Scott Grainger, fire protection engineer, blows the whistle on 9/11
This interview is some raw footage of one of the world class experts appearing in Architects and Engineer's upcoming hard hitting documentary: "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" - AE911truth.org
Susan Wolfe: truth activist and organiser of the 9/11 10th Anniversary in New York
Today I am joined by Susan Wolfe, who is organising the massive 9/11 truth gathering for We Are Change in New York, scheduled to coincide with the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Susan is attempting to make this event a landmark in the history of the 9/11 truth movement, and she is taking all steps to help people get to New York and find accommodation.
News on the planned events can be found on the website NYC for 9/11 Truth.
During our interview we get into some really interesting topics around the issue of 911 truth activism - I'm sure you'll find the listen worthwhile.
Susan can be contacted via her facebook profile.
TNRA will be doing another show on Wednesady dedicated to the No Carbon Tax rally which is taking place in Hyde Park, Sydney on 2nd April - so please check the website again later in the week.
Thanks for listening!
Interview with Bob McIlvaine at Ground Zero
On 12 January 2011 I met with Bob McIlvaine at 1 Liberty Plaza next to Manhattan's Ground Zero.
Together we visited the Family Room, a special place dedicated to the memories of all those who died on 11 September 2001.
Afterwards I spoke to Bob about his ongoing activism for 9/11 truth, spurred by his need to find out who killed his son Bobby.
The temperature during this interview was about -15 C, which is why my hand continually comes up to cover my ear while Bob is speaking (I had misplaced by woollen hat).
We were forbidden from filming inside anywhere in the area and unfortunately it was almost dark at the time I started the interview. The audio quality is good however and worth a listen.
More Information about Bob McIlvaine:
Face to Face with Dr. Niels Harrit
Dr. Niels Harrit, now on a lecture tour of Canadian universities, has been speaking to capacity crowds across the country, including university faculty members and other professional people.
In Victoria, BC, Dr. Harrit was interviewed by local cable TV, where his interview will be available eight times to a large regional population on an upcoming weekend.
Fascism Then and Now: A Special Report by Hereward Fenton
22 February 2011 | Hereward Fenton
Since the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks many western countries have experienced an erosion of the freedom which I was brought up to believe was a guaranteed, non-negotiable part of modern society. In retrospect it appears that this freedom was only ever attained tentatively and required constant vigilance in order to prevent us slipping back into more barbaric forms of social organisation.
This backsliding has led to the global re-emergence of social and economic trends which I am calling fascist, although to the casual observer these may seem to have little in common with classic fascism of the early 20th century.
It is only by studying the underlying mechanisms of social control and economic manipulation that the current trends can be properly understood. This video identifies some of those trends with sources you can easily verify through an internet search.
It is hoped that this video will serve as a wake-up call and a warning to those who are still slumbering in ignorance of the approaching catastrophe.
If you agree with this video and find it insightful, please share it, preferably with those who are not yet awake to the threat which we face.
You are free to copy this video and redistribute in any format.
This video contains excerpts from Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" and Newsreel footage from WWII - reproduced under "fair use" terms.
Music is from "Carmina Burana", by Karl Orff.
Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11: Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Proba
5 Feb 2011
Download mp3: click here
In this podcast, Dr Frank Legge discusses his new paper which was co-authored with Warren Stutt and has been published at the The Journal of 9/11 Studies, titled Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon ( http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf ).
In this lengthy and detailed discussion, Dr Legge is careful to lay out his way of thinking on the Pentagon issue and why it is so important to the 9/11 Truth Movement to not make unsupported claims about the events there. Legge looks at this issue from a purely scientific perspective and is only interested in what he can prove to be true based on hard evidence. It is clear to Legge and to the vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue, that while the Pentagon is a mystery to a degree, it is most likely that AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 did hit the building based on the physical evidence available.
We now have the correctly decoded digital flight data from Flight 77 and it's time for more people to get behind the call to reason on the Pentagon issue leading up to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks! There is nothing wrong with supporting the parts of the "official story" of 9/11 that are most likely true. The team at Visibility 9-11 believe, as does Dr legge that it actually helps the interested public and especially the scientific community to see us as reasoned and balanced truth advocates when we do exactly that.
Lets stop being what we are labeled as "conspiracy theorist's" and become "conspiracy factulist's"!
For other instructive reading on the Pentagon please see related items below-
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
Mike Walter - Pentagon Plane/Missile Controversy
A compilation of interviews with USA Today's Mike Walter, eyewitness to the Pentagon 9/11 attack.
WTC1 Demolition - Loud Explosions
Thanks to James Gourley at the International Center for 9/11 Studies, the only individual to successfully sue NIST over a FOIA request for the entirety of the footage that’s been covered up for the past 9 years, we now have overwhelming evidence that disproves the official story of nine-eleven. Of the 5 terrabytes of data released, maybe 25% has been analyzed and posted on YouTube for the world to see. Even Gourley’s organization itself has not had the time to examine and post all of the new evidence and so other 9/11 researchers have taken up the task of downloading the raw data from the “NIST Cumulus Database” and posting the converted videos to YouTube and elsewhere all over the internet. We here at WeAreChangeNewJersey.COM will continue to post this new evidence until it is fully released.
Please help spread this article, write your own, or just share the videos below which have been compiled out of the raw information for your consideration. (NOTE: Nothing has been taken out of context, just abbreviated for easier viewing.)
The question then becomes, with Osama Bin Laden nowhere to be found for 10 years, and all the evidence mounting against the government—will you hold the true perpetrators responsible?
Here are some of the best channels to get started investigating the new evidence:
Pentagon CIT “dissidents” are intentional disruptors
Pentagon "CIT" lobbyists are using classic cointel disruption techniques, and are no longer welcome on this website and forum.
Understand: in science, the truth is not established by consensus or disputes. The truth is made self evident based on evidence and testing. That's the empirical method.
The CIT disruptors are trying to create the impression of a consensus in order to persuade the masses that their arguments are sound. At the same time they are trying to create the impression that those who dispute their theories are cointel disruptors. It is impossible to argue with them because they undermine rational argument and will accuse you of what they themselves are doing. It is indeed a waste of time to engage with them, as wasting time appears to be their primary objective.
Consensus is irrevelant. Even if 90% of readers agree with CIT, that has no bearing on the validity of their theories.
I urge readers to recognise the tactics of these people. Notice the way they use language. Notice how they continually try to inject the idea that there are "two sides" to the argument, without ever actually addressing the other side's points. Notice how they are manipulating you.
This is deliberate deception.
They are lying to you. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I have put up with this for a long time (perhaps too long).
To the Pentagon CIT cointel disruptors: you can ALL expect to be banned from this forum.
Take your operation elsewhere guys - the 911oz honeymoon is over.
Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”
Richard Gage | 8 Feb 2011
I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.
In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed). These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station. Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.
My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue. I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.
After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).
Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.
I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters. Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.
Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses: They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011
And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon , by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009
Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)
There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true. One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.
I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure. Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.
One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle. In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.
Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.” And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.
The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.