’s
deputy director of operations (DDO) who, on September 11, 2001, was Army Brigadier General Montague Winfield.
DDO in charge?
However, the Pentagon has not provided a credible account of the behavior of Winfield during the attacks. Although it was initially assumed
that the DDO’s role was performed by Winfield, the Pentagon later stated in 2003 that the role of the DDO on 9/11 was taken over by
Navy Captain Charles Joseph Leidig. There is evidence to support both stories of Winfield and Leidig as DDO.
It is conjectured that Winfield’s role was later minimized because, after the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission declared in 2004 that the military
was unaware of UA Flight 93′s hijacking before it crashed, Winfield had become a liability because of his 2002 ABC
statement that the military had decided “to try to go intercept flight 93.″
Update September 10, 2012: Consensus Panel Uncovers Fraud in Hijacker Images
The Consensus Panel announced in a press release that it had
many inconsistencies and revisions in the official story of Mohamed Atta who, it is said,
mysteriously departed Boston on September 10 for Portland, Maine, and then flew back on the morning of September 11 to Boston just in time to board
Flight 11, the flight that later hit the North Tower. Atta's luggage failed to make it on the flight, and was found in Boston at Logan airport under suspicious
circumstances. The images of Atta captured by security cameras are questionable.
Similarly, there are no images
from 300+ security cameras at Dulles Airport, where five alleged hijackers are said to have boarded Flight 77 that later
hit the Pentagon.
for Extreme Politics - Fall 2011
Heather Reynolds and Curt Liveley are Members of Scientists
Faculty Members Present 9/11 Truth in Indiana, USA and Basel, Switzerland - Fall 2011
While many 9/11 truth events have been held on university campuses, sponsored by student and other groups, it is especially noteworthy
when faculty members who particpate in university-sponsored
colloquiums are able to focus on 9/11 truth issues and deep-state politics as part of the university's outreach to its students and the public. Two members of Scientists,
professors in the Biology Department at the University of Indiana, organized in the Fall of 2011 a special series of talks that was sanctioned by the University itself
as part of a much larger offering by the University. These two professors,
Heather Reynolds and
Curt Lively, drew to the occasion other notable activists such as
Niels Harrit (an organizing member of Scientists), Peter Dale Scott and Daniele Ganser from the
University of Basel. They were joined in this endeavor by a third faculty member, Byron Bangert, Ethics Consultant.
Each year the College of Arts and Sciences in the University of Indiana sponsors a Themester whose primary audience is undergraduate students
in the College and across the University. One of Themester’s priorities is to reach out to the community, state, and nation, including College alumni. The 2011 Fall
Themester was titled
"Making War, Making Peace,"
and included well over 100 events open to the public. Under this umbrella, departmental sponsors within the
College of Arts and Sciences, American Studies Program, undertook a lecture and colloquium series titled
"Extreme Politics: Provoking the Body Politic to War?"
The final proposal submitted by Reynolds, Lively, and Bangert to the Themester Committee included three additional scholars, all vetted by the Chair
of the Political Science Department, Russ Hanson. One of these scholars,
(who is now with the White
House’s Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs) is well known in 9/11 truth circles as the co-author of a
2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule,
titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with possible government risks and responses to false conspiracy theories. In the paper, the authors suggest the "cognitive
infiltration of extremist groups," of which 9/11 truth is cited as an example. Sunstein did not accept the invitation to speak at "Extreme Politics," but a
indicates an effort on his part to distance himself from his constitutionally highly-questionable paper.
University of Basel
Also invited to participate in the colloquium series was
Professor Daniele Ganser,
a Swiss historian who specializes in international relations and international history from 1945 to today.
Daniele Ganser is well known for his PhD thesis,
"NATO's Secret Armies. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe"
which was translated into ten languages. He teaches at Basel University.
Ganser decided to videotape his presentation in English at Basel University when he gave it there on September 1, 2011.
This presentation was then shown as part of the "Extreme Politics" series at the University of Indiana in the Fall.
The video presentation is included here (below). Other presentations for the series are not available to the public, but
include talks by Peter Dale Scott, Nafeez Ahmed, Lance deHaven-Smith, Andy Rotter and Niels Harrit, whose content can be discerned by following
the links for each speaker below.
Talks and Speakers for "Extreme Politics: Provoking the Body Politic to War?"
American War Machine: Deep Politics and the Road to Extended Wars Peter Dale Scott
(Retired Canadian Diplomat and Professor of English, UC Berkeley).
Postwar Geopolitical Order, 9/11 Geostrategy, & Political & Social Consequences Nafeez Ahmed
(Exec. Director, Institute for Policy Research & Development, London).
State Crimes Against Democracy: Moving Beyond "Conspiracy Theory" Lance deHaven-Smith
(Reubin O'D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University) .
The Terrorist Attacks of September 11 2001. What Do We Know Ten Years Later? A Historical Investigation Daniele Ganser
(Historian and Peace Researcher, Basel University).
Getting Americans in and out of Wars: Some Historical Examples and Reflections Andy Rotter
The Collapse of the Seventh Tower: A Physical & Chemical Analysis Niels H. Harrit
(Center for Molecular Movies, Copenhagen University) .
Professor Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) - 10 Years After 9/11 The Official Account Does Not Add Up
Update September 10, 2012: Daniele Ganser Speaks on TV, 09/11/11
On 09/11/11, Daniele Ganser appeared on ServusTV, a division of "Red Bull". This station airs in Germany, Austria and
Switzerland via antenna or cable, and via satellite Europe-wide.
Those questioning the official story of 9/11 were Dr. Daniele Ganser, a Swiss historian researching 9/11 at the University of Basel (www.danieleganser.ch)
and Prof. Dr.Friedrich Steinhäusler, an Austrian expert for physics and material science at the University of Salzburg (www.uni-salzburg.at).
Steinhäusler is also an advisor for NATO for the war against terrorism.
During the discussion, the audience was clearly on the side of Ganser and Steinhäusler, whose main opponent, journalist Stefan Aust (former chief editor
of "Der Spiegel"), tried without success to discredit their trustworthiness.
The full version of this discussion (in German) can be found here.
The International Hearings
on the Events of September 11, 2001
The Toronto Hearings: DVD Now Available
The Toronto Hearings were sponsored by the
International Center for 9/11 Studies
and took place at Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada during
the period September 8 - 11, 2011. The Hearings aimed to present the evidence, accumulated over the past 10 years, that shows that
the official story of 9/11 is incorrect and that a new investigation is warranted. The complete hearings comprise about 20 hours of video footage.
From this footage, Press for Truth,
a team of videographers, investigative journalists and political activists, has produced a 5 hour DVD which
is now available for purchase.
Press for Truth is not to be confused with the makers of the movie,
"9/11: Press for Truth" that featured the
stories of the "Jersey widows" whose spouses perished in New York on 9/11.
The DVD was produced by Steven Davies, Dan Dicks (who started Press for Truth as an alternative media group in Toronto in 2006), and
Bryan Law. The DVD is titled: "The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering Ten Years of Deception" and can be ordered
from the Press for Truth website.
to Graeme MacQueen, who served on the Steering Committee for the Hearings, the written Final Report for the hearings is still
being worked on and may be some time in appearing. The Final Report will include edited versions of most presentations as well as concluding
statements by Panel members.
About the Hearings
Sponsor: The lead sponsor of the Hearings was the International Center for 9/11 Studies,
established by U.S. attorney James Gourley.
Steering Committee: James Gourley, Laurie Manwell, Graeme MacQueen, Kevin Ryan and Adnan Zuberi.
Moderators: Michael Keefer (Canada) and Matthew Witt (United States).
Editor (Final Report): James Gourley.
Expert Witnesses: David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Lance DeHaven-Smith, Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Niels Harrit,
Barbara Honegger, Graeme MacQueen, Laurie Manwell, Cynthia McKinney, Peter Dale Scott, Kevin Ryan and others.
International Panel: Ferdinando Imposimato, the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy;
Herbert Jenkins, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at McMaster University;
Richard B. Lee, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Toronto; David Johnson, Professor
Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Tennessee.
Video Trailer and Preview of "The Toronto Hearings on 9/11."
Update September 9, 2012: Judge Imposimato recommends a criminal trial for 9/11
Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, former Senior Investigative Judge, Italy, member of
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and a Panel Member for the Toronto Hearings has
announced that he is going to recommend that the International Criminal Court hold a criminal trial into 9/11.
See also Imposimato's
letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Imposimato likened 9/11 to the Strategy of Tension in Italy in which NATO, assisted by the CIA and the Pentagon, carried out acts of terror
in Europe in the 1950s and blamed the acts on communists and left-wing governments.
Imposimato was the presiding judge in a number of terrorism-related cases These include the kidnapping and assassination of President Aldo Moro,
several cases against the Mafia, and the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II.
The Strategy of Tension is also known as Operation Gladio.
The following BBC movie "Operation Gladio [BBC Timewatch, 1992]
State-Sponsored Terrorism in Europe" deals with this subject.
9/11 Consensus Panel
David Ray Griffin
"Science is a state of mind: questioning, open, balanced, respectful of evidence,
and on the alert for bias." (From the 9/11 Consensus Panel website)
In a recent announcement (October, 2011), a newly-formed organization and website, the
9/11 Consensus Panel, unveiled 13 points on which Panel
Members have achieved strong consensus. These points, the first group in a projected series, are aimed at providing the world with
a clear statement, by way of expert independent opinion, of the best evidence opposing the official, government narrative about the events of 9/11.
In reaching strong consensus on each of the thirteen points, the Panel used a simplified
over a six month period. As employed in
medicine and other applied sciences, the Delphi technique uses a series of surveys in which the expert participants are blind to each other.
The Delphi technique seeks to avoid the disadvantages found with decision-making in groups or committees, which are often dominated
by a single individual or by coalitions that represent different, competing points of view.
The Consensus Points are supported by documented references, witness testimonies, oral histories, early newspaper and television reports,
and scholarly books and articles. A professional video-clip accompanies each Point. The controlled manner of the survey by Panel Members
is designed to mitigate contention and encourage the news media to report fairly on both sides of an issue.
On its website, the 9/11 Consensus Panel points out the "important distinction . . . between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or
evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth." According to the Panel, "best evidence" regarding the events of 9/11
rests on the following:
"The opinions of respected authorities, based on professional experience, descriptive studies, and reports of expert committees
Physical data in the form of photographs, videotapes, court testimony, witness reports, and FOIA releases
Direct rather than circumstantial evidence."
As an example, Point 1 cited by the Panel deals with the purported role of Osama bin Laden in 9/11. The official account holds bin Laden responsible
for the 9/11 attacks. But the "best evidence," which for this point achieved a consensus rating of 95%, shows that:
"The FBI did not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden is wanted.
When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated that the FBI had
no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised to provide
evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, they also failed."
Other points cited by the Panel deal with evidence associated with the World Trade Center buildings
and with circumstances surrounding the plane flights on 9/11.
As of this writing, the Consensus Panel consists of three administrators - Dr. David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, co-founders, and
attorney William Veale - together with 21 other Panel members. These include well-known 9/11 researchers and activists such as Robert Bowman, David Chandler,
Giulietto Chiesa, Dwain Deets, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Graeme MacQueen, Daniel Sunjata, Paul Zarembka, and Barrie Zwicker.
William Veale is also a voting Panel member, making 22 voting members in all.
The following video shows an interview of Elizabeth Woodworth by Face to Face on the subject of the 9/11 Consensus Panel.
Update May, 2012: Three Members Depart from the Consensus Panel
As announced in an April 28 Consensus Panel
Dr. Paul Zarembka, economist at the State University of New York in Buffalo; Canadian author and journalist
Barrie Zwicker, an active senior participant in the Canadian 9/11 community; and former U.S. Marine Corps
fighter pilot Shelton Lankford have departed as members of the Consensus Panel. All three are well known
as strong supporters of the
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) theory that on 9/11
a large plane flew over or away from the Pentagon rather than hitting it.
Update June 7, 2012: Expert Panel Reports False Accounts of U.S. Political and Military Leaders on 9/11
In a Press Release
dated June 5, 2012, the Consensus Panel announced new findings related to false accounts by U.S. political and military leaders on 9/11.
shows that the September 11th activities of
former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were falsely reported by official sources.
Further questions were raised by massive national war games that also occurred on 9/11.
9/11 Consensus Panel analyzed evidence from press reports, FOIA requests, and archived 9/11
Commission file documents to produce eight new studies, released today.
Lynn Margulis: 1938-2011
by David Ray Griffin, November 23, 2011 (adapted from 911Truth.org)
Lynn Margulis (Photo Credit: UMass Office of News & Media Relations)
The family of Lynn Margulis has announced that she died at home on Tuesday, November 22, at the age of 73.
Having authored dozens of books and scientific papers, Margulis was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1999.
In 2004, she began looking into the evidence against the official account of 9/11. She not only accepted it but
also -- always known for her courage - announced her views, writing in 2007:
"Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud
of their efficient handiwork. Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger,
could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization.
I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed
as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."
In early 2010, she wrote an article on WTC 7 entitled
"Two Hit, Three Down -- The Biggest Lie."
Asking: "Why did three World Trade Center buildings (#1,#2 and #7) collapse on 9/11, after two (and only two) of them
were hit by 'hijacked airplanes'?", she gave the scientific answer:
"Because . . . the steel columns were selectively melted in a brilliantly-timed controlled demolition.
Two 110-story buildings (towers 1&2), plus one 47-floor building (WTC 7), were induced to collapse
at gravitationally accelerated rates in an operation planned and carried out by insiders. The apparent
hijacking of airliners and the crashing of them into the Twin Towers were intrinsic parts of the operation,
which together provided a basis for claiming that the buildings were brought down by Muslim terrorists.
The buildings' steel columns, which would have provided irrefutable physical evidence of the use of explosives,
were quickly removed from the scene of the crime."
But much more difficult than the scientific question, she said, is the "science-education problem":
"The persistent problem is how to wake up public awareness, especially in the global scientifically literate public,
of the overwhelming evidence that the three buildings collapsed by controlled demolition. . . . We, on the basis
of hard evidence, must conclude that the petroleum fires related to the aircraft crashes were irrelevant (except
perhaps as a cover story)."
The scientific world, including the 9/11 Truth Community -- she was a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth -
has lost one of our noblest, most courageous fighters for the Earth and the Truth.
The following video of Lynn Margulis was created by Architects and Engineers for their recent documentary
production "9/11: Explosive Evidence - EXPERTS SPEAK OUT."
One major objective is to "submit a record and summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to
relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events
of September 11, 2001." Expert witnesses and scholars who will attend include David Chandler, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan
(who is also a member of the Steering Committee), David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, and other well-known researchers and scholars.
The Hearings will be moderated by Dr. Michael Keefer (Canada) and Dr. Matthew Witt (U.S.). The final report will be edited by attorney James Gourley.
You can support the Hearings financially by making a tax-exempt donation
toward the cost of participants' travel and accommodation expenses.
Update September 27, 2011:
The Toronto Hearings exposing the inadequacy of the official narrative of 9/11 were carried out successfully. A complete record of the hearings
will be made into a DVD which is scheduled to appear in November, 2011. There will also be a written Final Report, date not yet announced.
The Citizens' 9/11 Commission Campaign
The Citizens' 9/11 Commission Campaign
is a new activist organization founded and led by former Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska, 1969-1981).
Senator Gravel is widely known for having read the Pentagon Papers into the Senate record during the Vietnam war era, helping to
bring that war to an end.
This new campaign has been exploring the feasibility of filing ballot propositions in several states (Oregon, Massachusetts, and others).
When passed, this legislation would create an independent 9/11 commission that would be headquartered in the first state to pass such a law.
This powerful new investigative commission would be:
funded by the citizens via the state treasury (mandated by the law)
free of governmental interference
vested with subpoena power and the ability to take testimony under oath
enhanced legally and financially by other states and localities that pass “sister” initiatives.
The campaign's approach is the method of direct democracy as it is now practiced in 24 states using the state ballot initiative.
The cause of direct democracy
has been the principal passion of Senator Mike Gravel since his two terms in the Senate.
As Senator Gravel has stated: “The 9/11 movement’s successful decade of citizen education can now give way to an actionable
citizen’s plan for change - a plan to pass laws that will create a new investigation!”
The campaign's steering committee consists of Senator Mike Gravel, executive director Byron Belitsos,
one of the founders of 911truth.org, Ken Jenkins, a pioneering 9/11 activist and video producer, as communications director,
and George Ripley who was an aide to Senator Gravel’s 2008 presidential campaign, and also a supporter of Doris "Granny D"
Haddock who walked across the USA at age 90 for federal and state election campaign finance reform.
To contribute to the 9/11 Commission Campaign, visit the Donate section on the
Update September 07, 2011:
The 9/11 Commission Campaign applied for a citizen ballot initiative in Massachusetts
on August 3rd, and received certification from the Mass.
Attorney General’s office on Sept 7th. By Massachusetts law, there is now two months to collect 100,000 signatures (a goal which exceeds
the legal requirement). This will require the services of a ballot access professional. To succeed, the campaign needs to raise $40,000 a week
for the next 6 weeks! Please help with a donation as indicated above.
Update September 11, 2011:
Mike Gravel gave the closing
speech at the Toronto Hearings.
Update November 2, 2011: Initiative campaign to target Colorado and North Dakota
After weeks of careful research, the Citizens' 911 Commission Campaign has decided that Colorado and North Dakota
will be its target ballot-initiative states for the 2012 election cycle. "Colorado has a very favorable political climate and
profile, and North Dakota offers an easier and less costly signature-gathering process," said the Campaign's new general
manager, Ken Freeland. "Also, the filing and signature-gathering timelines in both states are favorable,"
"Colorado is the overall the best state and will be our key focus," said Campaign founder Senator Mike Gravel. "North
Dakota provides a back-up strategy in case we can't fund Colorado. But our hope is to fund signature-gathering campaigns
in both states and to pursue two winning initiative campaigns next year."
After winning certification in Massachusetts in early September, the Campaign launched its first signature-gathering effort
in that state. The Campaign decided to postpone this effort to a later election cycle because of the very short window
provided in Massachusetts initiative law for gathering the required 82,000 signatures. "By contrast, the requirements in Colorado
and North Dakota are easier to meet, and the funding required in each case is relatively modest," said Gravel.
Update May 4, 2012: Mike Gravel departs from the Citizens' 9/11 Commission Campaign
Mike Gravel has separated from the Citizens' 9/11 Commission Campaign and moved funds donated largely by 9/11 truth activists
to another organization which he founded and chairs that is not directly connected to 9/11. For more details, see the
TIME Magazine Publishes Proof that the World Trade Center Towers were Destroyed by Explosives,
May 20, 2011
Impaled Steel Columns at 20th Floor of World Financial Center Building 3 (WFC3)
In a special report titled “The End of Bin Laden” (05/20/11), Time Magazine provides indisputable photographic evidence that
the Twin Towers, WTC1 and WTC2, were destroyed by explosives, rather than by plane impacts and fires. Independent
researchers have long maintained that some form of controlled demolition destroyed the Towers.
Scientists point to a two-page photograph on pages 48 and 49 of Time’s special report. The
taken in the vicinity of WTC1 by James Nachtwey, shows a maze of sections of exterior steel columns. Exterior columns
were installed in sets of three, connected by spandrel plates. These units, about 30 feet in height, weighed 4 tons each.
The short lengths of steel debris, suitable for hauling away, and pulverization
of other components of the building, are themselves signs of controlled demolition
But the indisputable evidence is seen at far left. Impaled in nearby World Financial Center Building 3
(WFC3), at the 20th floor, are two exterior columns connected by spandrel plates. A close up of this portion
of the Time photograph is shown at right.
Simple physics is used to calculate the minimum horizontal velocity with which the impaled columns were ejected from WTC1,
the nearest tower, to hit the 20th floor of WFC3. The velocity is about 43 mph minimum. Other researchers have examined
similar debris that hit the adjacent Winter Garden, deriving horizontal ejection velocities of 55 mph
(Josef Princiotta). Some tower
debris plumes and objects have been clocked at 70 mph
In reaching this value of 43 mph for the minimum horizontal velocity, we have used these numbers:
Floor in WTC1 where columns were ejected: 95th or lower
Height of WTC1 95th floor: 1179 ft
Height of WFC3 20th floor: 280 ft
Horizontal distance from point of ejection to point of impact: 468 ft
For the method of calculation, see
Ejection of Steel Beams and Aluminum Cladding. If the columns had been examined,
it might have been determined from which floor they emanated, since the
thickness of the steel decreased as the height increased. Princiotta did identify some wall units that hit the Winter Garden as coming from
This identification was possible because of the taller windows used for the mechanical floor at floor 76.
If the columns stuck at floor 20 of WFC3 originated below floor 95 of WTC1, the velocity of ejection would be greater,
so 43 mph is a minimum velocity. The effects of air resistance would increase this minimum value.
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Towers collapsed under gravity with the top portion
crushing the lower portion of the building after a short period during which fires weakened the structures.
But in a gravity-driven collapse, the only force present (gravity) acts vertically downward. Air expelled between pancaking floors
could not eject columns and other debris weighing tons with horizontal velocities of 43 to 70 mph. There were, in fact,
no pancaking floors, since most of the concrete and floor contents were pulverized. A theory that buckling steel columns
were severed and ejected with a spring action, a very unlikely occurrence, is not supported by the uniform debris fields
and lack of observed rotation of steel beams seen in mid flight on videos. Extensive debris fields with ejected steel
columns and sections of aluminum cladding surrounded the demolished towers on all sides for hundreds of feet.
A very large proportion of the steel was projected outward. Only explosive force can explain the debris fields.
For a visual explanation of WTC1's destruction, see David Chandler's
For more information and background on the U.S government's recent announcement about Osama bin Laden, see, for example,
Niels Harrit, Victoria, B.C., Canada, February 26, 2011
Dr. Niels Harrit's lecture tour of six Canadian universities took place in February and March, 2011.
Capacity crowds included university faculty members, students and other professional people. An excellent
account of the entire lecture tour
has been written by Mike Bondi.
White House Releases Long-Awaited Science Guidelines December 17, 2010
John P. Holdren
guidelines for government scientists
promised by President Obama in response
to controversies that arose during the administration of President George W. Bush, were released
on December 17, 2010 by John P. Holdren, the President’s science adviser. In March 2009, Mr. Obama
stated that his aim was to “guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch” and he added,
“We make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”
While some scientists have praised the new guidelines, others, such as Dr. Francesca T. Grifo,
director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, have expressed
concern over one guideline in particular. This guideline states, “Federal scientists may speak to
the media and the public about scientific and technological matters based on their official work,”
but then adds a caveat: “with appropriate coordination with their immediate supervisor and their
public affairs office.” “I don’t like the ambiguities,” Dr. Grifo said. “I don’t like the discretion it
gives to the agencies.”
For more information on John P. Holdren, see, for example, the
from "Who Runs GOV" by the Washington Post.
Mark Basile Interview: 9/11 Explosive Testimony Exclusive, 10/26/2010
Mark Basile, a chemical engineer and a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth,
has studied the World Trade Center dust and confirmed the findings of the scientists
who previously reported the discovery of nanothermite in the dust (see
by Niels Harrit, et al, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the
World Trade Center Catastrophe” in our Papers section).
Present in New York at 2 PM at City Hall, Manhattan, were Dr. Mark Crispin Miller, Dr. Niels Harrit
(scientist), Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, (military officer), Daniel Sunjata, (actor), and Tom Chelston
Those in Los Angeles included David Chandler (scientist), Dr. Robert M. Bowman (scientist and military officer),
Lt. Col. David Gapp (military officer), and John Heard, Penny Little, Jim Haynie, and Robert Culp (actors).
In addition to individual statements by those present, the event organizers provided the following statement:
The attacks of Sept 11, 2001 happened nine years ago. Since that time numerous explanations have been put forth
by various organizations, including our own government entities, FEMA and NIST -- the National Institute of Standards
and Technology. We will, here today, present compelling new information which clearly, and unfortunately,
refutes what these official sources have told us.
However, despite all previous refutations, the mainstream media has continued to promote the official story.
We, as members of the 9/11 Truth movement, seek the truth. We are here to say that the American people, indeed
the people of the world, deserve better. We stand here today representing the three most recent professional
groups to join forces with the worldwide 9/11 Truth Movement. We are actors, artists, scientists, and military
officers. We are not professional criminal investigators.
However, from the evidence that has come to light over the years, and in light of new evidence which we have
chosen to share with you today, it is clear that aspects of the attacks required intimate knowledge of the inner
workings of the US Defense Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, and even the security measures in
place at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Given the growing list of inconsistencies within even the
official accounts, we stand here today before you to urge you to join us in supporting a new and independent
We do not know who committed this heinous act. We do not know how they did it. We do know that there is more
than sufficient evidence to show that what our official government entities have told us is false. For this reason,
we plan to continue our campaign to reopen the investigation so that we
may, once and for all, fully understand what happened, why, and how.
Then and only then will justice be done. To make matters worse, in view of
the falsity of the explanations we've been given, it is all the more
unacceptable that innocent people should continue to die in otherwise
unjustified wars, fought in the name of 9/11.
Finally, the American people at large no longer support the war in Afghanistan, as seen by a new Associated
Press poll released August 20th, with only 38% support for the war – down from 46% in March. The question is:
does this 38% know about the evidence we are about to present?