In a 2-1 split decision, [Aegis_v_Silverstein_COA_Opinion.pdf] a federal appeals court panel in the Second Circuit ruled that negligence didn’t cause the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, on September 11, 2001. In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Court Judge Richard Wesley stated, “One would think that, on this record, the majority, would want to hear from defendants’ experts on why 7WTC collapsed.”
World Trade Center 7 was completely destroyed in less than seven seconds. The plaintiff says “negligent design.” The Court would not look at the evidence for such – or at the evidence for the true cause of the destructionThe lawsuit involved an action brought by Con Ed, a New York City power utility company that, along with its insurers, sued the defendants – 7 World Trade Co., L.P., Silverstein Development Corp., and Silverstein Properties, Inc. – who designed, built, operated, and maintained Building 7. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ negligence had caused Building 7 to collapse, thereby destroying the electrical substation owned by Con Ed directly underneath the building.
Review of the Film by Simon Day and Commentary on the Italian Premiere by AE911Truth Staff
The DVD reviewed here is quite important for the 9/11 Truth movement generally. However, it ventures far outside the scope of AE911Truth’s mission and area of expertise. While we review, and wholeheartedly embrace, the excellent segments of the DVD that cover the World Trade Center evidence, we specifically do not endorse, or even discuss, the other three hours of material on the DVD.
Award-winning director Massimo Mazzucco commands the debate with the “debunkers” in this powerful new documentary about the 9/11 Truth Movement’s challenge to the official conspiracy theories of 9/11.In September 1997, “The Project for the New American Century,” a Washington, DC-based US think tank, was founded with the purpose of promoting US global leadership. In September 2000, they published a report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.” In this document, we find the following statement: “[T]he process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Wind the clock on another year to the devastating events of September 11th, 2001, and we have a plausible candidate for this New Pearl Harbor. This is the case made by Massimo Mazzucco in his superb new DVD, September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor. This epic production stands head and shoulders above most of the other offerings that try to span the spectrum of the events on 9/11. So what makes this one so special? For me, there are three key points to be highlighted.
The first is the quality of the presentation. Many documentaries address this complex subject, but fail to achieve a level of professionalism. In contrast, Mazzucco’s production has the sort of quality that one might see on television or in the mainstream media.
The second is the enormous depth and quality of the research that has gone into the production. Mazzucco has let out all the stops, has explored most of the angles, and provides a wealth of information. A lot of the information in the film was obtained through the efforts of various researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement via Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Key facets of the controversial issues surrounding 9/11 are presented meticulously and fairly.
The third is Mazzucco’s adherence to the principles of logic and science.
Many volunteers are modest about their accomplishments, but Jerry Carpenter was even reluctant to be interviewed for this article. “I’m not sure I deserve this recognition,” he said. The facts don’t bear this out. He is the ultimate in grassroots activists.
Not the real Jerry CarpenterJerry has been involved in the 9/11 Truth movement for several years and has volunteered for AE911Truth since 2009. He worked with Wayne Coste in drafting a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that criticized the NIST reports on 9/11.
Jerry especially enjoys his work on the Public Outreach Team. He has also worked with teams dealing with congressional outreach, cable access, college outreach, and law-enforcement outreach. His local sheriff was deeply moved by the information Jerry gave him. Team Leader Dave Slesinger says, “Jerry has helped immensely in building grassroots support. He’s called at least 1,000 people in recent years.”
Jerry didn’t realize how much he has actually accomplished. I can relate to him on this. We all have a sense of having fallen short of our goal of getting a real investigation into the events of 9/11. But he is a workhorse whose efforts have created large and obvious networks of information and inspiration – as well as innumerable unknown pathways of awareness.
To support the Rethink 9/11 campaign inexpensively, activists in Connecticut took a novel approach to doing outreach by creating homemade Rethink911 banners. Local organizer Wayne Coste, PE, said that, “One of the issues when doing outreach is how many people will see the message and how much effort it will take. Our group did not have the funds for paid advertising, so we decided to try a homemade traveling billboard. Furthermore, it could be made to be fun, and that is a definite bonus.”
Co-organizer Carl Henry Seeger said, “One of our members was able to print off a series of 11x17 color segments that could be taped together into a double-sided banner.” Put together using fourteen 11x17 color sheets. Edges were trimmed and then taped together to create a single sheetSeeger continued, “The first public showing of the homemade banner was in the 2013 Willimantic Boom Box Parade. Now this is a parade where anyone can march or enter a float and the only requirement is to wear some red, white, and blue, and bring a radio tuned to WILI (1400-AM). Because there is no "official" theme for the parade, we decided to put the banner on a trailer hauled by a bicycle.”
Editor’s Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: “Why Do Good People Become Silent – or Worse – About 9/11?” The resulting essay, being presented here as a series, is a synthesis of reports from academic research as well as clinical observations.
In answering the question in the title of this essay, last month’s segment addressed the observation that resistance to information that substantially challenges our worldview is the rule rather than the exception; the various forms of fear that underlie this resistance, our American “sacred myth”; and the observation that many of us unconsciously relate to our governmental leaders as parental figures on whom we project our (often unmet) needs for a protective parent.
Here, in Part 2, Shure expands her analysis with an anthropological study on how new ideas become accepted in societies and a look at the possibilities for acceptance of the truth about what really happened on 9/11.
Anthropologists and rural sociologists have observed that consistently within diverse cultures there can be found groups that vary in their openness to new ideas and technology—groups that fall within a neat bell curve. In each culture, a few adventurous members (only 2.5%) readily adopt innovations. These venturesome folks are called “innovators.”
Illustration 1 The opinion leaders (13.5%) come next. Called the “early adopters,” they are influential and respected members of the society. They listen to the innovators, and then, upon reflection, may change their mind-set and adopt the innovation.
The “early majority” (34%) switch after listening to the influential early adopters, and the “late majority” (also 34%) adopt the new way only because it is practical to do so. The “laggards” (the last 16%) may never change their minds.
These percentages hold for situations as disparate as the sale of a new technology from Silicon Valley to a new, paradigm-shifting idea for improving the safety of drinking water in a traditional village in Peru. It makes no difference.1
Since the beginning of September, select cities across North America have been subjected to a carefully led advertising campaign by the Rethink 9/11 movement promoting the idea that a new investigation of 9/11 is warranted.
Through the use of billboards, posters on buses and taxi top ads, the RETHINK 911 campaign has exposed millions of Americans and Canadians to the call through a simple question: “Did you know a 3rd tower fell on 9/11?”ReThink911.org
Outside of alternative media, and the internet, it has been difficult to communicate the anomalies and flaws in the official story of this incident. This mass messaging campaign is the first of its kind to get around mainstream media and the ghettoizing of 9/11 skepticism as “conspiracy theory.”
The campaign did ruffle a few feathers in Ottawa as a single complaint about this message on an Ottawa Transit bus caused civic authorities to rethink their advertising policy. The thinking was that the message was somehow an insult to 9/11 victims’ families.
In late November, 9/11 activists, including a technical expert, gave a professional presentation at the Ottawa Transit Commission. The presentation included footage of World Trade Centre 7 coming down at the speed of free fall.
Twelve years after 9/11, and almost a decade after the Keane Commission closed the books on the incident, it has become more acceptable to challenge the official story of 9/11.
ReThink911 Times Square billboardThe 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:
On November 20, members of the 911 Truth Movement asserted their right to free speech before the Transit Commission. Speaking on behalf of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Isabelle Beenen told the commissioners:
Should such an activity be blocked because some in our society are uncomfortable about the implications of this building being brought down by controlled demolition? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says “no,” our right to share this information respectfully – as we have done – is protected.