Sep 142021
 

https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/12/watch-covid19-11-elizabeth-woodworth/

COVID19/11: Narratives Intertwined is OffG’s new series of short interviews with prominent voices in the alternate media, vocal Covid sceptics and leading figures in the 9/11 truth movement.

The series is intended to both mark the 20th anniversary of the World Trade Center collapse, and discuss how that event helped shape the modern world and, in turn, set the stage for the Covid “pandemic”.

Episode Six of Narratives Intertwined features Elizabeth Woodworth, author and former chief medical librarian for British Colombia.

Elizabeth is author of several articles and books, including 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation (with Dr David Ray Griffin) and Unprecedented Crime: Climate Change Denial and Game Changers for Survival (with Dr Peter Carter).

In her interview she discusses how she woke up to the reality of 9/11 and how potential treatments for Covid19 were discredited in order to force through the emergency use authorization of the Covid mRNA “vaccines”.

You can follow Elizabeth on twitter here and read her article on hyrdoxychloroquine here. Her book 9/11 Unmasked was reviewed by several of our authors [1–2–3] and became the subject of a censorship campaign from Amazon.

Sep 122021
 

By Ted Walter

Even the respected and dauntless filmmaker Spike Lee could not overcome the awesome wrath of the mainstream media that comes down upon any person of influence who dares challenge the official story of 9/11.

In a span of three days, from August 23rd to 26th, Lee went from staunchly defending his decision to include so-called “9/11 conspiracy theorists” in his eight-hour HBO docuseries, NYC Epicenters 9/11 → 2021½, to removing the entire 30 minutes he had devoted to questioning how the Twin Towers and Building 7 fell. The half-hour was part of the final two-hour episode set to air on the night of the 20th anniversary of 9/11.

Unbeknownst to most people — because only members of the media got to view the episode and declare it unfit for the public to see — the 30 minutes of excised material included far more than just interviews with so-called “fringe architects.” (Actually, there were upwards of 10 architects and engineers, ranging from a San Francisco high-rise architect to a fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.) There were also interviews with 9/11 family members who believe they have not been told the truth about the murder of their loved ones and with first responders and survivors who witnessed explosions. Along with all those interviews was a wealth of archival footage and radio dispatches from that morning, in which rescuer after rescuer can be heard reporting explosions. (Full disclosure: I was also interviewed for the film.)

Instead of painting a full and accurate picture of the now-excised section, the media seized upon the inclusion of “conspiracy group” Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and our founder Richard Gage — who, in the words of Slate editor Jeremy Stahl, “is responsible for peddling some of the most pernicious and long-running lies about the 9/11 attacks.”

Read more here

Sep 112021
 

9/11 after 20 Years
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, September 10, 2021

Time goes by. It has been 20 years since three World Trade Center skyscrapers designed to withstand airliner collision were destroyed. Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition as its collapse at free fall acceleration proves conclusively. The destruction of the twin towers was accompanied by a series of explosions, and these buildings also fell into their own footprints at essentially free fall acceleration. The US government’s official coverup story has been totally demolished by authors such as David Ray Griffin, by scholarly conferences, university investigations, expert reports, and by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

The great mass of evidence that has been accumulated proves that the official narrative is false, but it doesn’t say who was responsible for the attack. Some, such as Ron Unz, Laurent Guyenot, and Chris Bollyn, have noted the Israeli Connection, but the focus has been on the total implausibility of the official narrative, not on the who and why of the attack.
https://magnetrack.klangoo.com/v1.1/track.ashx?e=AP_RA_CLK&p=5755387&d=5496033&c=c787d455-1fd6-444b-abe0-3f9cf6dff8ef&u=39e87f6f-8222-4a31-ad57-f8c4f0cc1ee2&l=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2F911-after-20-years%2F5755387&redir=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Fpresident-vladimir-putin-who-armed-the-terrorists-in-syria-who-created-the-islamic-state-isis%2F5496033%3Futm_campaign%3Dmagnet%26utm_source%3Darticle_page%26utm_medium%3Drelated_articles

Circumstantial evidence suggests that 9/11 was a scheme of George W. Bush regime neoconservative officials allied with vice president Dick Cheney and Israel to create a “new Pearl Harbor” that would generate support on the part of the American people and Washington’s European allies for a Middle Eastern “war on terror” whose real purpose was to destroy Israel’s enemies in the interest of Greater Israel. Commentary Magazine editor Norman Podhoretz had called for such a war, and General Wesley Clark reported that he was informed of Pentagon war plans to that effect.

This is the most plausible explanation, but, if true, it is not one that the US and Israeli governments would ever acknowledge. Consequently, we are stuck with an official explanation long championed by the presstitutes that no one believes. In addition to the human casualties of the 9/11 attack, we can list the credibility of the US government and the US media.

I wrote many columns about 9/11 and reviewed the careful work of those proving the counterfactual and implausible nature of the official account. Over the two decades, I wrote anniversary articles.

Here is the one on the 11th Anniversary.
What gave the utter implausibility of the official narrative away to everyone who has ever served in a high government office is the fact that “the world’s only superpower” suffered the most embarrassing defeat at the hands of a few Saudis armed only with box cutters, and there was no outcry for an investigation how the entirety of an annual trillion dollar military/security complex totally failed, every single part of it.

Never in world history had a superpower experienced such a total defeat, and there was no outcry from the White House, Congress, the Pentagon, the media for an investigation. Indeed, there was active resistance to any investigation. People too stupid to see what this means are too stupid to justify their existence.

Sep 112021
 

A tribute to Ed Asner who died 30 August

To much of the world, Ed Asner was a beloved actor. To those dedicated to exposing the truth about 9/11, he was a courageous activist who stood up for what he believed in without concern for whether it might hurt his career.

Asner died Sunday at his home in Tarzana, California. He was 91.

A longtime supporter of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Asner appeared in two of the organization’s films, hosting Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 in 2011 and narrating the organization’s most recent documentary, SEVEN, in 2020. He also served on the board of directors of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry.

As an actor, Asner was equally at home playing comedy or drama. In fact, his most iconic character, Lou Grant, started on The Mary Tyler Moore Show, a comedy, and moved to an hour-long drama called Lou Grant. In recent years, Asner was known for guest appearances in shows like The Good Wife and Dead to Me while appearing in films like Elf and Up.

Perhaps his darkest role was that of ruthless anti-Communist and retired FBI agent Guy Banister in Oliver Stone’s JFK. New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, whose investigation the film is based on, alleged that Banister was working for the CIA and that he played a role in JFK’s assassination.

In all, Asner had more than 400 movie and television appearances.

A longtime unionist, Asner served as president of the Screen Actors Guild from 1981 to 1985 and was a central figure in the 1980 SAG strike. He was outspoken about many issues, including denouncing U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s.

Asner always maintained that it was his political activism and not ratings that was responsible for the cancellation of Lou Grant in 1982.

In 2017, his book The Grouchy Historian: An Old-Time Lefty Defends Our Constitution Against Right-Wing Hypocrites And Nutjobs was published.

Whether through his art or his activism, Asner spent a lifetime trying to make the world a better and fairer place. We at AE911Truth are inspired by his unwavering dedication to the cause of 9/11 Truth, and we will always be grateful for his important contribution to the ongoing work we all care about so much.

Sep 052021
 

Philip Kraske’s article of September 4, 2021 in The Unz Review…

It seems that there are to be no dissenting voices on the twentieth anniversary of 9-11. Even film director Spike Lee was forced by media outcry to edit out of his documentary mini-series the half-hour dedicated to skeptics of the official version of the event. Thus the citizenry has been saved from “a bog of heinously dangerous ideas.”

Read on:
https://www.unz.com/article/why-do-journalists-hate-9-11-truthers/

 Posted by at 9:45 pm
Sep 032021
 

On the eve of the 20th anniversary of September 11, 2001, AE911Truth will hold a free online preview of its new film by Dylan Avery, The Unspeakable.

The screening will begin at 8:00 PM Eastern. Afterwards, longtime 9/11 Truth advocate Rosie O’Donnell will host a Q&A with three of the film’s protagonists: 9/11 family members Bob McIlvaine and Drew DePalma and architect Bill Brinnier. They will be joined by 9/11 family member Michele Little.

The film will be released on YouTube one week later — Friday, September 17 — and will play at the Village East in New York City September 17–23.

Bob McIlvaine, Drew DePalma, and Bill Brinnier were all slated to appear in a 30-minute section of the final episode of Spike Lee’s HBO docuseries, NYC Epicenters 9/11 → 2021 ½, which airs on the night of September 11th. The entire section was excised from the film amid a wave of media backlash calling for it to be censored.

The Unspeakable — whose title could not be any timelier — will give these courageous individuals a voice on the 20th anniversary of the death their loved ones, allowing viewers everywhere to hear their stories.

We invite you to attend this special screening on the eve of the 20th anniversary and to stay for what promises to be an illuminating Q&A. Visit AE911Truth.org at 8:00 PM EDT on September 10, 2021

More here

Sep 032021
 

Sep 012021
 
Global Research, September 01, 2021

As I write, 9/11 truth attorneys have appealed a dismissal by a Manhattan judge who, days ago, denied standing to plaintiffs who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The surviving family members seek to present evidence before a Grand Jury that explosives were used to destroy the World Trade Center.

The 9/11 attorneys and the structural engineers who stand behind them are prepared to prove in court that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency tasked to investigate the collapse of Building Seven (WTC-7), covered up the controlled demolition of the building. Assuming a discovery process happens in a courtroom, anything is possible. The truth may emerge. The question is: will the 9/11 attorneys be granted due process under the US Constitution to introduce the evidence? 

Some of this evidence came to light recently during an independent assessment of NIST’s final report on WTC-7 by a team of engineers at the University of Alaska. 

While visiting Fairbanks in August 2018, I was fortunate to meet the team’s lead engineer, professor Leroy Hulsey. At that time, the team was nearing completion of its work. As we chatted over coffee, Dr Hulsey explained that his engineers ruled out fire as the cause of the WTC-7 collapse early in their investigation. NIST had argued in its report that building fires on the lower floors weakened a critical column (#79) in the northeastern portion of the building, causing it to fail. This allegedly caused two nearby columns (#80 and #81) to fail, setting in motion a “progressive collapse.”

Hulsey’s team found, however, that NIST misrepresented key structural details of WTC-7, invalidating its fire-induced collapse model.

I asked Dr Hulsey if he had access to the original blueprints. He replied that his team had something better, namely, the actual construction records and diagrams. These tell the full story because contractors do not always follow blueprints exactly during construction. Modifications are common.

When Hulsey’s team incorporated the actual structural details of WTC-7 in a computer model and ran simulations of NIST’s collapse scenario, the building did not collapse. The tower withstood the loss of three major columns due to the steel-frame’s redundant strength. The loads were simply transferred to other columns.

His engineers then ran more simulations, each time subtracting another column until they induced a collapse. However, instead of collapsing in the manner that was observed on 9/11, the building tipped over to the southeast. Numerous videos taken from different angles show that the 47-story steel frame tower dropped straight down into its footprint.

After repeated trials, Hulsey’s team concluded that NIST’s progressive collapse scenario was not feasible. At this point, they began exploring other collapse scenarios in an attempt to duplicate the actual event captured on film. There was only one match: the simultaneous failure of every core column, followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of every perimeter column. The pattern should be recognizable because this is the standard sequence employed in controlled demolitions.

Free Fall

The excellent work done by Hulsey’s team reinforces the case for explosives, which was already compelling by 2008. In August of that year, the public was allowed to comment on NIST’s WTC-7 draft report at an open hearing. A physics teacher named David Chandler took advantage of the occasion and asked probing questions that proved so embarrassing that NIST was compelled to modify the language in its final report, released shortly thereafter. In it NIST concedes that WTC-7 dropped in a free fall acceleration. It was a damning admission because the agency had previously acknowledged that free fall is the signature of a controlled demolition.

As we know, Building Seven housed the CIA, the Department of Defense, major securities traders, and the offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), where the records of many ongoing SEC investigations into corporate crime were stored, including Enron. All of these records were destroyed on 9/11. The SEC subsequently tabled all of these criminal investigations, which turned out to be very convenient (and profitable) for corporate America.

NIST claims it never found evidence of explosives at the World Trade Center (WTC). The reason, of course, is because the agency never looked, even though this is a standard protocol after large building fires, not to mention the worst terrorist attack in US history.

Independent scientists did look. In 2007, a physicist from Brigham Young University, Dr Steven Jones, reported the discovery of tiny flakes of unexploded thermate in WTC dust samples collected immediately after 9/11.

Thermate differs from its cousin thermite in that it contains elemental sulfur, which has the effect of greatly lowering the melting point of iron. Thermite is composed of iron-oxide and aluminum and is occasionally used in demolition work. Sulfur is sometimes added to speed up the reaction. Jones also found an abundance of tiny iron-rich microspheres in the dust, hard evidence that steel had melted. Other researchers also reported finding microspheres.

The announced discovery of thermate in the WTC dust should have been headline news nation-wide. Yet, there was no mention of it in the New York Times or Washington Post. And the rest of the US media followed their silent “lead.”

Jones continued to study the WTC dust and later co-authored a more detailed paper with Niels Harrit, a Danish chemist, and other scientists. Their peer-reviewed article appeared in an online science journal in 2009. To this day, it has never been rebutted.

The authors identified the constituents of the tiny flakes and found them to be thermitic in nature. The grains of iron-oxide were extremely small, roughly 100 nanometers across, indicating the use of the more explosive form of thermite known as nano-thermite or super-thermite. When the authors ignited the flakes, they found they were more energetic than conventional explosives. These reactions also produced iron-rich microspheres like those found in the WTC dust. 

Nano-thermite was developed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and was available by April 2000, seventeen months before 9/11.

But nano-thermite and thermate were probably not the only explosives used to bring down the towers. The box columns that supported World Trade Center One and Two were seven inches thick at the base (as reported by NIST). And many of these massive core columns had been severed at or near ground level. In the years after 9/11, a debate raged within the 9/11 truth community about what kind of additional explosives had been used. Many believed thermate/thermite could not reliably have done the job on the gigantic columns.

The powerful blasts that destroyed the core columns just before each tower fell shook Manhattan. The explosions caused a cloud of dust to rise from street level; this was captured on film. And the stupendous noise of the explosions was heard and felt by many thousands of New Yorkers (and recorded) at least as far away as Hoboken, on the west shore of the Hudson River. Yet, all of the eyewitness accounts were dismissed as the wild ravings of conspiracy kooks.

These tremendous explosions no doubt also help to explain the large quantities of molten steel found beneath the WTC ruin. The heat must have been incredible, because, in the days after the attacks, New York City fire fighters pumped millions of gallons of water onto the smoking piles, to no effect. Dogs brought in by first responders to help locate survivors in the wreckage suffered serious burns, and some of the dogs died. Workers on site said their rubber boots melted. Clean up crews were still reporting molten steel as late as February 2002.

Building fires and burning jet fuel cannot explain the iron microspheres and molten steel. Not even close.

An air quality study produced additional evidence. After the attacks, a University of California (Davis) physicist, Dr Thomas Cahill, brought a team to New York and set up air monitoring stations across lower Manhattan. Cahill’s team documented the most toxic air he had ever seen over the course of his long career. In his write up Cahill mentions an anomaly he could not explain: an abundance of nano-sized particles spewing from the WTC ruin. Ordinary building fires do not produce large quantities of nano particulates, which are evidence of extreme temperatures.

After analyzing the data, Cahill issued a dire health warning. Nano particles of glass, chemicals and heavy metals easily infiltrate the human body. They damage the heart and other organs, and even cross the blood brain barrier. Cahill predicted a continuing health crisis for local residents and for clean-up workers, many of whom did not wear protective masks because they were told the air was safe to breathe. In subsequent years, thousands of first responders, firemen, and construction workers suffered life threatening leukemias, other cancers, as well as ischemic heart and lung disease. Many more Americans died as a result of the toxic fumes than perished in the attacks.

Although the evidence I have summarized is legally conclusive, I am in contact with a physicist who has gone even further. He has attempted to arrange for materials scientists to conduct radio-isotopic studies of WTC steel samples. Unfortunately, so far, none of the labs in Europe or Japan have agreed to run the definitive tests, probably because they were warned off by US officials.

Stay tuned. 9/11 attorneys intend to pursue this historic case all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. In the coming days, Americans will learn if the US judicial system is capable of delivering justice to the families of the victims. Only the truth about the 9/11 attacks can heal our nation.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Mark H. Gaffney is the author of two books about the September 11, 2001 attacks: The 9/11 Mystery Plane (2008) and Black 9/11 (2nd edition, 2016). Mark can be reached for comment at markhgaffney@earthlink.net

Aug 152021
 

20 Years Ago, Prior to 9/11: US Preparations for the Invasion of Afghanistan

The Bush administration was planning its invasion of Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks

By Shane Quinn
Global Research, August 06, 2021

As George W. Bush entered the White House on 20 January 2001, having been granted a controversial election victory, his cabinet swiftly drew up a particularly hawkish foreign policy program. This included identifying a number of strategically important states to gain full ascendancy over, through military attack if needs be, and among the first countries selected for invasion was Afghanistan.

Due to America’s declining oil and natural gas stocks, the top priority for president Bush was to increase US influence over rich fossil fuel sources, constructing pipelines, refineries and other such infrastructure.

Contrary to what numerous mainstream outlets have claimed over the past two decades, the Bush administration was planning its invasion of Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks on America, which were then used as a pretext for armed intervention. Niaz Naik, Pakistan’s experienced former foreign secretary, has provided testimony on this.

Naik informed the BBC a week after 9/11 how he was told by senior US officials, in mid-July 2001, that Washington was preparing military action against Afghanistan (1). Naik was informed by the Americans that their invasion of Afghanistan would begin, at the latest, in the middle of October 2001, before the first Afghan snow flurries arrived. The US Armed Forces would launch their attack from bases in Tajikistan, the Central Asian country, which borders Afghanistan to the north. US advisers were present in Tajikistan by the summer of 2001.

Consequently, Bush was planning to wage a war in Afghanistan at least 8 weeks prior to the 9/11 atrocities, and indeed most probably longer than that. Naik’s comments are supported by General Hamid Gul, the former head of ISI, Pakistan’s leading intelligence agency. General Gul believed that US plans to engage militarily in Afghanistan “predated 9/11” (2). It is not terribly surprising that he came to such a conclusion. The 9/11 attacks obviously occurred on 11 September 2001, while the US-led invasion of Afghanistan commenced on 7 October 2001 – that is 26 days after 9/11.

It is not possible to prepare and initiate a large-scale military assault in less than 4 weeks, especially against a country on the other side of the world. As any commander would surely admit the planning alone takes months, before the offensive can begin.

World Trade CentreUS drones, such as the RQ-1 Predator, were hovering above the Afghan skies before 9/11. These unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were partaking in reconnaissance sorties, and collecting other information about Afghanistan, in preparation for the invasion. A US military operation in Afghanistan was not concerned with either “combating terrorists” or capturing Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda chief. President Bush said 5 months after the offensive had begun on 13 March 2002, “I am truly not that concerned about him [Bin Laden]”. The authenticity of this remark was confirmed by White House transcripts. (3)

Read more here

Aug 142021
 

The 9/11 Truth Film Festival Will Be LIVE STREAMED on
Thursday, September 9, 2021 at:
2pm Pacific * 5pm Eastern * 21:00 GMT
(8 hours duration)

The entire event will be archived for 7 days afterwards so you can arrive late or watch it later or again.

PLEASE DONATE for a LIVE STREAM Ticket — $20 suggested. Any size ok.
Donate more if you can. Your donation is tax deductible.

See more information here