матрациOn Sunday afternoon, March 6th, at the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado, Colorado 9/11 Visibility hosted a debate between Richard Gage, AIA (American Institute of Architects), and Chris Mohr, Denver investigative journalist and nondenominational minister. This is the audo of that historic debate.
The question: What brought down the three World Trade Center skyscrapers?
Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He has been an architect for over 23 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. His quest for the truth about 9/11 began in 2006, and he subsequently founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Chris Mohr, investigative journalist and advocate of the “natural collapse” theory, is a sincere seeker of the truth who has extensively researched the collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings, consulted with independent physicists and engineers, and passionately argues that the buildings collapsed due to the plane impacts and fires.
In November 2010 at Denver’s Mercury Café, Mohr debated attorney Earl Staelin on the collapse of the twin towers. This debate was unprecedented in its civility and professionalism.
During this debate between Chris Mohr and Richard Gage, the discussion explored not only the collapse of the twin towers, but also that of 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed completely at 5:21 pm on 9/11/01. For those of you not familiar with the collapse of WTC7, this is a riveting, don’t-miss controversy. We look forward to a dynamic, respectful, and thoroughly informative exploration of these topics.
Special thanks to Colorado 9-11 Visibility and all the volunteers and donors that made this event possible.
To listen to the debate, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.
Colorado 9/11 Visibility.org, Colorado Citizens Concerned Over What Really Happened on September 11, 2001
From the iStockAnalyst website.
DENVER, March 4, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Colorado citizens are among the nation’s leaders in pursuing the growing questions of what really happened on September 11, 2001.
Two developments are of particular interest:
1) On Sunday March 6, 2011, Colorado citizens will sponsor a debate at the University of Colorado at Boulder exploring the question, “What brought down the three World Trade Center Towers?”
At 5:00 PM, Richard Gage, AIA, a 23-year architect and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, squares off with Chris Mohr, a Denver investigative journalist. See http://colorado911visibility.org/ for event details.
2) On May 20 last year, the Colorado Democratic Party (CDP) adopted its 2010 Platform (http://coloradodems.org/docs/2010PlatformWeb.pdf) that includes a resolution calling for a new, independent investigation of the events of, and related to, September 11, 2001:
“WHEREAS many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future.”
Colorado citizens, some of whom are signatories to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition (http://www.ae911truth.org) which calls for a new forensic investigation into the events of September 11th, raised the issue for adoption at their respective precinct caucuses and county assemblies. The state platform committee then discussed, finalized and voted on the resolution and forwarded it, along with many other proposed positions, for adoption by the state party.
For supporting evidence and analysis, see:
Building What? (http://www.BuildingWhat.org)
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911Truth.org)
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (http://stj911.org)
The Journal for 9/11 Studies (http://stj911.org/journal.html)
911 Press For Truth (http://www.911PressForTruth.com)
911 Truth (http://www.911Truth.org)
911 Research WTC 7 (http://www.911Research.wtc7.net)
911 Review (http://www.911Review.com)
Hundreds of high-level military and intelligence officers, government officials, pilots and aviation professionals, scientists, journalists, 9/11 survivors and family members have called for a new independent investigation of the events surrounding 9/11. Their collected statements at Patriots Question 911 (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com) give weight and credibility to the call for a new, independent investigation.
Colorado 9/11 Visibility (http://www.Colorado911Visibility.org)
2010 Colorado Democratic Party Platform (http://coloradodems.org/docs/2010PlatformWeb.pdf)
SOURCE Colorado 9/11 Visibility.org
(Source: PR Newswire )
New Paper at the Journal “Why Australia’s Presence in Afghanistan is Untenable” An Exceptional Historical Piece!
Review by John Bursill
US President Barack Obama, 1 December 2009 “I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11…….It is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3000 people.”
From the essays Introduction “This article will suggest that the official rationale for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is false. It involves a rewriting and/or ignoring of history on the part of the participants. It shows the same cavalier disregard for international law that was apparent in Iraq. It accepts without question the validity of the two premises argued by Obama in the above quote. Perhaps most disturbingly it persistently fails to address the reality of the present policies and their likely true intention.”
Lawyer James O’Neill
In this outstanding historical analogy of the Afghan situation author and Lawyer Australian James O’Neill presents a story that the Australian and worlds population have been denied. O’Neill in this cutting and well documented essay makes a mockery of our current state of democracy in Australia; where neither the media, or the politicians of the major parties have attempted to even debate the legality of the US lead invaision and occupation of Afghanistan.
In brief this essays runs with these main themes;
– 9/11 is the excuse for being in Afghanistan and that foundation is not only fallacious it is contrary to international law
– The history of American political and corporate involvement and plans for oil and gas control in the region of the Caspian Basin and the context it provides
– The media’s failure to discuss how the Americans were the foundation for al Qaeda and financed terrorism in Afghanistan and the “stans” to the north, plus Russia and China, since the 1970s
– The media’s failure discuss the truth about the drug trade and it’s connections to the western military and intelligence networks
– The Australian parliament took 9 years (October 2010) to even debate (not legality) what is our longest ever war and only then because the Greens made it a condition of supporting the Gillard Governments formation
In his Conclusion O’Neill states “The events of 11 September 2001 provided a nominal casus belli for the attack and occupation of Afghanistan, heavily promoted by the mainstream media, which particularly in the United States is closely linked to the major armaments manufacturers. The same mainstream media have uncritically accepted and promoted the US government’s version of events about 11 September 2001, not because that account is plausible, which it manifestly is not, but because to question the rationale for military intervention is to question the whole of post World War II US foreign policy. If US foreign policy is seriously flawed then that in turn must raise serious questions about the level and extent of Australia’s adherence to the policies of its powerful ally.” He then goes on to say “The acquiescence of the mainstream media and the major political parties in this charade strongly supports the proposition that the decisions are not being made by the elected representatives of the people of Australia (a majority of whom support withdrawal). Rather, as is the case in the United States, those people whom Scott refers to as making up the “deep state” make these critical decisions.”
O’Neill continues with this statement regarding why an understanding of the public of this situation is so important “The continuation of this state of affairs poses a deep threat to the public state and the democratic values it purports to represent“
In this essay relies heavily on the work of Peter Dale Scott and we all are very grateful for Professors dedication to the exposing of the “deep state” or often referred to “the shadow government” in his extensive writings on the matter.
by Erik Larson
February 10, 2011
Beginning with his book New Pearl Harbor (2004) David Ray Griffin raised questions concerning the veracity of reports of phone calls from the 9/11 hijacked airliners, specifically, Ted Olson’s account. Since at least 2006, he has promoted a theory that the 9/11 plane passenger phone calls were faked, and has speculated this was done with ‘voice-morphing’ technology. He’s done this in many different articles, in books, in speaking appearances, in interviews on radio and television, and in a debate with Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine. In his 1/12/10 essay, Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners: Response to Questions Evoked by My Fifth Estate Interview, David Ray Griffin gives the most comprehensive overview of this theory to date, as well as a response to critics, which include people who support a new 9/11 investigation. A Professor Emeritus and skilled rhetorician, Griffin makes a case that is seemingly compelling. However, as I show in this essay, there is no actual evidence the phone calls were faked, while there is a substantial body of evidence demonstrating the calls were not only possible, but did happen. There are many credible reasons to doubt the official 9/11 story and support a full investigation, but the cause of compelling a new 9/11 investigation is undermined by the promotion of theories that are flawed, and not based on hard evidence. In addition, the claim that the phone calls were faked is obviously offensive to those family members who spoke with passengers before they died, and it has the potential to drive a wedge between truth and justice activists and potential allies among the family members, many of whom support a full investigation.
Besides these shortcomings, Griffin himself pointed out in 2008 that promoting theories is not only unnecessary, but can work to the advantage of ‘debunkers’:
I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this … No, you don’t have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that’s what the debunkers love, they want to say, that’s nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false.
Certainly, ‘debunker’ websites such as 9/11 Myths have easily exposed flaws in the voice morphing theory: For instance, though the technology existed at the time, the inventor, George Papcun, has commented that voice-morphing a conversation in near real time would be more complex than fabricating a simple recorded statement, and would require an extensive recording as a sample. It would be even more difficult to fool the subject’s family members, who, in addition to being familiar with the person’s voice, would be familiar with their unique communication style and intimate details of their lives. One victim, Linda Gronlund, even left the combination to her safe on her sister’s voice mail. None of the family members who spoke with the passengers, or heard the messages they left, had any doubts it was their loved ones who called. Finally, some of those who made calls hadn’t booked their flights until the day before 9/11, meaning it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get an adequate voice sample, even assuming the perpetrators could tap anyone’s phone at anytime: Jeremy Glick, Mark Bingham, Honor Elizabeth Wainio and possibly Ed Felt. Some, including Griffin in previous essays, have suggested that Mark Bingham’s use of his full name when speaking to his mother is suspicious. First, it would be very unlikely that persons faking phone calls would introduce an element that would be a red flag to their family and outside observers. Second, Bingham’s mother (who has a different last name: Hoglan) has said that he did this on occasion; is it realistic to think voice-morphing perps learned this idiosyncrasy at the last minute and exploited it, let alone base accusations on it?
Video was taken after the clean-up work and building stabilization by FEMA Urban Search & Rescue Teams. It was presumably recorded in mid October 2001.