Mar 222015
 

How Did They Know? Examining 9/11 Foreknowledge of WTC Building 7’s Destruction

By Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Global Research, March 22, 2015

by Dennis McMahon, J.D., L.L.M. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

WTC Building 7, also known as the Salomon Brothers Building or WTC 7, was a 47–story skyscraper that was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, Building 7 would have been the tallest high-–rise in thirty–three of our United States. Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as “Giuliani’s Bunker,” along with several major financial institutions.

Building 7, which was 100 yards from the Twin Towers, was not hit by an airplane on September 11, 2001, and suffered only minimal damage from debris falling from the North Tower. Several fires began burning on a few floors, and the entire building completely collapsed – almost into its own footprint – at 5:20 p.m. Numerous eyewitnesses, including members of the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) and other first responders, and multiple news sources, made statements that indicate that there was foreknowledge that WTC 7 was going to come down, despite the fact that no skyscraper in history had ever completely collapsed due to fire. (Much of this evidence of foreknowledge is detailed on the website of the Remember Building 7 campaign and other related sites.)

Where foreknowledge of an extremely unusual event is demonstrated, the possibility must be considered that the foreknowledge derived directly or indirectly from those who had inside information about, and/or control over, the event itself. Thus, if foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 can be shown, this would be a strong indication that Building 7 was subjected to controlled demolition, and that advance warning of Building 7’s demise derived ultimately from those who intended to bring the building down. Thus, foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 is not only consistent with, but supportive of, the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Read article here

Mar 082015
 

BBC Foreknowledge of Collapse of WTC Building 7? Brother of 9/11 Victim goes to Court with the BBC over Alleged Cover Up

By Peter Drew
Global Research, March 06, 2015
AE911Truth

Event Details

Date: Monday March 23rd, 2015

Time: 2.15pm

Venue: Court 1 Hastings Magistrates Court, Bohemia Rd, Hastings TN34 1ND

Contact Details: UK AE911Truth truthfor911@hotmail.co.uk

Summary Overview

On 23rd March Matt Campbell of Sussex, United Kingdom, will go to court against the BBC and will claim that the BBC is in violation of UK anti-terrorist legislation in the way that they have covered up evidence relating to 9/11 and evidence relating to the murder of his brother Geoff. Geoff Campbell was killed while inside the North Tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11th, 2001. Mr Campbell will claim that he has reasonable cause to believe that the BBC has been wilfully complicit in the deliberate cover up of vital and incontrovertible evidence relating to how his brother Geoff was killed and that as such the BBC is guilty of complicity with terrorism.

Representing Mr Campbell’s case against the BBC is senior litigation solicitor and human rights activist Mahtab Aziz who has represented a number of well-known public figures such as Imran Khan, the former Pakistan cricketer captain turned politician, Herbie Hide the former 2 time World Heavyweight boxing champion and a number of other internationally well-known artists, singers and sportsmen. Mr Aziz also advised British Film Director Tony Rooke at Horsham Magistrates Court in 2013 for his similar case against the BBC’s alleged cover up of 9/11 evidence. That particular court case between Mr Rooke and the BBC was attended by several hundred members of the public and by independent journalists from across Europe where they witnessed Mr Rooke achieve a partial victory against the BBC.

Mr Campbell will also be calling on the support of a number of expert witnesses.

See here for further details of this court case.

Feb 272015
 

Niels Harrit Sues Danish Newspaper for Libel

Will Present Video of WTC 7 in Court

Help Raise $15K by Next Week to Cover His Legal Fees!

When he appears in front of three High Court judges on March 12, Harrit will bring with him evidence that will be difficult to defeat.
By Josef Hanji and Ted Walter

A watershed moment took place in Denmark on April 3, 2009. It was from this Scandinavian country that an international team of scientists announced the publication of an article in the Bentham Open Chemical and Physics Journal detailing the findings of their 18-month study on dust samples recovered from the World Trade Center after September 11, 2001.

Based on their discovery of red-gray chips found in the WTC dust and the properties of those chips, the group concluded that a high-tech nano-thermitic material was present in the dust. The earlier discovery of iron microspheres in the WTC dust, as well as other observations, supported the conclusion that wide-scale thermitic reactions were a primary cause of the World Trade Center’s destruction on 9/11.
The team of scientists was assembled by Dr. Steven Jones, then a physics professor at Brigham Young University. The article’s main author was Danish nano-chemist Niels Harrit, at the time a professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. Three days after the article was published, Dr. Harrit appeared on TV2NEWS in Denmark to discuss the team’s discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust. Speaking for nearly 10 minutes to an intrigued national media news anchor, Harrit burst on to the scene as his country’s most vocal and iconic critic of the official 9/11 narrative.
Denmark, one of the five Nordic nations, is small in geographical size—less than 17,000 square miles—and in population—6.5 million people. It has a long tradition of peace; before the War on Terrorism, it had not attacked another country since 1848. That tradition ended when, as a member of NATO, it joined the alliance that went to war in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. In 2003, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen took Denmark to war in Iraq. Six years later, he became NATO’s General Secretary, an office he held until September 2014. Denmark also participated in the war against Libya in 2011, and is currently involved in the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

 

Read full article and donate here

Feb 202015
 

By Peter Drew
Global Research, February 19, 2015
http://www.globalresearch.ca/backlash-by-church-of-england-vicar-banned-from-social-media-for-endorsing-911-truth/5431964

The Bishop of Guildford

The Right Reverend Andrew Watson
Willow Grange

Guildford, GU4 7QS

Dear Reverend Watson,

As the Bible says about God, “His throne is built on a foundation of justice and righteousness”. Does the Church of England stand by that statement and support it with their actions? I refer to the Church of England’s seemingly inconsistent and racist approach to the issue of 9/11 in relation to the recent announcement of your decision to ban Reverend Stephen Sizer from using social media due to his posting a link and a comment raising questions about who committed 9/11.

I have an interest in this issue as I am the UK Coordinator for the international organisation ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ (AE911Truth). This is an organisation made up of more than 2,300 qualified and professional Architects and Engineers from around the world who believe that the scientific and forensic evidence they have gathered proves that the collapse of the three towers on 9/11 could only have occurred through controlled explosive demolition and are asking for a new and independent inquiry, with subpoena power. This evidence has now been presented in over 30 countries around the world and in over 80 cities across the US. The reaction from the audiences to this evidence has been overwhelmingly supportive everywhere it has been presented. So much so that the Washington Journal news network (C-SPAN) in the US recently ran a 40 minute live and in depth interview with Richard Gage, the CEO of AE911Truth, which was shown live to millions of American citizens.

I must say that I find the decision to ban Reverend Sizer from all social media a little difficult to understand and I find it an extremely inconsistent approach by the Church of England, especially following so closely on the heels of the Charlie Hebdo event in Paris. In Paris we had 3 million people gathered in the streets in a quite amazing show of public unity and public strength behind a common cause of peace and freedom of speech. Those who gunned down the innocent victims in Paris sought to quash freedom of speech when they didn’t agree with the message. While the Church of England has not fired any physical bullets of terrorism or racism with this decision, the principle is the same. Why has the Church of England not also publicly condemned the allegations by our government officials and mainstream media about alleged Muslim involvement in 9/11? These are allegations that have been made with absolutely no evidence to support them. But yet any mention of possible Israeli involvement is met with instant condemnation by the Church of England. No group or nationality should have the finger of blame pointed at them for anything unless there is clear evidence to support the allegations, so where is the consistency by the Church of England with regard to Muslims?

More than one million innocent people have so far lost their lives in the Middle East since the US and UK launched their military attacks on the back of 9/11. More than half a million of these victims have been innocent children. In addition, most people in the UK are not aware that millions more in the Middle East will die or be deformed at birth in the coming decades and for centuries to come from the massive amounts of depleted Uranium shells that have poisoned Iraq and surrounding regions. Iraq and the wider Middle East have now had their own holocaust, and it is still ongoing right now as we speak. This holocaust was launched on the back of totally baseless allegations that 9/11 was committed by 19 Muslim hijackers.

Instead of banning your staff from attempting to ask questions about who was really responsible for 9/11, the Church of England should instead be supporting the hundreds of thousands of courageous and peace loving individuals around the world who have been campaigning tirelessly for new investigations into what really happened on that day of 9/11, and exactly who was involved. Because the one thing that is absolutely certain about 9/11 is that we have not been told the truth by our governments and our military officials.

I have no idea if Israel was involved or not, and I have no idea if Muslims were involved or not, but I do know that we have not been told the truth and that very serious questions and very serious investigations need to be carried out which could potentially alter the course of history in a positive manner. Any hatred towards another specific sector of the community such as Anti-Semitism is a terrible thing. But could you please explain to me how this is any different from accusing Muslims of committing 9/11? Muslims have been blamed for 9/11 and as a result of this there has been a massive global backlash against the Muslim community. Are you aware that despite what we have been told by our government officials, there is not one shred of any evidence that 19 Muslim hijackers were the perpetrators of 9/11? None. And yet Muslims have been blamed for committing this horrendous crime and a holocaust has been unleashed in Iraq and the Middle East. Has the Church of England ever asked our government officials and media to provide evidence of their allegations against Muslims, or if they can’t provide this evidence then to stop spreading these false allegations about Muslims being the perpetrators of 9/11? The silence from the Church of England on this has unfortunately been deafening, despite attempts made by the public for the Church of England to look at this issue.

Are you aware that there is no video footage of the alleged Muslim terrorists getting on board the airliners that day, and no evidence of their names being on the passenger lists? Are you aware that many of the 19 alleged Muslim hijackers on 9/11 have been confirmed to be still alive and well today, and as such they are wondering why they are on a list of alleged suicide terrorists who died on 9/11? This is a quite incredible fact that has even been highlighted on BBC documentaries. Are you aware that Osama Bin Laden was never put on the FBI wanted list for 9/11 because the FBI stated themselves that they had absolutely no evidence to implicate him with 9/11, despite what the US government was saying? Muslims have been accused of this horrendous crime with literally not one shred of evidence. They are just baseless allegations by our government officials which we are told to believe while they launch a holocaust on the Middle East. That is racist in the extreme. Why is the Church of England not seriously challenging this situation instead of quashing the freedom of speech to raise some very difficult questions about 9/11? You have said to Reverend Sizer that his Facebook posting was racist. But it is also racist for the Church of England to condemn allegations against Israel but not to condemn allegations against the Muslim community when there is zero evidence to support those allegations?

Are you aware of the incontrovertible scientific and forensic evidence and eye-witness evidence which proves conclusively that the three towers on 9/11 collapsed as they did not because of fire from the airliners, but because of explosive, controlled demolition? This evidence has been provided and supported by thousands of professional experts as well as eye-witness testimony from 118 of the first responder fire fighters on 9/11. Are you aware that World Trade Centre Building 7, the third tower to completely collapse on 9/11, was a 47 storey sky scraper not struck by a plane and yet it collapsed totally, in near perfect symmetry, in less than 7 seconds, and achieved free fall (gravitational) acceleration during its descent? As our 2,300 professional architects and engineers will confirm with you, the ONLY way that this can occur in a high-rise tower is through controlled demolition using perfectly placed and perfectly timed explosives. There is no other possible explanation within the known laws of physics. It is as simple as that, despite what our government officials and media try to tell us. As we speak, NIST, the official US government investigators into the collapse of the three towers on 9/11, have a major legal action against them for criminal fraud on the basis of their fraudulent investigations and fraudulent findings into the collapse of those towers.

This raises extremely difficult and psychologically challenging questions about who could have been responsible for making those towers come down in that manner, because it certainly wasn’t Muslim terrorists who would have had the ability to make that happen. In further support of what I have just stated here, are you aware that 100,000 citizens of New York have just signed a petition in support of the ‘High-Rise Safety Initiative’, which calls for a new investigation into the free fall collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7? These calls for new investigations are also supported by numerous family members of victims of 9/11 who want the truth about who killed their loved ones. President Obama is under extreme pressure at the moment from many members of US Congress to release the 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Commission Report. The two members of US Congress who have been granted special permission to view those 28 pages have demanded they be released to the public because they say the content will shock the nation, and the public needs to know.

Here in the UK, we have Matthew Campbell who lost his brother in the North Tower on 9/11. He has been campaigning tirelessly with British and US officials to have his questions answered about his brother’s murder. All he has asked for are some answers to some very basic and straightforward questions that would be a standard part of any proper investigation into someone’s death. In effect, there has been absolutely no investigation into his brother’s murder and he has not been able to get one single answer or positive development on this situation from the British Embassy, the US Embassy, President Obama, or the coroners involved. Consequently he is still tormented by the fact that his brother has been murdered and that no one is willing to investigate that murder in any way or answer even the most basic of questions about how he died. If a major organisation such as the Church of England were to provide some support to Mr Campbell’s endeavours to find a little peace of mind and justice then that would be a noble cause worthy of such an establishment. Is this something that you would be willing to assist Mr Campbell with? I am copying him on this letter for his reference. If so, I can provide you with his contact details. I am sure he would be most grateful for some support from the Church of England.

To finish with here, I repeat my earlier point about freedom of speech and having the freedom and courage to be allowed to ask what can sometimes be extremely difficult and unpleasant questions in the pursuit of truth. We don’t know who committed the atrocities of 9/11 and exactly how they did what they did. What we do know is that what we have been told happened on 9/11, and who did what, is incontrovertibly false and that there were other unknown entities that must have been involved. Those unknown entities have been responsible for unleashing the most horrific carnage/holocaust imaginable in parts of the Middle East which will continue to cause terrible human suffering for a very long time to come. Reverend Sizer may perhaps have been a little misguided, but well intentioned, in raising his questions about 9/11 in the way he did. The Church of England has made the decision to supress this type of questioning towards a specific sector of the community, and that is fair enough if that questioning cannot be backed up sufficiently with clear and incontrovertible evidence. But has the Church of England done anything to support the global Muslim community against the terrible baseless accusations that have been made against them about 9/11, and which have led to them suffering their own horrendous holocaust?

Perhaps you were not previously aware of the abundant scientific and forensic evidence and eye-witness evidence that I have mentioned here. Perhaps this is why you and the Church of England have not previously rallied to the support of the Muslim community as you are now rallying to the support of Israel. If that is the case then there is still an opportunity for the Church of England to have a positive impact here and help change the course of history in a direction more aligned with peace, as should be the mission of the Church of England, according to the Bible. The Church of England could take a proactive approach to helping to put forward to the public the abundant and incontrovertible scientific evidence and eye-witness evidence that challenges the official story of 9/11.

This doesn’t have to point the finger at anyone, as Reverend Sizer has done to some extent. The Church of England could take exactly the same stance as ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’, which is to help allow the public to see the true evidence that is being covered up, call for independent investigations into this evidence, and then let the cards fall where they fall in terms of where those investigations lead to and who is found to be responsible. The Muslim community and the millions of victims in the Middle East deserve that evidence and information to be put forward, and they deserve those investigations to be conducted.

I am sure that the Church of England supported the Nuremburg trials, so will the Church of England also support this request to help bring forward the true evidence about 9/11? The current holocaust must be stopped/mitigated and the true cause identified. Reverend Sizer may not have approached this issue in quite the right way, but he was certainly correct in his belief that there are very serious questions to be asked about 9/11 and he has shown great courage to at least be prepared to put his head into the line of fire and try to raise some questions about what really happened on 9/11 and try to help address the ongoing Middle East holocaust.

I believe that Reverend Sizer’s intentions, if not his methodology, were consistent with my opening message about the Bible’s stated mission of the Church of England…..“His throne is built on a foundation of justice and righteousness”. Will the Church of England honour those words of the Bible and support justice and righteousness being sought for the victims of 9/11 and the victims of the Middle East holocaust?

Thank you for considering what I have said here, and I would be more than happy to provide further information about anything here and to provide contact details for Mr Campbell if you would be interested in following that up.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Drew (MSc)

UK Coordinator – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Dec 222014
 

by Kevin Ryan
Dig Within
Graeme MacQueen’s new book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception, reveals stunning links between the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks that immediately followed. The book also reviews some of the interesting actions taken by alleged hijacker leader, Mohamed Atta, in the years preceding 9/11. These actions suggest that Atta was trying to leave the people he encountered with memories that would support the official myth. In the few years before JFK’s assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald engaged in similar attention-seeking actions. Considering this leads to the discovery that the Oswald and Atta had a lot in common.

The legend of Mohamed Atta describes a man who, in the few years preceding 9/11, seemed to be everywhere at once. In just the two years before 9/11, Atta reportedly lived and/or plotted in Germany, The Netherlands, The Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan (via Turkey and Pakistan), Oklahoma, Las Vegas, Spain, and numerous locations in Florida. Oswald also traveled extensively in the years before the JFK assassination—back and forth from California to Japan, to New Orleans, Dallas, and Fort Worth, to Mexico City, and to Minsk and Moscow.

Atta was involved in many notable events in a short period before 9/11. Among other things, he annoyed airport employees, was bitten by a dog, consumed alcohol and cocaine, lived with an exotic dancer, and killed a cat and her litter of kittens. He got pulled over for driving without a license, got drunk and swore at a waiter, and abandoned a plane on the runway. In some of these cases Atta interacted with police and the risk for police interactions was there in almost every case.

Some of Atta’s reported actions suggest that he was trying to leave clues. One such incident, occurring around April of 2000, involved his attempt to seek a U.S. government loan to help him purchase and modify a crop dusting plane for large-scale chemical use. In his one-hour encounter with Johnell Bryant, a federal employee from whom he was seeking the loan, Atta talked about security at the World Trade Center and buildings in Washington. He went on to talk about his connection to Al Qaeda and his admiration for Osama bin Laden. The most vivid memory Bryant had of Atta was his extremely dilated pupils—a symptom of drug abuse.

In his interaction with Bryant, Atta made a big deal about a picture of Washington D.C. in her office. Bryant said that Atta acted like he wanted that picture very badly. Johnell said that Atta’s “emotions kept going up and down, up and down” and he became agitated when she would not sell him the picture or give him the $650,000 loan to buy the plane and equip it with the large chemical tank. To emphasize his displeasure and heighten the experience, Atta suggested that he might cut her throat. Those are certainly not the actions of someone trying to keep a highly secret terrorist plot from being discovered.

Atta’s antics continued until the day before 9/11, when he made an inexplicable last-minute trip to Portland, Maine, leaving with only 75 minutes to catch the flight that he allegedly had carefully planned to hijack in Boston. He conveniently left the most incriminating evidence possible in his luggage.

Like Atta, Lee Harvey Oswald was busy making himself visible before he allegedly assassinated the President of the United States. His activities in that regard are described well in James Douglass’ book, JFK and the Unspeakable. In fact, reports about Oswald suggest that, like Atta, he was too busy to have been only one person. Whoever it was, the person posing as Oswald made a number of attempts to draw attention his way.

Oswald’s strange behavior in the summer of 1963 provided evidence that he was seeking attention. In New Orleans, he engaged in pro-Castro activities by pretending to be the head of the local chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee—but he was its only member. This appears to have been a superficial attempt to support what would become the official line that communists were behind the JFK assassination.

Oswald went to Mexico City in the fall of 1963. During this visit he allegedly made phone calls and visits to both the Cuban and Soviet embassies. He is also reported to have written a letter to a known KGB agent who specialized in assassinations. The CIA monitored such communications closely and it is interesting to consider that 9/11 investigation leader Porter Goss was a CIA operative in Mexico City that same year. In any case, whether true or not, Oswald’s reported actions there indicate that he was trying to provide a more recent history for himself as a communist operative or supporter.

Another such incident occurred in the last week of September 1963, when strangers visited Silvia Odio, a 26-year-old Cuban immigrant, in her Dallas apartment. They told Silvia that they were members of an anti-Castro group that her parents were involved in. Sylvia was suspicious, but the visitors said they had come to introduce her to an American named Leon Oswald, who accompanied them. A couple of days later, Sylvia got a phone call from one of them who asked, “What do you think of the American? He’s great but kinda nuts. He told us we don’t have any guts, you Cubans, because President Kennedy should have been assassinated right after the Bay of Pigs.”

Sylvia was disturbed by the visit and the call, and she wrote to her father in prison who wrote back that he knew none of the visitors. When Sylvia heard of President Kennedy’s assassination on the radio—before any mention of Oswald had been made—she was convinced that “Leon Oswald” did it and she reported it to authorities. The FBI interviewed Sylvia in December 1963. Although her testimony was not included in the Warren Report, the incident was clearly meant to connect Oswald to the assassination plot.

Graeme MacQueen’s new book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception, reveals stunning links between the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks that immediately followed. The book also reviews some of the interesting actions taken by alleged hijacker leader, Mohamed Atta, in the years preceding 9/11. These actions suggest that Atta was trying to leave the people he encountered with memories that would support the official myth. In the few years before JFK’s assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald engaged in similar attention-seeking actions. Considering this leads to the discovery that the Oswald and Atta had a lot in common.

The legend of Mohamed Atta describes a man who, in the few years preceding 9/11, seemed to be everywhere at once. In just the two years before 9/11, Atta reportedly lived and/or plotted in Germany, The Netherlands, The Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan (via Turkey and Pakistan), Oklahoma, Las Vegas, Spain, and numerous locations in Florida. Oswald also traveled extensively in the years before the JFK assassination—back and forth from California to Japan, to New Orleans, Dallas, and Fort Worth, to Mexico City, and to Minsk and Moscow.

Atta was involved in many notable events in a short period before 9/11. Among other things, he annoyed airport employees, was bitten by a dog, consumed alcohol and cocaine, lived with an exotic dancer, and killed a cat and her litter of kittens. He got pulled over for driving without a license, got drunk and swore at a waiter, and abandoned a plane on the runway. In some of these cases Atta interacted with police and the risk for police interactions was there in almost every case.

Some of Atta’s reported actions suggest that he was trying to leave clues. One such incident, occurring around April of 2000, involved his attempt to seek a U.S. government loan to help him purchase and modify a crop dusting plane for large-scale chemical use. In his one-hour encounter with Johnell Bryant, a federal employee from whom he was seeking the loan, Atta talked about security at the World Trade Center and buildings in Washington. He went on to talk about his connection to Al Qaeda and his admiration for Osama bin Laden. The most vivid memory Bryant had of Atta was his extremely dilated pupils—a symptom of drug abuse.

In his interaction with Bryant, Atta made a big deal about a picture of Washington D.C. in her office. Bryant said that Atta acted like he wanted that picture very badly. Johnell said that Atta’s “emotions kept going up and down, up and down” and he became agitated when she would not sell him the picture or give him the $650,000 loan to buy the plane and equip it with the large chemical tank. To emphasize his displeasure and heighten the experience, Atta suggested that he might cut her throat. Those are certainly not the actions of someone trying to keep a highly secret terrorist plot from being discovered.

Atta’s antics continued until the day before 9/11, when he made an inexplicable last-minute trip to Portland, Maine, leaving with only 75 minutes to catch the flight that he allegedly had carefully planned to hijack in Boston. He conveniently left the most incriminating evidence possible in his luggage.

Like Atta, Lee Harvey Oswald was busy making himself visible before he allegedly assassinated the President of the United States. His activities in that regard are described well in James Douglass’ book, JFK and the Unspeakable. In fact, reports about Oswald suggest that, like Atta, he was too busy to have been only one person. Whoever it was, the person posing as Oswald made a number of attempts to draw attention his way.

Oswald’s strange behavior in the summer of 1963 provided evidence that he was seeking attention. In New Orleans, he engaged in pro-Castro activities by pretending to be the head of the local chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee—but he was its only member. This appears to have been a superficial attempt to support what would become the official line that communists were behind the JFK assassination.

Oswald went to Mexico City in the fall of 1963. During this visit he allegedly made phone calls and visits to both the Cuban and Soviet embassies. He is also reported to have written a letter to a known KGB agent who specialized in assassinations. The CIA monitored such communications closely and it is interesting to consider that 9/11 investigation leader Porter Goss was a CIA operative in Mexico City that same year. In any case, whether true or not, Oswald’s reported actions there indicate that he was trying to provide a more recent history for himself as a communist operative or supporter.

Another such incident occurred in the last week of September 1963, when strangers visited Silvia Odio, a 26-year-old Cuban immigrant, in her Dallas apartment. They told Silvia that they were members of an anti-Castro group that her parents were involved in. Sylvia was suspicious, but the visitors said they had come to introduce her to an American named Leon Oswald, who accompanied them. A couple of days later, Sylvia got a phone call from one of them who asked, “What do you think of the American? He’s great but kinda nuts. He told us we don’t have any guts, you Cubans, because President Kennedy should have been assassinated right after the Bay of Pigs.”

Sylvia was disturbed by the visit and the call, and she wrote to her father in prison who wrote back that he knew none of the visitors. When Sylvia heard of President Kennedy’s assassination on the radio—before any mention of Oswald had been made—she was convinced that “Leon Oswald” did it and she reported it to authorities. The FBI interviewed Sylvia in December 1963. Although her testimony was not included in the Warren Report, the incident was clearly meant to connect Oswald to the assassination plot.

Read article here

Dec 062014
 

by Kevin Ryan

Politicians and pundits often use terrorism to promote the interests of their financiers. This fear mongering goes hand in hand with military profiteering, population control, and the concentration of political power. What many are beginning to discover is that deception is integral to the success of the terrorism business. That is, the official accounts of terrorist events are typically frought with omissions of fact and the concealment of clues that point to the involvement of powerbrokers. The success of these false accounts reveals important aspects of human nature and points to ways in which thoughtful people can help to overcome such challenges.

There will always be a few people greedy enough to lie to others for personal gain, but we can live with this. What we can’t live with is large numbers of people lying to themselves because habitual self-deception is fatal. Long-term successful lies require motivated liars but also willing listeners and when millions or billions of citizens engage in such duplicity they make it difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to survive.

Read article here

Dec 052014
 

Tony Szamboti Interview

Interview published 29 November 2014

MP3 and Link to Show Notes: http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2014/590-int-67

For this important interview we welcome Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer and 9/11 researcher, who joins us for a detailed discussion on crucial evidence that, in the words of his research group, “clearly demonstrate(s) that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent.”

With the group’s recently-published white paper as our focus, “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports” which lists 25 Points seriously challenging NIST’s work in this area, we discuss striking new evidence demonstrating that NIST intentionally omitted significant structural components from its analysis of Building 7, and explore the almost inescapable conclusion that this was done in order to avoid the explanation of controlled demolition. We also discuss the potential these findings might have for legal action.

(Tony Szamboti is a U.S. Navy Veteran, he holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Villanova University, and has worked predominantly in the Aerospace industry for the last 28 years.)

 Posted by at 7:11 pm
Nov 022014
 

Saturday, 01 November 2014 12:57
The End of the Road for NIST

By Tony Szamboti

Editor’s Note: In recent years, various members of the AE911Truth team have been working on a white paper titled “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports.” Last month they finally completed the document. Its 25 concise points offer the most convincing proof that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the September 11, 2001, destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings were unscientific and fraudulent. The authors of “The 25 Points” designed the document to provide material that would compel the convening of a grand jury. Whether or not a grand jury is ever impaneled in any jurisdiction, though, readers of this white paper have the duty and privilege of acting as a virtual grand jury in all jurisdictions. After weighing the evidence meticulously laid out in “The 25 Points,” readers can, by their resulting actions, help determine whether there will one day be a new, fully funded, truly independent, wholly transparent, and unimpeachably honest investigation of 9/11.
Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself – including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross – should be investigated.

Read article here

Oct 082014
 

Dear Friends,

After two long weeks of waiting, New York Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten finally issued a decision in our case late yesterday afternoon, affirming the court-appointed referee’s report in its entirety, and ruling that the High-Rise Safety Initiative will not appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot.

We are tremendously disappointed that Justice Wooten did not reverse the referee’s recommendations, in particular, the referee’s poorly reasoned conclusion that the petition amounts to a “merely advisory” referendum.

Wooten did call the City’s attempt to have the case dismissed on a procedural technicality “irrational and misplaced, particularly, when the result would be the voter disenfranchisement of more than 30,000 registered voters, without due process.” But we also expected him to weigh in on the legal issues, which he did not, instead simply deferring to the referee.

We Have Decided Not to Appeal

Based on the advice of our legal team, we believe our chances of winning on appeal are slim. Our priority at this point is to preserve our ability to attempt another ballot initiative in the future – if, after evaluating the lessons learned from this effort, we determine that a revised petition has a good chance of overcoming the seemingly insurmountable legal hurdles. For reasons discussed below, appealing would only endanger our chances of success in the future, while offering virtually no chance of success now.

Therefore, after long and careful consideration, we have decided not to appeal, which therefore brings an end to the High-Rise Safety Initiative campaign.

We are so deeply grateful to the thousands of people who contributed financially, and to the thousands more who promoted and cheered on our efforts. Together we came very close to giving New York City voters the opportunity to vote for a new WTC 7 investigation, and to mandate that any future high-rise collapses be properly investigated. In so doing, we elevated our message in the eyes of many who previously did not take it seriously, or knew nothing about WTC 7, and we forced the issue into the public dialogue in a big way, even if that dialogue continues to be dominated by politicans and reporters still too clueless or afraid to question what they’ve been told about WTC 7.

Today we bring the High-Rise Safety Initiative to a close knowing that it represents yet another major step forward in the journey toward truth and accountability.

New York’s Ballot Initiative Process Is Not Voter Friendly

As many of you know by now, the ballot initiative process in New York State is limited and extraordinarily difficult to navigate successfully. The only form of citizen-initiated referenda allowed at the local level are those that amend a city’s charter. As such, a law that would be more appropriate for a city’s administrative code cannot be proposed through a ballot initiative.

Furthermore, proposed charter amendments must be substantially related to an existing provision of the city charter; they must also include their own revenue source if they cost money to implement; and they must not be “merely advisory.” Beyond that they must be consistent with all other state and federal laws. Over the years, the courts have made it increasingly difficult to meet each of these requirements.

Most importantly, the process requires voters to go through the work of collecting tens of thousands of signatures prior to submitting the petition language and having it certified as legally valid. In almost every other state with an initiative process, the government certifies the language before the petition can be circulated. In some places, such as California, the government even assists in drafting the language. In New York State, it’s the opposite. The law discourages rather than encourages citizen-initiated referenda.

The result is that only two ballot initiatives out of the dozen or so that have been attempted in the past 50 years have successfully made it onto the ballot in New York City, and no initiative that has cost money to implement (and therefore required a financing plan) has ever made it onto the ballot. Because of the long odds of success, ballot initiatives are not attempted very often in New York City, and usually only by groups believing that they have no other avenue for accomplishing their goals.

With full awareness of this context, we determined that we had a better chance of achieving our goals with a local ballot initiative than through any other means. And so, using the lessons learned from the 2009 ballot initiative, and working with the most accomplished election attorneys in New York City, we set out to draft a petition that would give us the best possible chance of overcoming the customary legal hurdles.

Where We Fell Short; Where We Believe the Court Fell Short

As it turned out, our financing plan was not bulletproof. While drafting the petition, we and our attorneys did not anticipate the problems that would eventually become clear – namely, that the .9% surcharge on construction permit fees could be construed as a “tax” that the City is not authorized to impose, rather than a “fee” (which the City can impose without state approval), and that having a fund to set aside moneys to be used in future years could be found to violate the balanced budget requirement of the Financial Emergency Act, which prohibits the City from rolling over unused funds from year to year.

To be sure, we made credible arguments on both issues, and on the petition’s severability. However, the court did not find in our favor. Our decision not to appeal is based in part on the fact that we are very unlikely to win on the financing plan at the appellate level.

We do, however, believe that Referee Crespo and Justice Wooten seriously erred in finding the petition to be “merely advisory.” Through convoluted and erroneous reasoning, Referee Crespo somehow concluded that enactment of the High-Rise Safety Initiative would, in essence, have no material effect on the City of New York.

To arrive at this conclusion, he ignored the fact that the petition’s obvious effect was to require the Department of Buildings to investigate the collapse of WTC 7 and any future high-rise collapses. Under current law, the Department is not required to conduct these investigations, but has the discretion to do so. Referee Crespo also concluded, based on an erroneous reading of the petition’s subpoena power and without factual basis, that an investigation of WTC 7’s collapse “cannot be effectuated.” Sadly, Justice Wooten simply went along with the absence of logic and erroneous findings proffered by the referee.

In short, we believe the “merely advisory” issue is winnable on appeal. But, given the short timeframe for that appeal to take place (at most a few days) and the likelihood of losing on the issue of the financing plan, it is almost inevitable that the appellate division would simply affirm the lower court’s decision. This would have the consequence of cementing the court’s finding on the “merely advisory” issue, thus making it impossible to attempt another ballot initiative with a revised financing plan in the future. While we do not know at this time if we will pursue another ballot initiative, we do not want to make another attempt impossible by appealing now when we have virtually no chance of winning.

A Monumental Achievement

While we at NYC CAN are of course very saddened by the court’s decision, we view the campaign as a monumental achievement that has served to bring ever-greater legitimacy and attention to our cause. The mainstream press took significant notice of our campaign, and we grabbed the attention of the New York City Mayor and City Council leadership. Further, tens if not hundreds of thousands more citizens are now aware of the collapse of WTC 7. We believe that what we have achieved will be a steppingstone to greater accomplishments in the future – whether directly leading the way to a third, successful ballot initiative, or channeling the support that has been mobilized toward a new type of effort.

We would like to thank everyone who supported the High-Rise Safety Initiative along the way. Our achievements were made possible only because thousands of people came together to support us. Without you, there would have been nothing. Thank you very much for being a part of our effort.

Onward!

Ted Walter

Executive Director, NYC CAN