News items are in order by date, starting
with the most recent.
William B. Willers
Professor Emeritus of Biology
Scientists' Member
Scientists' Members Open Up Dialog with Engineers Involved in Official 9/11 Story
January, 2013
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
here.
Thomas DiBlasi
Former President
of NCSEA
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
SEI
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
article from
Structure Magazine
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
WTC7.
Dwain Deets
Former NASA
Director
Scientists' Member
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
Lead investigator
FEMA WTC
Building Study
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.
James Quintiere
Fire Protection
Engineer
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.
Action Item:
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: tomd@diblasi-engrs.com, Cell: (203) 988-2523
Gene Corley, Email: GCorley@ctlgroup.com
James Quintiere, Email: jimq@umd.edu
News Item
Yaz Manley
Citizens Aware and Asking
CITIZENS AWARE AND ASKING Demanding Answers on 9/11 from Scientific and Engineering Organizations
November, 2012
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.
News Item
Richard Gage, AIA
Founder of
Architects & Engineers
for 9/11 Truth
“9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” World Premiere Tour
August, 2012
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
Mark Basile,
David Chandler,
Steven Jones, and
Lynn Margulis.
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
Tour Blog
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."
Download the
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
and/or fire.
Lynn Margulis
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,
Shyam Sunder,
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
restoring science
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
them accountable.
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.
News Item
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
July, 2012
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.
New evidence
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.
The 20-member
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?
Point ME-1:
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
Point ME-2:
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.
President
George W. Bush
and the school visit
Point MC-Intro: Overview of Contradicted Claims about Key Military and Political Leaders
Point MC-Intro:
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.
Vice President
Richard Cheney
shoot down order
Point MC-4: When Did Cheney Authorize the Shoot-down of Civilian Planes?
Point MC-4
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.
Secretary of
Defense
Donald Rumsfeld
strange behavior
Point MC-5: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s Behavior between 9:00 and 10:00 AM
Point MC-5:
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.
General
Richard Myers
whereabouts
Point MC-6: The Activities of General Richard Myers during the 9/11 Attacks
Point MC-6:
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.
General
Hugh Shelton
arrival time
Point MC-7: The Time of General Shelton’s Return to his Command
Point MC-7:
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.
Brigadier General
Montague Winfield
DDO in charge?
Point MC-8: The Activities of Brigadier General Montague Winfield between 8:30 and 10:30 AM
Point MC-8:
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.
Navy Captain
Charles Leidig
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
found
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.
News Item
Faculty Organizers
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
May, 2012
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,
Cass Sunstein
(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
recent video
indicates an effort on his part to distance himself from his constitutionally highly-questionable paper.
Daniele Ganser
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
(Colgate University).
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.
News Item
The International Hearings
on the Events of September 11, 2001
The Toronto Hearings: DVD Now Available
March, 2012
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
here
from the Press for Truth website.
According
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.
Video Trailer and Preview of "The Toronto Hearings on 9/11."
Trailer
Preview
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.
News Item
9/11 Consensus Panel
David Ray Griffin
Co-founder
"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
Delphi method
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.
Elizabeth Woodworth
Co-founder
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."
William Veale
Attorney
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
news item,
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.
New evidence
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.
The 20-member
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.
News Item
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."
These Hearings, sponsored by the
International Center for 9/11 Studies,
will take place at
Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada.
While not a new investigation, the Hearings aim to present the evidence accumulated over the past 10 years, evidence that shows
the official story is incorrect and that a new investigation is warranted.
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.
News Item
The Citizens' 9/11 Commission Campaign
Mike Gravel
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
campaign website.
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
9-11cc website.
News Item
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
photograph,
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
(David Chandler).
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
floor 76.
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
video.
For more information and background on the U.S government's recent announcement about Osama bin Laden, see, for example,
911Truth and
911Blogger.
News Item
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.
News Item
White House Releases Long-Awaited Science Guidelines December 17, 2010
John P. Holdren
The long-awaited
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
article
from "Who Runs GOV" by the Washington Post.
News Item
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
paper
by Niels Harrit, et al, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the
World Trade Center Catastrophe” in our Papers section).
Today, in press conferences occurring simultaneously in New York City and Los Angeles, leaders of the 9/11
Truth Movement announced the debut of three new and independent Truth websites:
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
(singer/songwriter).
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
investigation.
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?
