Aug 022014
 

Richard Gage, AIA, Drives Home Explosive Evidence

It’s the kind of rare opportunity that members of the 9/11 Truth Movement wish would come more often.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, was invited to bring the evidence for the explosive demolition of the three World Trade Center towers to viewers of C-SPAN today on its morning program Washington Journal. His 45-minute appearance — which can be viewed here by those who did not see it live — is enabling the 9/11 Truth message to reach a national television audience of millions.

Gage explained to viewers that his organization, representing more than 2,200 architects and engineers, is focused on the science of the event and on calling for a new, independent investigation. He encouraged viewers to visit the AE911Truth.org website and watch the landmark video 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out.

“Every one of our [C-SPAN] viewers today should be calling their Congressmen and Senators and finding out why they’re not investigating the worst act of mass murder in U.S. history and the third-worst structural failure in modern history,” Gage said. “This is an extraordinary and unacceptable situation.”

Host Peter Slen told viewers that Gage was brought in as a guest because Washington Journal had received so many calls in recent months asking its other guests to address the issue of how Building 7 fell on 9/11 when it was not hit by a plane. The invitation shows that the continuing efforts of 9/11 Truth activists to bring the issue to the attention of the public are not in vain.

Slen read excerpts from the Frequently Asked Questions section of the National Institute of Standards and Technology website, which gave Gage the opportunity to explain how NIST fails to address the forensic evidence that AE911Truth’s building and technical experts have accumulated, including the symmetrical destruction of Building 7 at free-fall acceleration, the explosions reported by first responders, the evidence of thermite in the dust, and the molten iron found in the rubble of all three towers. Gage also pointed out that at least two media outlets — CNN and the BBC — reported the destruction of Building 7 before it actually occurred.

Several excellent questions were asked by Washington Journal callers, most of who made intelligent points about the subject and had supportive comments about AE911Truth.

The appearance by Gage on C-SPAN as well as recent attention given by the media to the High-Rise Safety Initiative offer real hope that the ongoing efforts of the 9/11 Truth Movement are starting to show some significant results.

Indeed, after the interview, Gage told the AE911Truth that he is “quite encouraged to finally be treated in a fair and balanced manner in a mainstream media TV interview. I also appreciate Washington Journal’s commitment to providing a forum for all voices concerning the important issues that affect our country. When it comes to the controlled demolition evidence,” he mused, “the question is, ‘How soon before other networks learn from C-SPAN’s example?’”

Jul 082014
 

200 Hundred Scientists Learn of Explosives in Buildings

An inaugural ethics conference sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) — the world’s largest professional association dedicated to advancing technology — provided an exciting opportunity for AE911Truth to bring its message to the forefront of the scientific and engineering community last month.

IEEE promised that its 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology, held in Chicago on May 23-24, would offer “a rich scientific program of highest quality,” feature speakers from throughout the world, and bring together “scientists, engineers, ethicists, and practitioners from different disciplines to discuss questions and concerns related to ethics in science, technology, and engineering.”

Based on that billing, three 9/11 Truth Movement activists were inspired to respond to the call for papers with a case study addressing the topic “Ethics and Professional Responsibility in Science, Technology and Engineering.” The resulting paper, Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study, was co-authored by physicist John D. Wyndham, Ph.D. (a member of Scientists for 9/11Truth) and engineers Wayne H. Coste, PE, and Michael R. Smith (both members of AE911Truth and the IEEE).

(Continue reading)

 Posted by at 1:14 am
May 012014
 

Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job
Written by David Chandler

Introduction to David Chandler’s “Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job” by Mike Cook

The search for the truth of what really happened on 9/11 covers a broad spectrum that examines every aspect of the official account. Here at AE911Truth, we focus exclusively on the overwhelming evidence for controlled demolition of all three World Trade Center buildings. This is the area of expertise of the professional architects, engineers, and scientists who have signed our petition.

Many points in the article below, written by physics teacher David Chandler, are relevant to our quest for truth. Because parts of it stray beyond our mission, we will print a portion of the piece, and partway through will link readers to the author’s website, www.911speakout.org, where the entire text is located.

Chandler has done invaluable work making the evidence for controlled demolition accessible to the general public. Here, he relates how he was introduced to the 9/11 Truth Movement and explains why he is convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that “9/11 was an inside job.”

Read article here

Dec 292013
 

Kevin Barrett has hosted some 9/11 related interviews this month.

I thought his interview with Frank Greening, while interesting from the point of view of proving the BBC to be even bigger liars than previously thought possible, was more interesting in its claims that some of the Harrit paper crowd (Jones, Harrit, etc.) were not taking Greening seriously. Perhaps Kevin will follow that lead up later.

The interview with mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti was a knockout. Tony goes into extensive detail about the fallacies surrounding WTC7 in particular.

The interview with Barry Kissin, whom I had heard speak only about the 9/11 anthrax attacks, displayed his comprehensive grasp on the issue of Saudi involvement and provided some excellent pushback on Kevin’s tendency to focus only on Israeli/Zionist involvement.

Finally, Wayne Madsen provides an update on the inside job aspects of 9/11 and adds to the discussion about Congressional knowledge and foreknowledge as discussed by Barry Kissin.

While I still have reservations about the limited hangout potential in the recent “revelations” about the Saudi’s role in 9/11, there is no question that a serious look at these connections would inevitably lead to closer scrutiny of the close relationship between the Saud family and the US government in general and the Bush crime family in particular.

Happy listening and best wishes for the new year!

 Posted by at 11:25 pm
Dec 082013
 

How to Debunk WTC Thermite
Posted on December 8, 2013 by Kevin Ryan

The evidence for the presence of thermite at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 is extensive and compelling. This evidence has accumulated to the point at which we can say that WTC thermite is no longer a hypothesis, it is a tested and proven theory. Therefore it is not easy to debunk it. But the way to do so is very straightforward and is in no way mysterious.

To debunk the thermite theory, one must first understand the evidence for it and then show how all of that evidence is either mistaken or explained by other phenomena. Here are the top ten categories of evidence for thermite at the WTC.

Read article here

Dec 012012
 

Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 34, November 2012
Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New
York on September 11, 2001?
By Dr. André Rousseau

We would like to thank Tod Fletcher, who provided editorial assistance by revising an
earlier version of this article.

ABSTRACT
The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001,
recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study
concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the
waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official explanations
which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of
the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the
seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that
identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of
identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic
sources of different magnitudes. We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the
cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies

Link to full article here

Nov 202012
 

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-11-19/italian-supreme-court-president-calls-new-911-investigation-icc

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/680-italian-suprem…

Ferdinando Imposimato Points to AE911truth Evidence

[Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt of a letter written by Italian Supreme Court President Ferdinando Imposimato for the Journal of 9/11 Studies. While AE911Truth does not speculate on who was involved in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers, we applaud Imposimato for speaking out on this important issue, calling attention to the explosive 9/11 evidence, and, most importantly, pursuing justice.]

Ferdinando Imposimato is the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy and a former Senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations. He is the author or co-author of seven books on international terrorism, state corruption, and related matters, and a Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy.

The reports of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), November 20, 2005, set forth the following conclusions: The airplanes that struck each of the Twin Towers caused a breach as well as an explosion evidenced by a giant fireball. The remaining jet fuel flowed onto the lower floors, sustaining the fires. The heat from the fires deformed the building structures and both towers collapsed completely from top to bottom. Very little that was of any size remained after these events except steel as well as aluminum fragments and the pulverized dust from the concrete floors.

World Trade Center 7 also collapsed–in a way that was inconsistent with the common experience of engineers. All three buildings collapsed completely, but Building 7 was not hit by a plane. WTC7’s collapse violated common experience and was unprecedented.

The NIST report does not analyze the actual nature of the collapses. According to experts at the Toronto Hearings (Sept. 8-11, 2011), the collapses had features that indicate controlled explosions. I agree with architect Richard Gage and engineer Jon Cole, both highly experienced professionals [from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth – now numbering 1,700 strong], who have arrived at their conclusions through reliable tests, scientific proof, and the visual testimony of people above suspicion, including firefighters and victims. The authoritative theologian David Ray Griffin has described very precisely why the hypothesis of controlled demolition should be taken into consideration. Various witnesses heard bursts of explosions.

According to NIST the collapse of Building 7 was due to fires provoked by the collapse of the twin towers. Chemist and independent researcher Kevin Ryan, however, has demonstrated that NIST gave contradictory versions of the collapse of Building 7. In a preliminary report NIST declared that WTC7 was destroyed because of fires provoked by diesel fuel stored in the building, while in a second report this fuel was no longer considered the cause of the building’s collapse. Additional comments on the NIST version of events have been made by David Chandler, another expert witness at the Journal of 9/11 Studies Letters, September 2012 Toronto Hearings. Despite NIST’s claim of three distinct phases of collapse, Chandler pointed out that many available videos show that for about two and a half seconds the acceleration of the building cannot be distinguished from freefall. NIST has been obliged to agree with this empirical fact as pointed out by Chandler, and now understandable by everyone.

The only possibility for achieving justice is to submit the best evidence concerning the involvement of specific individuals in 9/11 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and ask him to investigate according to the articles 12, 13, 15 and 17, letters a and b, of the Statute of the ICC, recalling also the preamble of the Statute:

“Recognizing that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and the well being of the world,”

“Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation, ”

“Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prosecution of such crimes, Recalling that the duty of every state to exercise its jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes, … ”