9/11 Pentagon Attack – Small Hole Damage DEBUNKED

(Video) hy.poth.e.sis with Dr. Steven E. Jones

‘hy.poth.e.sis’ is a documentary film that follows physics professor Steven E. Jones during a pivotal point in his life. In 2005, Steven went public with a controversial theory regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. His assertion that the collapse was likely the result of pre-positioned explosives rather than the hijacked planes resulted in a backlash from the community and even threatened his standing as a professor at BYU. Despite hate mail, threats, and even bribery to end his research, Steven refused to give in to overwhelming pressure and continued his pursuit of the truth.

 

 

(Audio) 9/11 WTC Debate: Collapse by fire or explosive controlled demolition?

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

Mar. 4, 2011 (PR Newswire) —

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 )

Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory

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?

[Read more…]

Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11: Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Probable

In this podcast, Dr Frank Legge discusses his new paper which was co-authored with Warren Stutt and has been published at the The Journal of 9/11 Studies, titled Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon ( http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf ).

In this lengthy and detailed discussion, Dr Legge is careful to lay out his way of thinking on the Pentagon issue and why it is so important to the 9/11 Truth Movement to not make unsupported claims about the events there. Legge looks at this issue from a purely scientific perspective and is only interested in what he can prove to be true based on hard evidence. It is clear to Legge and to the vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue, that while the Pentagon is a mystery to a degree, it is most likely that AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 did hit the building based on the physical evidence available.

We now have the correctly decoded digital flight data from Flight 77 and it’s time for more people to get behind the call to reason on the Pentagon issue leading up to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks!  There is nothing wrong with supporting the parts of the “official story” of  9/11 that are most likely true.   The team at Visibility 9-11 believe, as does Dr legge that it actually helps the interested public and especially the scientific community to see us as reasoned and balanced truth advocates when we do exactly that.

Lets stop being what we are labeled as “conspiracy theorist’s” and become “conspiracy factulist’s”!

For other instructive reading on the Pentagon please see related items below-

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

Music by Root1, also known as Three Shoes Posse.

To listen to this program, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

(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…]

“Debating” by Exaggeration, Namecalling and Threats by Gregg Roberts

January 8, 2011
Author: Gregg Roberts

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher (1844 – 1900)

This article is a response to “Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?”, credited to “staff writers” at the Rock Creek Free Press, November 2010 edition, available at: http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/CreekV4No11-Web.pdf

The “leading 9/11 Truth site” being referred to is 911Blogger.com. The authors of the article critiqued here chose to remain anonymous, and the article’s title doesn’t lend itself to an easily pronounceable acronym. Therefore I will refer to the article’s authors, along with their vocal message board sympathizers and Barrie Zwicker, as The Complainers. We will abbreviate Citizen Investigation Team as “CIT” and their video National Security Alert as “NSA” (noting the irony).

I normally prefer the high ground when it comes to accusations regarding intentions. However, since the Complainers routinely impute sinister motives to their critics, the reader must consider whether that behavior is more consistent with an intention to support or subvert the overall agenda of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Contents

The Complainers’ article, like NSA itself, is fraught with logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty. Examples are discussed in the following sections:

A Running Ad Hominem…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2

A Key Exaggeration………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

False Statements and Exaggerations………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

“There was no [plane] wreckage at the Pentagon”…………………………………………………………………………… 4

“CIT came along and proved [that] the plane flew away”…………………………………………………………………… 7

“The leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence”…………………………………………………….. 8

“Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements.”……………………………………………… 9

“Many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without

explanation or cause”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

Refusal to Acknowledge Rational Criticism and Respond to It Rationally……………………………………………… 10

Appeal to Popular Opinion………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

“Authorities Would Blame Controlled Demolition on Al Qaeda”…………………………………………………………… 11

A Severe Non Sequitur: Poor Political Analysis……………………………………………………………………………… 12

Deceptive Mentions of NSA “Endorsements” or Reviews………………………………………………………………….. 13

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13

Page numbers refer to the attached PDF.

A Running Ad Hominem

Most of the article consists of a running ad hominem attack, accusing people who run one of the admittedly “leading” 9/11 Truth websites of wanting to cover up mass murder. The Complainers correctly state “it would be surprising if the perpetrators of 9/11 had not attempted to infiltrate and subvert the 9/11 truth movement”, but knowing this alone does not help to identify the infiltrators.  Sorting out the cast of characters requires close examination of the devilish details in order to distinguish among knavish infiltrators, simple fools, and sincere truth-seekers who have been fitted into a well-designed “snitch jacket” in the spirit of COINTELPRO.  The implicit assumption of the Complainers is that criticizing the investigative quality of CIT’s work is the same as working to cover up 9/11 – a manipulative appeal to emotion. The accusation of disloyalty echoes the McCarthyists and their modern-day brethren. It comes from the same playbook used by those who defend the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, for which 9/11 served as the pretext, by calling 9/11 activists “terrorist sympathizers.”

The Complainers drew warnings from 911Blogger moderators, for their vicious and divisive attacks on other researchers, the real cause of the banning of which the Complainers … complain. A moderator told them that this was one of the reasons that they were banned. Yet this explanation brought no humility or lessened outrage to the Complainers. Is their reaction simply an inability to see their own misbehavior as others see it, or something more? Does it perhaps come from the idea that the best defense is a good offense? (Readers with a well-developed sense of consistency will understand my indulgence in some questions regarding the Complainers’ intentions, given that they “went there” first.)

Whatever the reason, many comments supportive or critical of CIT/NSA that violated 911Blogger rules were allowed to stand because of the overwork that is endemic to the 9/11 truth movement. Whatever inconsistencies there might have been, in terms of who was allowed to get away with what, say little or nothing about the moderators’ intentions.

A Key Exaggeration

The Complainers write as though the evidence against a large airliner having flown into the Pentagon were strongly in their favor, and they make vastly exaggerated claims for the power and the clarity of that evidence. Jim Hoffman’s essay, The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics, published in October 2004, finds that much of the evidence regarding what hit the Pentagon is inconclusive, and is incapable of being made much better than it is. Since the 9/11 Truth movement is working to uncover the truth about 9/11, against a backdrop of blatant lies that constitute an orchestrated coverup, it is important to deal very cautiously with facts.  Deviating from the official story carries a heavy burden of proof, especially in the mind of the public. Speculation lays us open to debunking. Speculation that appears outrageous, and is proved wrong, can paint the whole 9/11 Truth Movement with a broad brush as crazies. We could lose all the hard fought ground we have gained, rendering our solid accomplishments moot. On these grounds, the question of what hit the Pentagon is a self-defeating choice as the focus of any demand for a new investigation. In one of his later analyses Hoffman concludes that “[the] evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757.” He added that while “the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77”, “that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.” We need to be willing to let the official story stand unless the proof to the contrary is extremely solid.

For critiques of the deceptive tactics used by CIT, see:

* Victoria Ashley, “To Con A Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’

* Chris Sarns, “Summary and Analysis of ‘National Security Alert’

* Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts vs. CIT Methods by Erik Larson

* Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods by Erik Larson

Here are three essays and a shorter but very recent piece describing what the Pentagon evidence actually shows. They also contain explanations of the severe disadvantages of focusing publicly on the question of what hit the Pentagon, and the benefits of focusing on the evidence that many other key aspects of the official account of what happened at the Pentagon are demonstrably false:

* Jim Hoffman, “The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

* Michael Green, “How They Get Away With It.

* Frank Legge, “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth

* Kevin Ryan, “A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t

[Read more…]

David Chandler Talks About His New DVD “9/11 Analysis” and Rationalizes the Pentagon Debate on Visibility 9-11

Show notes and interview by: John Bursill

This timely and important Podcast is a MUST listen!

David who describes himself as a “pacifist” talks in great depth about his journey on the campaign for 9/11 Truth and Justice which he is passionately dedicated. Many of you may be aware it was David who is credited with getting NIST to admit  WTC Building 7 fell at a an acceleration consistent with free-fall due to gravity; which I and many others view as the single most powerful debating tool for us as 9/11 Truth advocates! David disputes he is solely responsible for this and says that Jones, Ryan and others were central to this achievement but it was his question that drew the answer in the end so it seems.  David also talks about the highly political timing and nature of the NIST Building 7 report.

We then move on to talk about David’s his new DVD “9/11 Analysis” which is comprised of a compilation of his powerful work to date and some new material into one concise resource. This DVD is available for sale now and can be purchased here.

From the site:

“The 9/11 Analysis DVD project is a compilation of the many short analysis videos David Chandler has produced and uploaded to the internet over the last few years, woven together with an interpretive narrative. The current release is in English, but the plan is to follow this with a multilingual release. We need to raise funds to cover the production costs to make Phase II a reality. Please order your copy now and/or help out with a donation.”

In the second part of this frank and informative interview David talks about his strong stance on the Pentagon fiasco that is now threatening the whole credible body of 9-11 research.  The aggressive nature of the advocates of “no plane hit the Pentagon” has lead to a situation that is already out of control as has been seen by Ventura’s terrible error of judgement with his episode of “Conspiracy Theory” for True TV on this subject. The case made by David for us not to be seen as a “Pentagon Movement” for it could mean our destruction is the best I’ve heard to date!

For David’s analysis of the Pentagon Debate please see his and Jon Cole’s web page dedicated to the issue:
http://911speakout.org/?page_id=219

Here is an exert: “The Honey Pot – On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories.  (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.)  This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited.  There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers.  Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at
all: they were just holograms.  What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?”

NOTE: You may have seen or heard on the net that CIT has said that I John Bursill made a commitment to them to leave this issue alone in a discussion had with Craig Ranke, this is true. I changed my mind many months back after the work Dr Frank Legge was doing around the Digital Flight Data Recorder data re-analysis of which I was involved. This and the aggressive moves by CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth to convince the 9/11 Truth Movement that the “fly over” was a proven fact has forced me back to this issue. I apologise for my back flip but I feel it is that important that I speak out and support those that do the same for the survival of the 9/11 Truth Movements credibility.

Intermission music by AJ Perez.
Ending music by Coppermine.

To listen to this program, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11

Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11
by Kevin Ryan
November 18, 2010
Foreign Policy Journal

Just after September 11th 2001, many governments began investigations into possible insider trading related to the terrorist attacks of that day.  Such investigations were initiated by the governments of Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United States, and others.  Although the investigators were clearly concerned about insider trading, and considerable evidence did exist, none of the investigations resulted in a single indictment.  That’s because the people identified as having been involved in the suspicious trades were seen as unlikely to have been associated with those alleged to have committed the 9/11 crimes.

This is an example of the circular logic often used by those who created the official explanations for 9/11.  The reasoning goes like this: if we assume that we know who the perpetrators were (i.e. the popular version of “al Qaeda”) and those who were involved in the trades did not appear to be connected to those assumed perpetrators, then insider trading did not occur.

That’s basically what the 9/11 Commission told us.  The Commission concluded that “exhaustive investigations” by the SEC and the FBI “uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.”  What they meant was that someone did profit through securities transactions but, based on the Commission’s assumptions of guilt, those who profited were not associated with those who were guilty of conducting the attacks.  In a footnote, the Commission report acknowledged “highly suspicious trading on its face,” but said that this trading on United Airlines was traced back to “A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.”[1]

With respect to insider trading, or what is more technically called informed trading, the Commission report was itself suspect for several reasons.  First, the informed trades relating to 9/11 covered far more than just airline company stock.  The stocks of financial and reinsurance companies, as well as other financial vehicles, were identified as being associated with suspicious trades.  Huge credit card transactions, completed just before the attacks, were also involved.  The Commission ultimately tried to frame all of this highly suspicious trading in terms of a series of misunderstandings.  However, the possibility that so many leading financial experts were so completely wrong is doubtful at best and, if true, would constitute another unbelievable scenario in the already highly improbable sequence of events represented by the official story of 9/11.

In the last few years, new evidence has come to light on these matters.  In 2006 and 2010, financial experts at a number of universities have established new evidence, through statistical analyses, that informed trades did occur with respect to the 9/11 attacks.  Additionally, in 2007, the 911 Commission released a memorandum summary of the FBI investigations on which its report was based.[2] A careful review of this memorandum indicates that some of the people who were briefly investigated by the FBI, and then acquitted without due diligence, had links to al Qaeda and to US intelligence agencies.  Although the elapsed time between the informed trades and these new confirmations might prevent legal action against the guilty, the facts of the matter can help lead us to the truth about 9/11.

[Read more…]