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 212013
 

VIDEO: 9/11 Truth Movement Fights for Freedom of Speech in Canada: ReThink911 Ads Controversy in Ottawa

By Global Research News

Global Research, November 25, 2013

The 9/11 Truth Movement in Canada has been fighting for its right to run ReThink911 ads in the Ottawa public transit, OC Transpo. The ReThinks ads read: “Did you know that a third tower fell on 9/11? World Trade Centre Building 7, not hit by a plane, collapsed in free fall 7 Hours after the Twin Towers”.

Transit Commission Chair and City Councillor Diane Deans called these ads “insensitive” and proposed to review OC Transpo’s advertising policy:

“Ms. Deans called the ads ‘insensitive’ and apparently believes that the ads violate standards of community acceptability. Ms. Deans did not change her position or apologize when it was made clear that the ads were sponsored in part by 9/11 victims’ family members”. (Statement: Ottawa’s Transit Advertising Policy and the December Ad Campaign in Canada)

Read rest of article and view video here

Dec 182013
 

ReThink911 Keeps Building 7 in the Headlines

Let the BBC Editor Know the Public Doesn’t Buy Their One-Sided Coverage

Plus: NY Times Billboard Continues through December!

Yesterday the BBC published an article about the ongoing ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa. Featured on the BBC’s News homepage still today, the article has been seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

This piece marks the fifth mainstream news article about ReThink911’s Ottawa campaign since the announcement of the campaign on November 20. But unlike its Canadian counterparts, the BBC has a tendency for falseness and one-sidedness rivaled only by the likes of Fox News.

Tell the BBC Editor Their Reporting Is a Journalistic Disgrace
Please take 2 minutes right now to let the Editor of the BBC’s North America edition know how you feel about their reporting. Just copy-paste the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.

To: Claudia.Milne@BBC.co.uk
Bcc: BBCoutreach@AE911Truth.org

Dear Ms. Milne,

The BBC’s article on the ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa is a journalistic disgrace. The number of false claims and one-sided maneuvers is simply astounding.

Most disturbing is how the article falsely labeled Jonathan Kay and Popular Mechanics “experts,” while neglecting to quote a single one of the 2,100 engineering and architecture experts who are so critical of the official account that they are demanding a new World Trade Center investigation. In addition, the article provides links to every source it references that supports the official account of 9/11, but not a single link to a source critiquing the official account.

With regard to the poll commissioned by ReThink911 and conducted by the polling firm YouGov, the article falsely, groundlessly calls it “unscientific,” and then conveniently neglects to embed or link to the 30-second video shown to the poll respondents. It seems rather obvious the video would be of interest to your readers.

The article disrespectfully caricatures 9/11 activists by likening the group in Hamilton, Ontario to terrorists belonging to a “cell,” and the article does not mention even once the name of the ad campaign – or its website ReThink911.org.

If your goal was to mislead the public about the very serious pursuit of truth regarding the events of 9/11, congratulations, I would say you succeeded admirably – except I think most people can see through this atrocious, unabashedly one-sided “reporting.”

If you care at all about preserving the BBC’s journalistic integrity, I would suggest you make up for this horrible disservice to the public with an article that gives equal and unbiased attention to the more than 2,100 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation into the destruction of Building 7.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

NY Times Billboard to Continue through December
Finally, we are thrilled to inform you that we have extended our NY Times billboard through the end of December for an absolutely rock bottom price. Our audacious billboard continues to greet reporters and editors on the way to work everyday. Soon we will be announcing new actions to hold the NY Times accountable for its lack of coverage of Building 7. Stay tuned!

Thank you as always for your tremendous support!

Support ReThink911 with a donation today

Nov 262013
 

Following is an excerpt from an email from http://ReThink911.org :

Dear ReThink911 Supporters,
Video: ReThink911 at the Ottawa Transit Commission

I am delighted to inform you that our new campaign in Canada has already caused quite a stir in Ottawa, where it was officially announced at Wednesday’s Transit Commission meeting and then received positive coverage in Thursday’s Metro News. This exciting new video of the Transit Commission meeting provides a stunning glimpse of the impact our campaigns have had.

Nov 232013
 

Watch and Share:
“Building 7: The Story the Times Missed”

Visit ReThink911.org | Canada Campaign Details (December 2013)

Plus: ReThink911 receives positive coverage from the Metro News

The New York Times won’t talk about the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. Now it’s our job to expose them for not doing their job. Spread this video far and wide.

If you are near NYC, join us for the final day of leafleting outside the NY Times next Saturday, November 30 at 1pm. Come join the crowd and share in the activism and education.

Thank you for getting involved!

Support ReThink911 with a donation today
About ReThink911
ReThink911 is sponsored by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and Remember Building 7, a campaign by 9/11 family members to raise awareness of Building 7.

Donations are tax-deductible as allowed by codes and restrictions.

Unsubscribe or Change your email subscription preferences

Sep 072013
 

9/11 Truth: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False
By David Ray Griffin

Global Research, September 06, 2013
Gobal Research 14 September 2009
[originally published in September 2009]

At 5:21 in the afternoon of 9/11, almost seven hours after the Twin Towers had come down, Building 7 of the World Trade Center also came down. The collapse of this building was from the beginning considered a mystery. [1]

The same should have been true, to be sure, of the collapse of the Twin Towers. But they had been hit by planes, which had ignited big fires in them, and many people assumed this combination of causes to be sufficient to explain why they came down.

But WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, so it was apparently the first steel-framed high-rise building in the known universe to have collapsed because of fire alone. New York Times writer James Glanz quoted a structural engineer as saying: “[W]ithin the structural engineering community, [WTC 7] is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers],” because engineers had no answer to the question, “why did 7 come down?” [2]

From a purely scientific perspective, of course, there would have been an obvious answer. Scientists, presupposing the regularity of nature, operate on the principle that like effects generally imply like causes. Scientists are, therefore, loathe to posit unprecedented causes for common phenomena. By 9/11, the collapse of steel-framed high-rises had become a rather common phenomenon, which most Americans had seen on television. And in every one of these cases, the building had been brought down by explosives in the process known as controlled demolition. From a scientific perspective, therefore, the obvious assumption would have been that WTC 7 came down because explosives had been used to remove its steel supports.

However, the public discussion of the destruction of the World Trade Center did not occur in a scientific context, but in a highly charged political context. America had just been attacked, it was almost universally believed, by foreign terrorists who had flown hijacked planes into the Twin Towers, and in response the Bush administration had launched a “war on terror.” The idea that even one of the buildings had been brought down by explosives would have implied that the attacks had not been a surprise, so this idea could not be entertained by many minds in private, let alone in public.

This meant that people had to believe, or at least pretend to believe, that Building 7 had been brought down by fire, even though, as Glanz wrote: “[E]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.” [3] And so, this building’s collapse had to be considered a mystery – insofar as it was considered at all.

But this was not much. Although WTC 7 was a 47-story building, which in most places would have been the tallest building in the city, if not the state, it was dwarfed by the 110-story Twin Towers. It was also dwarfed by them in the ensuing media coverage. And so, Glanz wrote, the collapse of Building 7 was “a mystery that . . . would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world,” if the Twin Towers had not also come down. [4] As it was, however, the mystery of Building 7’s collapse was seldom discussed.

Read full article http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

Sep 052013
 

Why the NIST WTC Report on the Towers is False
by Kevin Ryan

This article first appeared at ReThink911.org.

The official account of the Twin Towers’ destruction was produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and released in September of 2005. Unfortunately, NIST’s report only provided a hypothesis of the events leading up to the initiation of the collapses, or the “collapse initiation sequence.” NIST did not attempt to explain how once the collapses initiated, the upper sections of these 110-story skyscrapers would continue falling downward through the path of greatest resistance, instead simply asserting that, once each building was destabilized, “global collapse ensued.” However, we can examine the general features of NIST’s collapse initiation sequence for both Twin Towers to see if it is consistent with known facts, or is at least self-consistent.

The seven steps of NIST’s collapse initiation sequence that are common to both Twin Towers are as follows:[1]

1. A number of columns were severed by aircraft impact

2. Loads were redistributed to the remaining columns

3. Fireproofing was “widely dislodged”

4. Columns and floor assemblies were softened by high temperatures

5. Softened floor assemblies began to sag

6. Sagging floors pulled the exterior columns inward, causing columns to buckle

7. Instability spread around the exterior of the building

The first two steps of this sequence are not surprising. With regard to step one, we can accept that approximately 15% of the columns were severed in each building by aircraft impact. This is quite low compared to original design claims reported in the mid-1960s by the Engineering News-Record that said the towers could lose more than 25% of their columns without having any problems. As for the second step, NIST says the loads actually decreased on some columns and increased slightly for others. Again, there is no problem here considering similar design claims that the exterior columns could withstand 2,000% increases in live load.[2]

Read full paper here

Jul 312013
 

So many people talk about the 9/11 incident, but so few talk about one glaring problem…..why did WTC 7 collapse? This is an intriguing insight into the events of that tragic day. It asks questions no one wants to ask.

Dedicated to all the innocent people who lost their lives on that tragic day which sealed America’s fate for the worse. If you think that a handful of Arabs were able to coordinate these events, please, for your own sake, do more research, think a lot more, and have less denial.

Please feel free to comment and rate this video. However, cruel and/or vulgar comments will not be tolerated and will be promptly removed. Also proselytizing (which includes purely faith-based comments, as opposed to a true scientific argument), comments unrelated to the video posted, and comments all in capital letters (which is interpreted as yelling) will also not be tolerated and will be removed. Use proper English in proper sentences. Capital words can be used for emphasis. YouTube also has automatic spell check for use when posting. Please use it. Accounts who violate these terms run the risk of being blocked. If you don’t accept these terms, then go somewhere else.

All videos posted by Sage Igmund are intended for informational, educational, and scientific purposes, and are not for profit. Please enjoy!