9/11 - Key Issue of our Time
The 9/11 Commission claims that we found 'no evidence'
Kevin Ryan | 30 October 2011
When Underwriters Laboratories fired me for challenging the World Trade Center (WTC) report that it helped create with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), it said “there is no evidence” that any firm performed the required fire resistance testing of the materials used to build the Twin Towers. Of course, that was a lie.
With this experience in mind, I checked to see how many times the 9/11 Commission Report used the phrase “no evidence,” and noted in particular the times the Commission claimed to have “found no evidence” or that “no evidence was uncovered.” I discovered that the phrase “no evidence” appears an amazing 63 times. An example is the dubious statement — “There is no evidence to indicate that the FAA recognized Flight 77 as a hijacking until it crashed into the Pentagon (p 455).”
Of these 63 instances, some variation of “we found no evidence” appears three dozen times. This seems to be an unusually high number of disclaimers begging ignorance, given that the Commission claims to have done “exacting research” in the production of a report that was the “fullest possible accounting of the events of September 11, 2001.”
The number of times these “no evidence” disclaimers appear in the report is doubly amazing considering how infrequently some of the most critical witnesses and evidence are referenced. For example, the FAA’s national operations manager, Benedict Sliney, who was coordinating the FAA’s response that day, appears only once in the narrative (and twice in the notes). And the FAA’s hijack coordinator, Michael Canavan, appears only twice in the narrative, with neither of those citations having anything to do with Canavan’s assigned role as the key link between the military and the FAA, a role whose failure the Commission says caused the attacks to succeed. Similarly, the testimony of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who says Bin Laden worked with the U.S. government up until the day of the attacks, is mentioned only once in the notes. William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor who has publicly testified to basement level explosions, is not mentioned at all despite having given testimony to the Commission.
It seems a good idea to look more closely at the instances in which the attorneys, myth experts and military intelligence operatives who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report said that they did not find evidence. Here are a few of the most interesting examples.
- “We found no evidence, however, that American Airlines sent any cockpit warnings to its aircraft on 9/11.” p11
- Concerning the hypothesis that one of the alleged hijackers was sitting in the cockpit jump seat since takeoff on Flight 93: “We have found no evidence indicating that one of the hijackers, or anyone else, sat there on this flight.” p12
- Within minutes of the second WTC impact, Boston Center asked the FAA Command Center (Benedict Sliney’s team) to advise aircraft to heighten cockpit security, but the Commission said: “We have found no evidence to suggest that the Command Center acted on this request or issued any type of cockpit security alert.” p23
- With respect to requests to warn aircraft to heighten cockpit security — “While Boston Center sent out such warnings to the commercial flights in its sector, we could find no evidence that a nationwide warning was issued by the ATC system.” p455
These first four examples highlight the little discussed fact that the 9/11 Commission did not explain how any of the alleged hijackers entered the cockpits of any of the four hijacked planes.
With regard to Flight 11 the Commission states — “We do not know exactly how the hijackers gained access to the cockpit (p 5)” and — “FAA rules required that the doors remained closed and locked during the flight.” Based on a recording attributed to flight attendant Betty Ong, the report speculates that they might have “jammed their way in.” One problem with this hypothesis is that the act of breaking down the locked cockpit door would certainly have given the professional flight crew plenty of time to enter the four-digit hijack “squawk code” into the transponder. This is a simple, standard operating procedure which the crew was trained to follow but none of them accomplished.
Yet another problem is that, according to the story, Atta and his co-conspirators disagreed with the “jamming” hypothesis. The report states that Atta “had no firm contingency plan in case the cockpit door was locked” and …”he was confident the cockpit doors would be opened and did not consider breaking them down to be a viable idea (p 245).” These were, apparently, very bold and optimistic hijackers who walked onto the plane assuming that normal operating procedures would not be followed and who did not have any kind of back-up plan in case they were wrong. In any case, these claims certainly seem to contradict the words of Acting Director of the FBI, Thomas Pickard, who testified that – “these 19 and their superiors operated flawlessly in their planning, communications and execution of this event. They successfully exploited every weakness from our borders to cockpit doors.”
For Flight 175, the Commission report does not describe how the alleged hijackers got into the cockpit nor does it even mention that this first critical step in a hijacking was omitted from the explanation. Similarly, for Flight 77 and Flight 93, the alleged hijackers just appear in the cockpit and in control of the aircraft. As with Flight 11, all three crews failed to follow the simple procedure to squawk the hijack code.
What makes this even less believable is that the Commission admits that Flight 93 received and acknowledged a warning (although not from the FAA Command Center) to secure the cockpit four minutes before the hijacking began. This means that 37-minutes after the third plane was hijacked, and 25-minutes after the second plane crashed into the WTC, the crew of the fourth plane could not secure it’s cockpit or enter the hijack squawk code despite having four minutes warning that hijackers might try to break in.
- “Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.” p171
- Concerning the origins of the funding for the attacks, the report says — “Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.” But it clarifies that – Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign official – supplied any funding.” p172
- “We have found no evidence that Saudi Princess Haifa al Faisal provided any funds to the conspiracy, either directly or indirectly.” p498
Recently, the world’s leading insurance provider, Lloyd’s of London, filed a lawsuit alleging the exact opposite of these claims made by the 9/11 Commission. Although Lloyd’s dropped the lawsuit just days later without explanation, one would think that at least some small amount evidence must have been available for the company to have gone to all the trouble of putting together a case and filing it against the Saudis. If there was no such evidence, Lloyd’s could be sued for false or frivolous litigation.
Lloyd’s was not the first to contradict the Commission on this topic, however, as the many of the 9/11 victims’ relatives had joined together not long after the attacks to file a 15-count, $116 trillion lawsuit against Saudi royals, including some who were among top government leaders in Saudi Arabia. That lawsuit was thrown out on a technicality related to the ability to sue a foreign government and, later, the Obama Administration backed the Saudis during the appeal. What’s important to realize, however, is that it was only the 9/11 Commission that claimed no evidence for Saudi financing could be found. Obviously, such evidence could be found, it just could not be used to prosecute the Saudi government in the United States.
- “Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.” p172
The “exhaustive investigations” conducted by the FBI, on which the 9/11 Commission report was based, were clearly bogus. The FBI did not interview the suspects and did not appear to compare notes with the 9/11 Commission to help make a determination if any of the people being investigated might have had ties to al Qaeda. The Commission’s memorandum summary suggests that the FBI simply made decisions on its own regarding the possible connections of the suspects and the alleged terrorist organizations. Those unilateral decisions were not appropriate, as at least three of the suspected informed trades involved reasonably suspicious links to Osama bin Laden or his family. Another suspect was a soon-to-be convicted criminal who had direct links to FBI employees who were later arrested for securities-related crimes.
The FBI also claimed in August 2003 that it had no knowledge of hard drives recovered from the WTC, which were publicly reported in 2001. According to the people who retrieved the associated data, the hard drives gave evidence for “dirty doomsday dealings.”
The evidence for informed trading on 9/11 includes many financial vehicles, from stock options to Treasury bonds to credit card transactions made at the WTC just before it was destroyed. Today we know that financial experts from around the world have provided strong evidence, through established and reliable statistical techniques, that the early expert suspicions were correct, and that 9/11 informed trading did occur.
- “First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001.” p329
- “Second, we found no evidence of political intervention [with regard to the Saudi flights which did not occur before national airspace was reopened].” p329
- “We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above Richard Clarke participated in a decision about the departure of the Saudi nationals.” [Clarke claimed -- “I asked the FBI, Dale Watson, to handle that…” and “I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House.”] p329
- “Third, we believe the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on chartered flights….They have concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion.” and “Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on those flights.” p329
For the 9/11 Commission to have made four separate “no evidence” claims related to the widely-reported flight of Saudi nationals out of the U.S. just after 9/11, there must have been a strong reason for this failure of “exacting research.”
Months before the Commission report was published, it was well known that numerous members of the Bin Laden family were among those flown out of the U.S. at a time when no other commercial or private flying was allowed. “Counter-terrorism Czar” Richard Clarke was the one to make this decision, although he did not coordinate it with Dale Watson of the FBI. Clarke’s FBI coordinator for these flights was Michael Rolince, the assistant director of the International Terrorism Operations Section (ITOS).
It was reported that Rolince decided the Saudis could leave the country and required only the most superficial examination of their passports and checking for their names on terrorist watch lists. The fact that many of them were the relatives of the man accused of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks did not lead to any concern or even to basic interviews of the passengers by the FBI.
Rolince, who now works for Booz Allen Hamilton, appears to have been behind several of the inexplicable failures of the FBI to track down the alleged 9/11 conspirators before the attacks. In 1999, the FBI failed to follow-up on information provided to Rolince about fundraising done in the U.S. by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the alleged “number 2” of al Qaeda. In April 2001, Rolince also failed to follow-up on a memo sent to him by Dale Watson that warned of a terrorist operation that might have been the plan for the 9/11 attacks. Dave Frasca, one of Rolince’s direct reports, was the one who disrupted the Minneapolis FBI’s attempt to search the belongings of Zacharias Mousaoui, and Rolince is apparently the one who failed to let the FBI directors know of the arrest of Mousaoui.
- “Although Whitman told us she spoke with White House senior economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay regarding the need to get the markets open quickly” – “We found no evidence of pressure on EPA to say the air was safe in order to permit the markets to open.” P555
Like some of the other carefully worded claims in the Commission report, this might be technically true, but the premise is probably false. Christine Whitman, who was director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just after 9/11, did claim that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe when it was known that was not the case. This was probably not done for the purpose of re-opening the stock market, however. It is far more likely that these false claims were made in order to expedite the removal of evidence at the WTC site.
In any case, interested citizens should examine the many “we found no evidence” disclaimers from the 9/11 Commission Report more closely. Doing so leads one to a better understanding of how false that report really is, and the Commission’s feigned ignorance of evidence might help lead us to the truth about what happened that day.
New theory explains collapse of Twin Towers
19 September 2011 | Svein Tønseth | Source
Just before the two New York skyscrapers collapsed on September 11, 2001, powerful explosions within the building could be heard, leading many people to believe that overheated steel beams in the building were not the cause of the collapse.
The explosions fed the conspiracy theories that someone had placed explosives inside the towers.
At an international materials technology conference in San Diego, the audience heard senior scientist Christian Simensen of SINTEF Materials and Chemistry (picture) present an alternative theory based on the physics of materials of what happened in the towers when they were attacked by the aircraft. The SINTEF researcher believes that his theory is much more likely to reflect the actual situation than the official explanation of the collapse.
In the wake of the conference Simensen had an article published in the journal "Aluminium International Today", describing his theory.
Explosive meeting of molten aluminium and water
Simensen believes that it is overwhelmingly likely that the two aircraft were trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris within the skyscrapers. This leads him to believe that it was the aircraft hulls rather than the buildings themselves that absorbed most of the heat from the burning aircraft fuel.
The SINTEF scientist believes that the heat melted the aluminium of the aircraft hulls, and the core of his theory is that molten aluminium then found its way downwards within the buildings through staircases and gaps in the floor – and that the flowing aluminium underwent a chemical reaction with water from the sprinklers in the floors below.
“Both scientific experiments and 250 reported disasters suffered by the aluminium industry have shown that the combination of molten aluminium and water releases enormous explosions,” says Simensen.
Just before the two skyscrapers collapsed on September 11, 2001, powerful explosions within the building could be heard, Photo: Jim Collins / AP / SCANPIX
“Explosions demolished the towers”
Simensen continues: “I regard it as extremely likely that it was these explosions that made the skyscrapers collapse by tearing out part of the internal structure, and that this caused the uppermost floors of the buildings to fall and crush the lower parts. In other words, I believe that these were the explosions that were heard by people in the vicinity and that have since given life to the conspiracy theories that explosives had been placed in the skyscrapers.”
“Could your theory be used to protect human life and material values if other skyscrapers are ever hit by large aircraft?”
“Yes, as a matter of fact it could. One lesson is that we could develop means of rapidly emptying sprinkler systems in the floors under the point of impact. Another possibility would be to fire in a rocket carrying a fire-retardant that would overlie the aircraft body and prevent the metal alloy from becoming overheated.”
Day of unreality
It was in the morning New York time on September 11, 2001, when two Boeing 767 passenger planes flew into the World Trade Center’s “Twin Towers” in Manhattan in New York. One hour later, WTC2 collapsed, followed after half an hour by WTC1.
Neighbouring buildings were bombarded by flying debris when the towers collapsed. The 47-storey skyscraper called 7 World Trade Center also caught fire and collapsed several hours later at 17.20.
30 tonnes of aluminium
The official report on the causes of the collapse of the three buildings was drawn up by a commission appointed by the federal government and has since been supported by other publications. The report came to the conclusion that the collapse was caused by heating and failure of structural steel beams in the centre of the buildings.
“I believe that it is overwhelmingly probable that the theories regarding the cause of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 are wrong, but that the report very likely came to the correct conclusion as regards WTC7,” says Simensen.
“Why should we believe your alternative theory rather than the official explanation?”
“To put it as succinctly as possible: because the federal government commission did not take sufficiently into account the fact that the aircraft brought 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the two towers.”
“What sort of evidence do you have for the theory that you are putting forward?”
“I base my theory on comparisons I have made with parallel observable phenomena in the world of physics. Let us start with what I think must have happened when the planes struck the two towers. They came in at high speed and at a low angle. The only similar phenomenon that we have any knowledge of is meteors that hit the Earth. What we know is that these drag material with them on their way through the soil layer. The whole surface, including all its pores, is covered by the material that they carry along. The innermost layer melts and turns into a glass coating on the surface of the meteor.
“I believe that similarly, the aircraft must have been covered by fragments of internal walls, ceilings and floors that collapsed around them and that the planes carried along with them as they penetrated the buildings. Much of this material was plaster, a material with extremely poor heat conduction capacity. All this debris probably formed a shield that kept the heat close to the aircraft and protected the rest of the building.”
|Christian J. Simensen believes that the planes must have been lying in a sort of basin of material debris in the burning towers. Photo: Thomas Hinton / Zuma Press / SCANPIX|
“So you believe that it was the aircraft themselves that became superheated, rather than the buildings?
“Yes I do. The disintegrated aircraft probably came to a stop near the centre of the buildings. The materials along the track of the collision must also have burned. But the really hot zone was where the aircraft came to a stop. I believe that some of the aircraft’s fuel tanks must have suffered major damage, but that most of them would have been cut in two when they met the steel beams in the buildings, and that the development of the fire was therefore fairly constant.
“I believe that the planes must have been lying in a sort of basin of material debris, with the floor of the basin two or three storeys below the one that they ploughed into. The entire internal basin must have been heated by the burning fuel. Outside of the basin, the temperature would have been much lower.
“The aluminium alloy of the aircraft hulls, which also contains magnesium, melts at a temperature of 660 oC. Experience gained from the aluminium industry suggests that it may have taken between half and three-quarters of an hour to reach such a temperature. If molten aluminium is heated further to a temperature of 750 oC, it becomes just as liquid as water. I presume that this is what happened within the Twin Towers, and that the molten aluminium then began to run down into the floors below.”
“What happened then?”
“All the floors in the Twin Towers were equipped with sprinkler systems. All the water above the hot aircraft bodies must have turned to steam. If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminium ran down through the towers, where the smelt came into contact with a few hundred litres of water. From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions.
“The aluminium would immediately react with the water, with the result of a local rise on temperature of several hundred degrees, in addition to the explosions that were due to the fact that these reactions release hydrogen. Such reactions are particularly powerful when rust or other catalysts are present, which can raise the temperature to more than 1500 ˚C."
“Aluminium-water explosions are like dynamite explosions. They were probably powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building", says Simensen. Photo: Amy Sancetta / AP / SCANPIX
"The aluminium industry has reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980. Alcoa Aluminium carried out an experiment under controlled conditions, in which 20 kilos of aluminium smelt were allowed to react with 20 kilos of water, to which some rust was added. The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres in diameter."
“Many people in New York reported that they had heard explosions just before the buildings collapsed. Film taken of the buildings also showed explosions in the floor below the impacts. Given that the amount of aluminium involved was large in comparison with the quantity of water, and since rust was probably also present, I believe that it is highly likely that the building collapsed as a result of a series of extremely energy-rich aluminium-water explosions.”
“How could explosions in the centre of a building cause a whole tower to collapse?”
“Aluminium-water explosions are like dynamite explosions. They were probably powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building. The top section would than fall down on top of the sections that remained below, and the sheer weight of the top floors would be enough to crush the lower part of the building.”
The neighbouring building
“What happened in the case of the neighbouring WTC7 building?”
“WTC1 and WTC2 took huge amounts of aviation fuel, fragments of steel and, if my theory is correct, large quantities of molten aluminium when they collapsed. When these materials and everything else fell some three or four hundred metres to the ground, they were squeezed between the upper and lower sections of the towers. This led to the neighbouring buildings being bombarded by hot particles, fuel and probably also aluminium droplets. Both large and small clumps of particles have since been found embedded in the walls of these buildings."
"WTC7 may have taken more of these impacts than the other buildings. At any rate, the building caught fire, which got out of control. In this case, the structural steel may have reached a temperature of more than 1000 oC, over seven hours, and the 13th floor collapsed in the course of a minute. In this case I do agree with the findings of the federal commission. Overheating of steel beams was probably the cause of the collapse.”
The way ahead
“Would it be possible to perform scientific experiments that can support your theory?”
“It would certainly be possible to look specifically for solidified droplets of aluminium and aluminium oxide in the walls of the neighbouring buildings. Experiments could also be carried out to find out whether fuel tanks are cut cleanly when they plough through a network of steel beams at a speed of 800 kilometres an hour. We could also test on model scale whether an object that ploughs through a room at extremely high speed becomes covered in debris from collapsed walls, ceilings and floors.”
By Svein Tønseth
John Bursill Debates 9/11 on 2GB radio
6 September 2011
John Bursill was on one of the biggest radio shows in the country yesterday, debating Mike King from the UK on the the subject of 9/11.
Download the audio here.
9/11 and the military industrial complex, or "why I became a truther" - from thepunch.com.au
Hereward Fenton | 12 September 2011
On this sad anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in post-war history I am reminded of the prophetic words spoken by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation in 1961: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”.
Eisenhower was the supreme commander in western Europe who had led America to victory against one of the most evil regimes in history, a man who had witnessed the depths of human depravity, and wanted finally to warn us that the war machine which had been created to defend freedom in WWII could equally be used for the opposite purpose, and that it was up to the American people to guard against this possibility.
Eisenhower coined the phrase “military industrial complex” which became the catch-cry of the anti-war movement of the 1960s, describing an economic and political fusion of power involving armaments manufacturers, construction companies, banks, democratic governments and puppet dictatorships.
As Marine Major General Smedley Butler put it, “War is a Racket”. In his seminal book on the subject Butler declares, “I spent 33 years in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints.”
These and other observations about the racketeering, lying and theft that is the essence of war have informed many of us around the world who today call ourselves “9/11 truthers”.
The central argument of the movement is that 9/11 was a staged, false flag operation designed to propel the US and its allies into war for the sake of profit, oil and empire. False flags are defined in Wikipedia as “covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities”.
There are numerous examples in modern history where clandestine government agencies or rogue operatives have acted in this way, collaborating in the hatching of staged terrorist plots, the launching of self-inflicted military assaults to be blamed on the enemy, and in the formation of domestic terrorist organisations.
There is not enough space here to address these complex cases, but I encourage the reader to do an internet search on phrases like “false flag”, “strategy of tension”, “operation gladio”, “operation northwoods”, “attack on the Maine”, “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, “reichstag fire”, and “the power of nightmares”, to find historical precedents which have a chilling resemblance to the events and aftermath of 9/11.
Some readers may be indignant at the suggestion that a modern democracy would permit its military arm to sacrifice innocent citizens for the sake of a political, economic or military imperative. If you are one of those people then I’m sorry but you have some hard lessons to learn. Use the search terms above and you will discover that I am not lying . You will find this information confirmed by many scholarly sources, and in some cases by impeccably researched BBC documentaries.
So far I have been trying to illustrate the context and precedents for looking at 9/11 as a false flag attack, but let’s now take a look at the specific evidence we have about 9/11, and let’s agree on what we can agree on:
• Planes were flown into the twin towers.
• Towers 1, 2 and 7 collapsed, symmetrically, at close to free fall, pulverising most of the concrete of those buildings into a fine dust which covered Manhattan.
• The Pentagon was hit by a third plane.
• A fourth plane crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
• Around 3,000 people died as a direct result of the attacks.
We can all agree with the mainstream account up to this point. Some have conjectured that the Pentagon may have been hit by something other than a Boeing 757, which is reasonable considering the US government’s refusal to release any video footage from dozens of security cameras, but this view is no longer widely held in the 9/11 truth movement.
It is when we consider the “why”, the “how” and the “who” of these events that I and many others radically depart from the mainstream narrative of 9/11.
I have already hinted at the answer to the “who” part. The evidence points to rogue networks within the military industrial complex and intelligence agencies who were using co-opted Islamic extremists as patsies. This view is corroborated by documented evidence that a key planner of the 9/11 plot and trainer of the hijackers was simultaneously an informant for the FBI, and other evidence that the NSA had been closely monitoring the alleged hijackers prior to 911.
In regard to the “how” questions, the only topic I will address in this piece is the collapse of the towers. All three collapsed at close to free fall, including Building 7, which was not even hit by a plane. There are numerous testimonies from first responders who saw heard and felt explosions before the buildings went down.
The free fall rate of collapse is strong proof that explosives were used, and there is no alternative to this conclusion that is consistent with the laws of physics.
This is not just my opinion, it is also the opinion of close to 2,000 qualified architects and engineers. Steel framed buildings do not simply crumble into dust as a result of fire. In the entire history of modern construction, including exhaustive large scale tests on real steel-framed structures, there is no precedent for this type of event.
The exact details of how the demolitions were carried out have not been proven, but what is clear beyond all reasonable doubt is that they were not brought down simply as a consequence of plane impacts and fires.
Currently there is one, and only one, peer reviewed scientific paper which addresses the question of whether explosives were used to bring down the towers.
The researchers, using electron microscopy, found that a residue of a high tech incendiary, nano-thermite, was present in all the dust samples retrieved from New York on 9/11. They also found iron micro-spheres in the dust, an indicator of intense heat way beyond that attained by office fires.
Let’s now return to the “why” of it all, which is the most controversial question of all. Apart from the conquests and theft of resources in the middle east, at home we have been incrementally losing our freedoms too. In Australia, the government has given itself the power to detain suspects without charge, wiretap without warrants, secretly search people’s homes and blast travellers with radiation at airports. T
The secret detention laws are so extreme that even telling someone that you were detained is a federal offence. Those subject to these measures have no right to silence and can only use a legal counsel approved by the government. People can be put under “control orders”, a form of house arrest, even though they have committed no crime. Non-suspects can be detained by force for interrogation, and we have sedition laws which can imprison people merely for their speech rather than for their actions.
According to a recent ABC law report there have been 54 new anti-terror laws passed since 9/11 and 37 prosecutions under these new laws - they are not merely for show.
People have been convicted and given harsh sentences merely for thinking about terrorist attacks. These anti-terror laws were designed to intervene in a “predictive way”, which calls to mind science fiction dystopias like Minority Report. Although the changes have been happening incrementally, the effects are very real and the trend is away from democracy, toward a type of society which can only be called totalitarian.
In short, there has been a power grab, using the fear of terrorism as its justification, and I would argue that this was the plan all along. The power structure which has asserted itself, often described as a “New World Order”, is global in scope, and treats national sovereignty with contempt. It is therefore crucial that upstanding citizens begin to realise the danger we are in and take action to reclaim our national sovereignty and reverse these trends.
Ultimately, 9/11 truthers are average people who are willing to stand up and say that two plus two makes four and who will not be bamboozled by the corporate media or intimidated by Big Brother. Evil triumphs because good people do nothing.
We are trying to do something. Future generations will remember us.
Your Help is Needed at Town Hall to Promote 9/11 Film!
Sydney Town Hall
Saturday, September 10, 2011, 11:00 AM
483 George St, Sydney (map)
We will be outside the Town Hall
New NPR Hit-Piece: Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks
25 August 2011
With Jane Clayson in for Tom Ashbrook
Nearly ten years on, 9/11 conspiracy theories–about the Twin Towers– just won’t go way. We’ll look at the facts, and the conspiracy theorists.
The September 11th attacks killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania — and shook our country to its core. And even now, ten years later, thousands of Americans still say they don’t believe the accepted narrative of what happened on that day.
They call themselves “truthers” or “skeptics.” To many other Americans, they are simply conspiracy theorists –- confused, deluded, or worse. But how have these ideas stuck around for so long in the face of all the facts? And what do they say about our country?
This hour On Point: the persistence of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7
This is AE911Truth's new 9/11 documentary on the mysterious destruction of World Trade Center Building #7, WTC 7 on 9/11/01. Join actor, Ed Asner and Architect Richard Gage, AIA and Architects and Engineers as they narrate an unfolding story that decimates the official account ("collapse due to normal office fires") of this 47 story high-rise which was destroyed on the afternoon of 9/11 in record time: top to bottom in under 7 seconds - and at free-fall acceleration for a third of its fall. Solving the Mystery of the Free-Fall collapse of WTC 7.
This is AE911Truth's best shot at a professionally produced 15 minute informative and engaging WTC 7 documentary - designed for newcomers. It is free. Please spread Far and Wide, including Architects and Engineers.
The documentary includes several of the dozens of technical and building experts that were interviewed and that appear in our forthcoming full length documentary - 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out. Altogether of course there are more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the AE911Truth petition calling for a new investigation of the destruction of all 3 high-rises at the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Special thanks to the AE911Truth volunteer video crew!
We are proud to partner with the 9/11 family members and first responders of RememberBuilding7.org in the 10th Anniversary Campaign to raise awareness about WTC 7 in cities across America.
Please visit http://RememberBuilding7.org and decide what you can do to help the campaign.
Please also support the work of AE911Truth, a non-partisan non-profit 501c3 organization with your financial support by visiting http://AE911Truth.org today and click the Donate button. We are a community organization with no corporate sponsorship. YOU are our lifeline. Join the family of sustaining supporters today!booo
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out
We Are Change Sydney and Truth News Australia are proud to host a screening of this exciting new documentary film by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Saturday, September 10, 2011, 7:00 PM
Sydney Mechanics' School of Arts
280 Pitt Street, Sydney (map)
The film features cutting-edge 9/11 evidence from more than 50 experts in their fields – high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled demolition technicians, and more. They are each highly qualified. Several have Ph.D’s, including renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis who was awarded the National Medal of Science, and who exposes in this film the fraud of NIST and discusses how the scientific method should have been applied to the destruction of evidence and to the high temperature incendiaries in the WTC dust samples. The documentary is filled with wisdom from experts such as Les Young, one of several high-rise architects interviewed in the film, who remarks,
“ I would not have expected the whole building[s] to just give in at once. And I thought it rather odd that they fell almost perfectly – in very similar ways. It seemed odd that lightning would strike twice.”
The full-length documentary includes interviews with almost a dozen psychologists who help us to understand why 9/11 Truth is so difficult for the public to even face, much less accept – and what we can do better to reach them. We also hear from several 9/11 victim family members who support AE911Truth in our call for a new investigation.
Psychologist William Woodward, Ph.D, one of eight mental health professionals who are also AE911Truth petition signers, provides a profound insight in that section of the film:
" Reconciliation through the truth is a deep path to psychological recovery from the myths and lies around which this historic event has been cloaked in the official view."
We look forward to seeing you there!