left-panel-lighter-heading
    9-11-explosive-evidence-experts-speak-out

    Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7)

    RT TV Show Interviews AE911Truth Experts About ReThink911 Campaign


    Ben Swann, formerly of Cincinnati's FOX19, questions the official story of the collapse of the World Trade Center High-rises

    Ben Swann, formerly of Cincinnati's FOX19, has to admit that World Trade Center Building 7 probably did not collapse due to normal office fires as NIST would want us to believe


    Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7)

    Architects & Engineers:
    Solving the Mystery of WTC 7
    A 15-min Documentary with Ed Asner


    9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out (4-minute trailer)

    9/11: Explosive Evidence -
    Experts Speak Out - Trailer
    Duration: 4:09


    9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out (58 minute free version)

    9/11: Explosive Evidence
    Experts Speak Out
    Free 1-hour version


    FOX TV, Fresno, with Richard Gage, AIA

    FOX TV, Fresno,
    with Richard Gage, AIA


    CBC the fifth estate unofficial story

    CBC - The Fifth Estate
    "The Unofficial Story"


    The Reality Report with Richard Gage

    The Reality Report
    with Richard Gage, AIA


    CCTV, with Richard Gage, AIA

    CCTV,
    with Richard Gage, AIA


    FOX News with Richard Gage, AIA

    FOX News
    with Richard Gage, AIA


    Vancouver Omni TV,
    with Richard Gage, AIA


    Richard Gage Live on TV3 - The Masterplan Event

    Richard Gage Live on TV3 - The Masterplan Event


    Read it at AE911Truth.org
    New Award-Winning Documentary Exposes Taboo, Challenges Intellectuals to Face Discomforting 9/11 Facts
    Print
    E-mail
    Written by Gregg Roberts   
    Saturday, 28 December 2013 22:42

     

    Film Review: 9/11 in the Academic Community

    911 academic comm film poster lg9/11 in the Academic Community is more watchable than most “9/11 truth” filmsThe exciting new documentary whose upcoming release we announced in a September 8 article is now here. 9/11 in the Academic Community was released for purchase on October 8, after having won an award for “Documentary Achievement” at the University of Toronto Film Festival earlier this year. At a manageable running time of 75 minutes, with a title designed to appeal to its target audience, and by avoiding hot-button phrases such as “9/11 Truth,” the film has an excellent chance of slipping out of the conspiracy theorist jacket and making inroads into the American and Canadian intellectual communities.

    This is certainly a film that needed to be made. With few exceptions, there has been a deafening silence in the classrooms of North American campuses regarding many obvious and undeniable facts that undermine the official account of 9/11. If the faculty and students at institutions of higher learning cannot question and even contradict what we have been told by media and government about the “crime of the century” without being called “conspiracy theorists,” then what has become of the academic community? Those who wrote the U.S. Constitution and defeated the British Empire’s dominion over the American colonies well understood that the spirit of free inquiry and an understanding of history were key to a properly functioning democratic republic. Even with those freedoms and values, Benjamin Franklin famously predicted that it would be difficult for us to “keep it.” Nothing less is at stake with regard to the issues covered in this film.

    9/11 in the Academic Community is more watchable than most “9/11 truth” films. One of its biggest strengths is that all of its speakers express criticisms of the way that the 9/11 account was advanced and how it’s been treated in the 12 years since then – mostly without sounding angry.

    Read more...
     
    Two More Calls to C-SPAN…Two More Members of Congress…
    Print
    E-mail
    Written by AE911Truth Staff   
    Saturday, 28 December 2013 18:42

     

    Representatives Express Willingness to Look at the Evidence

    For several months supporters of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have been dialing into C-SPAN's morning call-in show, Washington Journal, to confront members of Congress, the media, and others with the scientific evidence proving that pre-planted explosives brought down the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11. Some callers have implored legislators to support a new investigation into the complete, rapid destruction of all three modern steel skyscrapers.

    degetteRep. Diana Degette, (D-CO)On October 20, 2013, Diana Degette, (D-CO), appeared as a guest on the morning show. Questioning Congress's credibility, a caller asked:

    "My question is concerning credibility of Congress in all of this. What credibility does Congress have left to govern with when basic physics have already proven that Building 7, World Trade Center 7, was brought down by explosives on 9/11, and the majority of Congressmen are willingly ignorant of this fact or can only offer rehearsed outrage in response to direct questions about this evidence?"

    Degette replied:

    Read more...
     
    Divided Federal Appeals Court Panel Rules: Negligence Did Not Cause Building 7’s Collapse; Dissenting Judge Asks, ‘What Did?’
    Print
    E-mail
    Written by Dennis P. McMahon, Esq, Gregg Roberts   
    Thursday, 26 December 2013 21:14

    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.”

    WTC7 Filmstrip 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.

    Read more...
     
    September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor
    Print
    E-mail
    Written by AE911Truth Staff   
    Thursday, 19 December 2013 14:04

    A DVD by Massimo Mazzucco

    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.

    The New Pearl HarborAward-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.

    Read more...
     
    Volunteer Spotlight: The King of AE911Truth Telephone Activism – Jerry Carpenter
    Print
    E-mail
    Written by Dick Scar, BSAE   
    Wednesday, 18 December 2013 22:38

    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 carpenterNot 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.

    Read more...
     
    Educating the Public about the WTC Evidence on a “Paper-Thin” Budget
    Print
    E-mail
    Written by AE911Truth Staff   
    Wednesday, 18 December 2013 20:34

    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.”
    ReThink banner pagesPut 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.”  

    Read more...
     
    Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?
    Print
    E-mail
    Written by Frances T. Shure   
    Tuesday, 17 December 2013 18:39

    Part 2: Diffusion of Innovations

    © by Frances T. Shure, 2013

    911-experts-shureFrances Shure, M.A., L.P.C.

    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.”

    idea adoption curveIllustration 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

    Read more...
     
    << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>