(video) The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later, A Citizens’ Response: Did the Commission Get it Right?

This is the video documentation of this historic event in FOUR parts. Speakers included Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, victim family members Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg, John Judge, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Mel Goodman, John Newman, Marilyn Rosenthal, Peter Dale Scott, Michael Ruppert, Ray McGovern, among others. We regret to say that we have not preserved the very beginning of these events which includes an introduction by Congresswoman McKinney and the beginning of Lorie Van Auken’s speech. Fortunately, we have a written transcript which can be found here.


[Read more…]

Question: What Hit the Pentagon?

source: Journal of 9/11 Studies
dateline: July 31, 2009

Answer: a) Nothing should have b) Show us the tapes c) All of the above

by Dr. Frank Legge, Ph.D.

The position I hold is simple. In answer to the question “What hit the Pentagon?” I say I don’t know and attempt to turn the discussion to the more fundamental question “Why was the Pentagon hit?”. It should not have been. It should have been well defended. Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was the third plane hijacked, so there was ample time to confirm that real hijackings were taking place, not a war game, and ample time to send up fighters to intercept, as is the normal procedure. One presumes that there were also anti-aircraft defenses round the Pentagon, as it is the hub of the military machine.

Important to this debate is the video testimony of the Secretary for Transportation, Norman Mineta, to the 9/11 Commission. He came into the bunker under the White House and saw that the Vice President, Dick Cheney, was already there. A young man came in and said to Cheney “The plane is 50 miles out”, then he came in again and said “The plane is thirty miles out”, and when it got down to 10 miles out the young man also said “Does the order still stand?” and Cheney angrily confirmed that it did. Shortly after this something dramatic happened at the Pentagon. There is little doubt that Cheney had it in his hand to shoot down this plane but had a reason not to do so.

There is also little doubt that those who were following this object on radar did not think it was anything other than a plane. Its speed alone would have indicated that it could not have been a missile. It is also worth noting that Cheney lied to the 9/11 Commission, denying that he was in the bunker at this time. This is grounds for a fresh investigation by itself.

There are now several theories about what hit the Pentagon. One is the official story, that a 757 approached at a low angle, striking light poles, then struck the Pentagon. Many eye witnesses confirm this path. The outer masonry wall was destroyed to an extent sufficient to allow the heavy parts of the plane to enter and slide into the Pentagon at ground level, between the supporting steel-reinforced columns, many of which were bent and broken. The trail of damage was in line with the damaged light poles. The lighter parts that failed to penetrate the wall would have been fragmented by the high velocity impact.

The early alternative theory was that a missile hit the Pentagon. This concept apparently originated from observation of the small circular hole in the inner wall.

Finally we have a theory based on a flight data recording which came into the hands of the 9/11 truth movement. Calum Douglas gave the first presentation on this at Ipswich, as will be discussed below. This flight data describes a path which is too high and at the wrong angle to have produced the observed damage. Claims have been made that several eye witnesses support this path.

There has been heated debate about what hit the Pentagon. At first glance it appears that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon because there appeared to be too little debris, and too little damage at the impact site. It is very attractive to find evidence to support these claims because, if true, it would prove once and for all that the official story is a pack of lies, and many people have tried very hard to do so. However if you look at the evidence carefully you will find that it cannot be conclusively proved that no 757 hit the Pentagon. This doesn’t matter in the overall 9/11 analysis, however, because there is ample evidence that explosives were used at the World Trade Centre, and that is sufficient to prove that the official story is false and that the NIST report is nothing more than an artful cover-up. The first thorough scientific exposition of the evidence for explosive demolition was that of Professor Steven Jones in 2006. An updated version is here. A summary of some of the scientific milestones in the development of the explosive demolition theory is presented here.

[Read more…]

(pdf) “Secret Bush Memos” Regarding Warrantless Spying/Seizure Released by Obama

source: Huffington Post

Below are previously inaccessible memos written by Bush administration officials outlining their reasons for why the military had the right to warrantless wiretaps and warrantless search and seizures of people in the U.S. they deemed to be terrorist suspects. The Obama administration released the memos. Read them below.



memostatusolcopinions01152009Free Legal Forms

More on Next Page:

[Read more…]

(pdf) FBI Acknowledges Thorough Research and Analysis of AE911Truth

FBI Acknowledges Thorough Research and Analysis of AE911Truth

Michael J. Heimbach, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, FBI

The FBI’s Michael J. Heimbach, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, says: “Mr. Gage presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis.”

Click here to see the letter from Assistant Director Heimbach to Harold Saive of the Florida-based gators911truth.org.

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites by Kevin Ryan

Journal of 9/11 Studies | Published on 07-02-08

MUST READ DOCUMENT!

(excerpt)

Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC, it is strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility. In fact, when reading NIST’s reports on the WTC, and its periodic responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no one in the NIST organization had never heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and in some cases expertise in, this exact technology.

DOWNLOAD: The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites (Kevin Ryan)

(pdf) The Neo-Con Manifesto; Rebuilding America’s Defenses

 

pnac.jpg

 

“…the 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.”

Project for the New American Century
Rebuilding America’s Defenses, p. 51

Download this must read document released just one short year before the tragic events of September 11th.

(pdf) EPA World Trade Center Report Documents the Lies About the Deadly 9-11 Dust

One week after September 11th, Christie Todd Whitman stated that, Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington D.C., that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink.”, even as the EPA had information to the contrary.

In fact, the 9-11 dust was extremely caustic and in August of 2003, the EPA issued a report showing the changes the Bush administration made to the initial cautionary statements which were originally meant to warn the public of the dangers in the dust. These warnings were changed to reassurances and the public never heard the truth.

These lies have resulted in thousands of people getting sick from breathing the toxic dust, and now, over 5 years later, they are dying. If you think our own government isn’t capable of deliberately killing its’ own citizens, think again.

As reported by CBS, click here.

Listen to the Special Report on the deadly 9-11 dust and the cover-up produced for Visibility 9-11 here.

To download the EPA WTC Report click here.

NIST Response to Request for Correction – 092707

DOWNLOAD: NIST Response to Request for Correction, 09/27/07

October 6, 2005: NIST Refuses to Show Computer Visualizations of WTC Collapses

The British publication New Civil Engineer reports that, despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, WTC collapse investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are refusing to show computer visualizations of the Twin Towers’ collapses. Despite having shown detailed computer generated visualizations of the plane impacts and the development of fires in the WTC at a recent conference, it showed no visualizations of the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers. Colin Bailey, a professor of structural engineering at the University of Manchester, complains, “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost.” A leading US structural engineer says that NIST’s “global structural model” is less sophisticated than its plane impact and fire models: “The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls.” [New Civil Engineer, 10/6/2005]

September 27, 2007: NIST Says It Cannot Explain the Total Collapse of the World Trade Center

In a reply to criticisms of its World Trade Center investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) admits that it is unable to fully explain the total collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11. NIST’s letter is a response to a “request for correction” letter sent to it five months earlier by Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, who both lost family members on 9/11, along with scientists Kevin Ryan and Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. This letter made several assertions about NIST’s final reports of its WTC investigation, and suggested they had violated the Data Quality Act and NIST’s information quality standards. NIST’s reply denies the requests for corrections. However, it also mentions, “[W]e are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” of the World Trade Center. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/27/2007 ] In its final report on the Twin Towers collapses, released in October 2005, NIST admitted that its investigation did “not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable” (see October 26, 2005). [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 82 ]

November 20, 2008: NIST Releases Final Report on WTC 7 Collapse, Repeats Conclusions of Earlier Draft Report

NIST’s ‘Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.’ [Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology.]The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) releases the final report of its three-year investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, the 47-story skyscraper which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001). This is the completed version of the report, and comes three months after a draft version was released for public comment (see August 21, 2008). NIST states that the new report “is strengthened by clarifications and supplemental text suggested by organizations and individuals worldwide in response to the draft WTC 7 report.” NIST conducted an additional computer analysis in response to comments from the building community, and made several minor amendments to the report. But, it says, “the revisions did not alter the investigation team’s major findings and recommendations, which include identification of fire as the primary cause for the building’s failure.” With the release of this report, NIST has completed its six-year investigation of the World Trade Center collapses, which it commenced in August 2002 (see August 21, 2002). The final report of its investigation of the Twin Towers’ collapses was published in October 2005 (see October 26, 2005). [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 11/20/2008; Occupational Health and Safety, 11/25/2008]

Sunder on What Controlled Demolition Looks Like

(pdf) Flier Download: V for Visibility

8.5 x 11 Black & White

(DOWNLOAD PDF)

 

(pdf) The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers

DOWNLOAD: The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers

Your Support Needed to Keep This Website and Podcast Available

Despite the fact that I have retired from producing the podcast, I still receive 4-6000 downloads a month from people who are still finding this information useful.  Current stats show that the podcast has received almost 1.25 million downloads and I still get emails from listeners on a monthly basis thanking me for making this information available.  My goal is to keep these podcasts available long past my time here on earth, however, I need your help.  Please consider making a donation to keep this website and podcast archives of Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey available.