Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

November 14, 2015
Today we return to the topic of vaccines, as the Senate deliberates on the passage of one of the most draconian attacks on personal health freedom anywhere… Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

The false left/right paradigm explained

06 November 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

In this youtube video produced by "Nuffrespect", Alex Jones analyses and deconstructs the mechanism by which the elite control popular opinion. The ideas expressed are similar to Chomsky's concept of "manufacturing consent".

This is a very simple animated version of Alex Jones's talk on the fraudulent left-right 2-party paradigm that we are all locked into. In the original version, Alex uses pen and paper to sketch out the 2-party paradigm. I was already aware of how the 2-party system is used to contain revolution in most "democratic" countries. But I was very impressed with the way that Alex sketched it out in simple, easy-to-understand terms. I therefore decided to spend an afternoon transferring his sketches into a 2D animation. It is very important for us all to realise that we are living under a simple but clever system that has been designed to contain revolution whilst projecting the illusion of being a free, fair and open democracy.

The 2-party system provides firm support for the elite to implement their agenda from the top down, whilst the ordinary people at the grassroots level squabble between themselves over which political party is the best. In reality, it doesn't matter which of the two parties you vote for because the same agenda will unfold regardless. Hence, both parties are controlled at the very top by the same force.

Naomi Wolf takes a swipe at the 9/11 truth movement

03 November 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

The following essay by Naomi Wolf is very disappointing, to say the least. She makes broad sweeping statements about "conspiracy theorists" and lumps the 9/11 truth movement in with other "patently irrational" theories which she does not even bother to articulate.

This is all the more worrying, considering that Naomi has been gaining quite a bit of ground with the truth movement over the past year, and has given the impression that she is at least aware of the major evidence which does indeed point to an inside job, among the most formidable being the clear evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC towers - a view now supported by over five hundred architectural and engineering professionals.

For example, the following was recorded on 7 October 2008:

Why is Naomi now turning on the truth movement this way? Why can she not admit the obvious? Why is she lending credibility to the smear campaign which lumps all conspiracy theories together? Why does she not acknowledge that the "Official 9/11 Narrative" is nothing more than an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory? Why is she backing away from science and rationality in favour of emotive, sweeping statements?

Maybe there is a good explanantion. I would just like to hear it, because right now it all looks very confusing.

A Conspiracy So Immense
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Naomi Wolf

NEW YORK - Is this the Age of the Conspiracy Theory? Plenty of evidence suggests that we are in something of a golden age for citizen speculation, documentation, and inference that takes shape - usually on the Internet - and spreads virally around the globe. In the process, conspiracy theories are pulled from the margins of public discourse, where they were generally consigned in the past, and sometimes into the very heart of politics.

I learned this by accident. Having written a book about the hijacking of executive power in the United States in the Bush years, I found myself, in researching new developments, stumbling upon conversations online that embrace narratives of behind-the-scenes manipulation.

There are some major themes. A frequent one in the US is that global elites are plotting - via the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations, among others - to establish a "One World Government" dominated by themselves rather than national governments. Sometimes, more folkloric details come into play, broadening the members of this cabal to include the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Rhodes Scholars, or, as always, the Jews.

The hallmarks of this narrative are familiar to anyone who has studied the transmission of certain story categories in times of crisis. In literary terms, this conspiracy theory closely resembles The Protocols of the Elders of Zion , featuring secretive global elite with great power and wicked aims. Historically, there tends to be the same set of themes: fearsome, uncontrolled transformative change led by educated, urbanized cosmopolitans.

Students of Weimar Germany know that sudden dislocations and shocks - rapid urbanization, disruption of traditional family and social ties, loosening of sexual restrictions, and economic collapse - primed many Germans to become receptive to simplistic theories that seemed to address their confusion and offer a larger meaning to their suffering.

Similarly, the "9/11 Truth Movement" asserts that al-Qaeda's attack on the Twin Towers was an "inside job." In the Muslim world, there is a widespread conspiracy theory that the Israelis were behind those attacks, and that all Jews who worked in the buildings stayed home that day.

Usually, conspiracy theories surface where people are poorly educated and a rigorous independent press is lacking. So why are such theories gaining adherents in the US and other affluent democracies nowadays?

Today's explosion of conspiracy theories has been stoked by the same conditions that drove their acceptance in the past: rapid social change and profound economic uncertainty. A clearly designated "enemy" with an unmistakable "plan" is psychologically more comforting than the chaotic evolution of social norms and the workings - or failures - of unfettered capitalism. And, while conspiracy theories are often patently irrational, the questions they address are often healthy, even if the answers are frequently unsourced or just plain wrong.

In seeking answers, these citizens are reacting rationally to irrational realities. Many citizens believe, rightly, that their mass media are failing to investigate and document abuses. Newspapers in most advanced countries are struggling or folding, and investigative reporting is often the first thing they cut. Concentration of media ownership and control further fuels popular mistrust, setting the stage for citizen investigation to enter the vacuum.

Likewise, in an age when corporate lobbyists have a free hand in shaping - if not drafting - public policies, many people believe, again rightly, that their elected officials no longer represent them. Hence their impulse to believe in unseen forces.

Finally, even rational people have become more receptive to certain conspiracy theories because, in the last eight years, we actually have seen some sophisticated conspiracies. The Bush administration conspired to lead Americans and others into an illegal war, using fabricated evidence to do so. Is it any wonder, then, that so many rational people are trying to make sense of a political reality that really has become unusually opaque? When even the 9/11 commissioners renounce their own conclusions (because they were based on evidence derived from torture), is it surprising that many want a second investigation?

Frequently enough, it is citizens digging at the margins of the discourse - pursuing such theories - who report on news that the mainstream media ignores. For example, it took a "conspiracy theorist," Alex Jones, to turn up documentation of microwave technologies to be used by police forces on US citizens. The New Yorker confirmed the story much later - without crediting the original source.

The mainstream media's tendency to avoid checking out or reporting what is actually newsworthy in Internet conspiracy theories partly reflects class bias. Conspiracy theories are seen as vulgar and lowbrow. So even good, critical questions or well-sourced data unearthed by citizen investigators tend to be regarded as radioactive to highly educated formal journalists.

The real problem with this frantic conspiracy theorizing is that it leaves citizens emotionally agitated but without a solid ground of evidence upon which to base their worldview, and without constructive directions in which to turn their emotions. This is why so many threads of discussion turn from potentially interesting citizen speculation to hate speech and paranoia. In a fevered environment, without good editorial validation or tools for sourcing, citizens can be preyed upon and whipped up by demagogues, as we saw in recent weeks at Sarah Palin's rallies after Internet theories painted Barack Obama as a terrorist or in league with terrorists.

We need to change the flow of information in the Internet age. Citizens should be able more easily to leak information, pitch stories, and send leads to mainstream investigative reporters. They should organize new online entities in which they pay a fee for direct investigative reporting, unmediated by corporate pressures. And citizen investigators should be trained in basic journalism: finding good data, confirming stories with two independent sources, using quotes responsibly, and eschewing anonymity - that is, standing by their own bylines, as conventional reporters do.

This is how citizens can be taken - and take themselves - seriously as documenters and investigators of our common situation. In a time of official lies, healthy investigative energy should shed light, not just generate heat.

Naomi Wolf, the author of The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot and Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries, is co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign, a US democracy movement.

Willie Nelson meets up with former Governor Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones

30 October 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]


IN EXCLUSIVE VIDEO, legendary music icon Willie Nelson meets up with former Governor Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones to discuss the implications of the 2008 Election, the effects of widespread economic downturn and lingering questions about 9/11.

RELATED: Exclusive photos of Jesse Ventura, Alex Jones and Willie Nelson at the music icon’s world headquarters.

Gov. Ventura hopes to challenge the ‘horse-race’ voting mentality that has made both parties unresponsive to the people.

“If we break the trend of electing Democrats and Republicans, and start electing independents, we will get out of the problem we’re in,” Ventura told News 8 Austin, urging people to vote their ‘heart’ and ‘conscience’ outside The Backyard, where Willie Nelson performed at the venue’s final event.

Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones addressed the need to dissent against the status quo and reminded those watching online that the First Amendment is meant to protect even unpopular speech.The former Minnesota Governor said people cannot be afraid to criticize the government. He insisted that patriots must ‘hold government’s feet to the fire’– otherwise, bad government will result.

Ventura was a political rarity, as an unexpected independent victor in Minnesota’s 1998 Gubernatorial race, a clear threat to the two-party dictatorship that dominates the political landscape.

Willie Nelson lambasted the government’s corrupt bailout of Wall Street while the traditional family farm continues to erode away in the wake of economic downturn, allowing corporate farming to further dominate.

9/11 And “War On Terror” Questioned In Japan’s Parliament

29 October 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

On October 22, 2008, Yukihisa Fujita, Congressman for the Democratic Party of Japan made a 20 minute speech on the floor of the Japanese Diet or House of Representatives. For the third time this year he directly questioned the official version of 9/11

At the same time he called on the government to stop all support for the US-led military operations. After presenting reports of heavy civilian and military losses in Iraq and Afghanistan he went on to describe the Kucinich impeachment debate in US-Congress and its wide support by representatives of the House. In detail he listed the particular reasons for impeachment, that US-Congressman Dennis Kucinich presented to congress this summer. He also reported on Ron Pauls demands for impeachment and new 9/11 investigations.

Fujita emphasized that there was never an official police investigation into the deaths of the 24 Japanese citizens who were killed on 9/11, he then talked about questions put forward by japanese victim`s families of 9/11 to the former Prime Minister Koshimizu and asked why the government never responded.

This time there was no public broadcast of his 20 minute speech on NHK television. It was the third time since January, that Yukihisa Fujita voiced his doubts about 9/11 on the floor of the japanese parliament.

Fujita is a member of the Democratic Party of Japan which is the main opposition party, holding a majority in the Upper House of Parliament and has 36 % of the seats in the Lower House, the more powerful house. Mr. Fujita`s calls for a new investigation are backed by his party leadership. He made also presentations to members of other parties.

Yukihisa Fujita is currently working to form an international coalition to demand an independent, international 9/11 investigation and has been in contact with politicians in Europe and the US.

School Censors “9/11 Truth Now” Shirt

27 October 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

I like this video. I like the fact that it was made by a school kid. I like that alot. It is through small actions like this that the big picture is changed.

This is how we win back our freedom. If readers believe that this is not needed here in Australia then I suggest that you are sadly deluded.

We need to uncover the truth about many facts which have been suppressed and distorted by the corporate monopolised mass media, a totalitarian mind control system which has kept people ignorant and brainwashed for generations.

We need young people to step up and take the lead.

House Members View Draft Bill on Independent Probe of WTC 1, 2, 7 Collapses

25 October 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]


Ellis & Associates, LLC, Writing and Editing Services
Scholar for 911 Truth and Justice

A draft bill setting up an independent science and technology investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 to mandate construction-code changes was presented Sept. 16-17 in Washington D.C. for consideration to eight House members and the director and staff of the House Science and Technology committee.1

The bill proposes a 25-member committee with subpoena power, selected from the national and international community of renowned scientists, structural engineers, architects, and other technological specialists including those in demolition, advanced weaponry, and 9/11 first-responders.2

The proposed legislation was researched and authored by four members of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth organization from Oregon and Maryland.3

Presentations were made to science and technology legislative staffers of House members Reps. Rush Holt (D-NJ-12), Jay Inslee (D-WA-1), Walter Jones (R-NC-3), Dan Lipinski (D-IL-3), Jim McGovern (D-MA-3), Ed Markey (D-MA-78), Dana Rohrabacker (R-CA-46), and John Tierney (D-MA-6). Two are members of the House Science and Technology committee: Lipinski is vice chair, and Rohrabacker is the third-ranking Republican. Only one staffer (Tierney’s) was disinterested. Another (Rohrabacker’s) asked the presenters for an additional hour of discussion.4

The bill’s aim is to investigate the 14 major theories about what destroyed WTC 1, 2, and 7 that have been widely circulating nationally and internationally since September 2001, and, secondly, to urge Congressional action to mandate federal building-code changes for high-rise buildings (115+ feet ) both before construction or in remodeling the more than the existing 16,000.5

They made three points in the presentation:

• That determination of the cause(s) of WTC 1, 2, 7 collapses are vital for a federally mandated national change in building codes for high-rise structures consistent with the investigation’s findings.

•That previous investigations on the collapses were either significantly limited, as was that of the 9/11 Commission in 2004 and the Federal Emergency Management agency (FEMA) in 2002. Two later studies by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—2005 on WTC 1/2 and 2008 on WTC 7— at an estimated public cost of $50 million have been judged by scientific and technical experts to be significantly limited, biased, and heavily flawed in fundamental research methods.6

•That both national and international demands are growing for a substantive science and technology investigation by an independent group to determine the collapse cause(s).

If this proposed bill—with a $10 million price tag—is accepted by one or several House members, it will be revised for hoppering in the next session of Congress and presumably assigned to the 40-member House Science and Technology committee for hearings and a vote. If passed, it will move to a House floor vote and, from there, to the Senate committee for the same process. If signed into law by the next President, the House committee will select 25-member investigation group giving it subpoena power to probe the 14 theories of collapses to determine the cause(s). They will have a six-month deadline to issue a report on findings for recommendations to Congress mandating federal codes for developers, builders, and remodelers of high-rise buildings.

The draft bill’s origins stemmed from 2007 correspondence between Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D. and Oregon attorney Virginia Ross. Hirschhorn was a former professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin/Madison before becoming a Capitol Hill veteran as a senior associate at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. He was involved in providing expertise, drafting bills, and appearing in hearings as an expert witness on technology issues. Ross is former Air Force officer and an expert and lecturer on 9/11 events, and member of the Portland 911 Truth Alliance organization.

The two were among the thousands of science and technology experts questioning as limited, significantly flawed and largely implausible preliminary reports on the WTC collapses issued by FEMA and NIST indicating fire was the cause. This conclusion has even run counter to President George Bush’s press- conference statement in mid-September 2006 that “explosives” might have been planted in the three buildings. To draft and promote a bill to Congress, Ross contacted Portland’s three Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice: Barry Ball, Barbara G. Ellis, Ph.D., and Warren Pease.7

Their draft bill took months of research, discussion, and writing before the final draft was sent for review and changes to Hirschhorn and 22 nationally recognized experts either on the 9/11 event or renown in the scientific and technological fields about the collapses. Among them were three other Scholars in the vanguard of science and technology field issuing the initial adverse verdicts on NIST’s August 2008 report about the WTC 7.8

The last step was determining which of the 435 U.S. House members might have interest in and/or expertise in building-code safety regulations or in settling the 9/11 controversy concerning the WTC collapses. That involved a content analyses of every bill that members hoppered from January 2007 to August 2008 regardless of party affiliation. They followed up by the September trip to Washington, D.C. to talk to the Representative’s science and technology legislative assistants.

Post 9/11 Code Changes for High-Rise Buildings

No mandatory code changes for construction or remodeling of high-rise structures (115+ feet) seem to have been made since 9/11—except New York City with its nearly 700 units—despite their proliferation in urban areas. That the federal government should step in was a point strongly made to the 9/11 Commission by a member of the newly formed Skyscraper Safety Campaign organized by first-responder survivors. SSC’s first goal was:

To have a Federal Comprehensive Investigation, with subpoena power, into the collapse of the WTC, including design, construction, evacuation procedures and fire-fighting techniques.9

Only local and state governments have enforcement power on building codes, either by revenue from permits or heavy fines for violations—if they can afford the teeth for compliance. Or stop extortion from building inspectors overlooking violations. Most of the nation’s 20,000 jurisdictions tout self-policing via a “model code” decreed by the International Code Council, an industry non-profit group said to be slow to accept changes (3-6 years) for builders and owners. Its policing powers on codes are largely an “honor” system.10

Insurance payouts for 9/11 property claims—a collective $5.4 billion—might offer the only policing power. But they don’t. Instead, they offset such payouts by charging higher premiums which, in turn, are passed on to tenants—not owners.11

Both FEMA and NIST reports on the WTC collapses provided a lengthy list of recommended changes in construction and remodeling. But they were chiefly geared to fire prevention because researchers insisted fire was the only culprit. Neither agency gave credence to the other 13 possible causes which seem to have greater merit.

Outside of code changes involving fires such as installing a third stairwell, their suggestions, summed up a real-estate editor, included: “emergency access and egress, improvements to structural systems and life safety systems, vertical transportation.” Specifics involve relocating parking lots, moving air intakes to higher floors, strengthening connections and joints in structural steel framing, toxic-material screening devices, widening stairwells and elevators, luminous markers on staircases, signal devices, bomb-proof building materials, laminated glass, and tighter security.12

The sticking point for applications seems to be that many developers, owners, architects, and builders have also studied the WTC disaster and remain unconvinced that fire caused the collapses or that high-rises will ever encounter such “extreme events” as a 9/11. So why should they invest any more money into additional fire measures when what they have is perceived as adequate? Even changes pertaining to fire prevention seem to confuse and/or infuriate developers, remodelers, and builders working in more than one community or state. So they often ignore them as being either unnecessary or prohibitively expensive.13

In New York City, however, compliance to code changes is better than most locales. Prior to 9/11, the Port Authority desperately wanted to demolish WTC 1 and 2 floor by floor because asbestos was driving off present and future tenants and corrosion could drop cladding to the street. But they obeyed the New York City’s Council which repeatedly denied them permits because the Twin Towers were tourist attractions and municipal bondholders would object to dividend losses. But expense certainly has created “bad guys” like the owners and contractors dismantling the 41-story, heavily damaged Deutsche Bank across from the WTC 2 site. It was federal safety regulators who arrived after a seven-alarm fire and revealed that the city had never issued a demolition permit for the job, nor bothered to check 44 deliberate and serious violations involving dangerous working conditions. Yet the owners and contractors have appealed the $500 thousand federal fine.14

That the inspectors were from the Occupational and Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and probably will make that fine stick does suggest that federal “outsiders” are better enforcers of building codes than state and local housing inspectors. All too often inspectors are enmeshed with owners and the building industry.

As to the non-fire recommendations, high-rise tenants want parking around or under the buildings. Real estate officials have pointed out that additional fireproofing and both widening and illuminating stairwells might cost $13 million for a 42-story building and also cost them $600 million in lost rent because of decreased floor space. The vice president of the Building Owners and Managers Association, which oversees nine billion square feet of office space, warned that the prohibitive cost of just those three code changes could cut high-rise construction significantly.15

In the ICC’s September 2008 meeting, council members were shocked to discover that even the government’s property manager, the General Services Administration had joined opponents of codes advocating wider stairs and adding a third staircase, illuminating them, and upgrading fireproofing.16

The rationale apparently is that both lives and billions of dollars will be saved by the common sense of waiting until an independent committee, drawn from the national and international scientific and technological professions, conducts a thorough and unadulterated investigation about the 14 possible causes of the collapses to produce accurate answers. If fire was not a cause, why upgrade fire-prevention equipment and materials? If explosives were the cause, why invest in widening staircases or adding an escape elevator? If lax security was the cause, that’s where to spend.

The section below underscores widespread doubts about the credibility of the FEMA and NIST reports reflected by the reticence to pour billions into fire prevention. It also strongly indicates what can happen to professional integrity and objectivity under an Administration now known to politicize and undermine agencies protecting Americans whether it’s the Food and Drug Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Justice Department. It is difficult not to conclude that research results were mandated to fit around the finding that fire alone caused the collapses. And that previously courageous and dedicated public servants yielded to those pressures. That is why a fresh and independent team able to withstand such pressures is vitally necessary to conduct this new investigation—and without fear or favor let the chips fall where they may.

Significantly Flawed Research by FEMA and NIST

Scarcely had the 9/11 evidence of beams, columns and cladding been shipped to Asian ports for scrap than questions about what happened at Ground Zero and the Pentagon began whipping around the world. In the U.S. when the mainstream media failed to provide credible answers about the perpetrators and the Administration started classifying non-military information, millions raced down the Internet’s busy highway of “blast lists” and websites to learn or share any scrap of explanation about the event. They did not accept the Administration’s explanation that 19 Arabs who could scarcely fly used box cutters to hijack four airliners and destroy the WTC and part of the Pentagon.

Users ranged from engineers, scientists, clergy, and professors to activists, ordinary people—and four women (“the Jersey Girls”) widowed by the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. All wanted to know why the Twin Towers disintegrated into the dust of volcanic-like explosions in less than 11 seconds instead of surviving like the Empire State Building had in 1945 when hit by a B-25. Or if they knew about WTC 7—which was not attacked—came down at 5:20 p.m. that in less than 7 seconds in its own footprint, a spectacular collapse exactly like planned demolitions of expendable buildings.17

Many skeptics became amateur detectives or scholarly researchers. It wasn’t long before they discovered the neo-conservatives’ 2000 tract Rebuilding America’s Defenses and its shattering message that for the United States to dominate the world—especially with its “vital interests” (aka oil) in the Middle East—a “new Pearl Harbor” might be necessary and would boost its state-of-the-art defense systems. For historians and political experts around the world, that finding set off uneasy parallels between 9/11 and the Bush Administration and the 1933 Reichstag fire and Adolph Hitler’s rise to power.18

Structural engineers, architects, scientists and those in fire science were unsatisfied with the first investigation about the collapses done by FEMA in 2002—and began to say so at professional meetings and in classrooms. Its cursory report on WTC 1 and 2 had ended at the point of impact and blamed their blaming collapses on fire melting the buildings’ steel framing. They hedged on No. 7: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”19

Both FEMA and, then, NIST acknowledged that no steel-framed high-rise building—12 to 110 stories—had ever collapsed because of fire, but insisted the WTC collapses were “firsts.” This claim flies in the face of fire history for high-rises, known for a century by engineers, architects, and builders That includes the horrific Triangle Shirtwaist fire of 1911 in the 12-story iron-and-steel framed Asch Building, now a New York University classroom structure. Or that 1933 Reichstag fire which gutted the interior, but the steel frame and stone exterior survived even World War II’s carpet bombings. Or that foggy Saturday morning in 1945 when a B-25 hit the Empire State Building and fired the 78th, 79th and basement. Or Madrid’s 2005 Windsor inferno that gutted a 32-story office building after a two-day blaze—temperatures reaching 1,432ºF. Its steel-reinforced concrete frame and rebar-reinforced concrete columns held firm for 17 floors and even retaining a crane on the roof doing repairs.20

Fires, no matter how hot, do not melt steel in columns, beams, or flooring. Metallurgists have estimated the melting point of the structural steel alloy used in the WTC complex ranged from 2,500ºF to 2,800ºF. FEMA did not venture an estimate on the fires’ maximum temperatures. But NIST did in the 2005 report on WTC 1 and 2: a maximum of 1,837ºF. WTC 7 burned for seven hours, ample time for firefighters to ascertain temperatures. Researchers either didn’t ask them for that information or ignored it.21

Incredibly, NIST’s 2008 report on No. 7 relied on guesses about the combustible “loading” on the 11th and 12th floor from a pair of 13th floor tenants, two American Express managers who were not just qualified to render such a judgment, but were not in the building. Even more remarkable for a multi-million-dollar, supposedly scientific/technological study, NIST resorted to a computer simulation of the fires that placed the range between 392ºF to 1,652ºF. As if software could emulate actual conditions.22

Worse for FEMA/NIST researchers, near the end of their study, a mid-afternoon seven-hour, seven-alarm blaze broke out on August 18, 2007 in the 41-story, steel-framed Deutsche Bank building across the street from the WTC 2 site. Opened a year after the Towers (1974), it was built under most of the same codes. It was undergoing floor-by-floor dismantling after six years of being shrouded from heavy 9/11 damage.23

By the time dismantling had reached the 26th floor, a departing worker on the 17th floor reportedly flung a cigarette into debris. It set off a conflagration that involving 70 fire companies and caused two firefighters’ deaths. The fire was fed by oxygen pouring into open areas and air shafts and raged through the 13th to 18th floors. Like WTC 7, water was initially unavailable, but not because of a broken water main. Firefighters faced a vandalized standpipe and, unlike those at WTC 7, found other water sources. Despite its flaming ordeal, the bank remained standing. The official verdict was: “Buildings inspectors and forensic engineers have determined that the building is structurally sound and not in danger of collapse.”24

Back in spring 2003, the Bush Administration apparently hoped the FEMA report and the attack and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan would divert public attention from the WTC collapses. Those hopes now were dashed by a massive body of evidence about 9/11 being spread around the globe that neither aircraft nor fires could have caused the collapses.

Increasing suspicions about the government’s growing ferocious secrecy about 9/11 triggered a small publishing industry (Michael Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon, David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor, etc.). Filmmakers began making DVD documentaries (Loose Change, 9/11 Revisited). Accusatory T-shirts appeared (“9/11 Was an Inside Job”), followed by the start of hundreds of 9/11 Truth groups and professional organizations (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, etc). Such interest launched a speaker circuit of experts from the scientific, technological, and military fields. None attributed collapses to fire. They championed an array of far more likely causes ranging from planned implosions using thermate or fissionable compounds to missiles and directed-energy weaponry.25

It didn’t help that the Bush Administration had inexplicably stalled off for months the public’s outcry for a definitive investigation, especially the Jersey Girls. They were unafraid of hounding the President and Congress for action. Congress finally set up a low-budget (initially, $14 million) 9/11 Commission with the curious order not to blame anyone for the attacks except terrorists. The Commission had no power to demand witnesses be sworn, including President Bush with Vice President Cheney at his elbow. Worse for objectivity, commissioners were chiefly loyal Administration “insiders.” None were drawn from the ranks of science or technology professionals. Work was largely done by an obedient 75-member staff of which more than half were former employees of the CIA, FBI, and Justice Department. They took nearly two years to produce a 567-paged report in 2004 that offered little to explain the collapse causes, and even failed to mention WTC 7. 26

Faced with lying and/or uncooperative witnesses, angry politicians, outspoken pro-Bush cohorts, White House obstruction and penury, contradictory testimony, and mountains of vital documents classified. Small wonder that co-chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton finally admitted they were “set up to fail” in preventing both a White House whitewash and cover-up on accountability.27

When the report appeared, a firestorm of doubt and protests erupted from legions of professionals and lay experts—and the Jersey Girls. They found it significantly incomplete, biased, and deceitful. Accusations began that the Bush Administration used 9/11 as a pretext invading, occupying, and terrorizing Iraq out of its vast oil reserves and for shredding the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of civil liberties.

As for the Administration, after doubts had been raised about FEMA’s 2002, it tossed the credibility problem to NIST to establish legitimacy to their “official” story with an in-depth scientific and engineering study—on FEMA’s budget. Because its researchers and consultants apparently valued federal contracts and/or careers, they seemed to pick up on the Administration cues about preordained results about the collapse causes—and obeyed. Fire destroyed WTC 1 and 2.28

Its verdict about fire was to bring incredulity and even scorn from peers, but a lawsuit from a former professor of mechanical engineering at a major university. The Request for Correction by Judy Wood, Ph.D. charged NIST with “…fraud and deception, and shows clear evidence that the entire WTC [complex] was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW).” After all, it was remarkably unusual that the Towers had left no rubble except cladding and had been largely reduced to curb-high dust. DEWs’ volcano-like energy force molecules to burst apart and become dust when targeting steel, concrete, and combustibles. “Dustification” had occurred, she said.29

WTC 7 was a 47-story building, privately built in 1985 and owned by real-estate tycoon Larry Silverstein. He’d only been leaseholder for the rest of the WTC complex for less than two weeks on j9/11. It was not attacked, but like the 8-story WTC 6 directly across the street, had withstood a torrent of fiery debris on its roof from WTC 1. On the late afternoon of 9/11 both BBC and CNN reporters announced No. 7 had collapsed although it was visible over their shoulders. At 5:20 p.m., it collapsed in 6.5-seconds into its foundation. It left a five-story pile of rubble, including pools of molten metal that were to burn for weeks.30

Despite its spectacular visual demise, it suffered an immediate blackout from mainstream media. The 9/11 Commission report never mentioned it. Until 2006 when it “starred” in the video 9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions, most Americans were unaware that a third WTC skyscraper had been destroyed indicating just how successful the blackout was.31

That video perhaps was the most unsettling to 9/11 perpetrators and possibly still the greatest recruiting tool for the 9/11 movement. It was an illustrated lecture by a Utah physics professor, Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. In it, he said that particles of the high-tech explosive compound thermate had been found at the No. 7 site. This cutting-charge mixture (thermite, sulfur, barium nitrate), once ignited, quickly reaches 4500ºF and easily slices through steel. The powder comes in bags like bark dust and, now, in spray form. If it could be used to turn discarded railroad tracks into melted scrap, it could do the same on the WTC buildings’ 20-ton beams and 50-ton columns. Besides, thermate is easier to plant than dynamite or the high-yield explosive RDX and does it work silently, but leaves pools of molten iron. In weighing these factors, Jones concluded WTC 7 was brought down by a standard controlled demolition procedure—probably with thermate.32

Whether thermate or nuclear materials, missiles or DEW weapons were used on No. 7, it became obvious that unlocking the cause of that collapse might well reveal the mystery of what had happened to No. 1 and 2. After all, the Towers had collapsed into mostly dust also in astounding time: under 11 seconds at free-fall speed—and almost exactly in their own footprints, too.

An overwhelming din of questions arose about No. 7, along with statements from national and international demolition specialists that its collapse indeed was a controlled implosion. Those conclusions set off the distribution of thousands of postcards depicting the second-by-second drop. Jones and others soon were talking about WTC 7 on talk shows and the 9/11 speaker circuit.33

The Administration seems to have foreseen this backlash and had handed off explaining the collapse to NIST in 2005. Its team of in-house researchers and “private-sector technical experts” knew what was expected: WTC 7’s collapse was blamed on fire. The report was released without fanfare in August 2008 with the revealing caveat it wasn’t complete “due to the loss of records over time and due to the collapses.” They “firmly” declared:

WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires with characteristics similar to previous fires in tall buildings….Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.34

They stunned outside peers by limiting explosives to RDX, quickly ruling it out. Rather than do field testing, they relied upon video soundtracks of the collapse and computer simulations to conclude:

The soundtracks…did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast. Therefore, the Investigation Team concluded that there was no demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001.35

For all the fire claims by FEMA and NIST, their researchers somehow failed to explore the obvious possibility that arson—particularly in WTC 7—might have been used to cover the use of “silent” explosives such as thermate. Under any other circumstances, fire inspectors and insurance detectives would have suspected arson because of the fire’s curious starting point (the building’s midsection) and subsequent routes. Nor were questions asked about the unusually quick $861 million insurance settlement for Silverstein.36

NIST’s research expenses for both 2005 and 2008 reports had been covered by FEMA and it was highly unlikely it would contradict FEMA’s 2002 verdict about causes: “[It]…was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers….It is likely that fires started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1.” The NIST report seconded that notion.37

However, it is doubtful that most arson inspectors or experts would have agreed with the results on WTC 7, just in reading the report. For one thing, no entrance point for flaming debris or sparks existed. No open rooftop doors, no blown-out windows from interior heat, and no fire alarms going off. One of NIST’s exhibits showed that on 9/11 the entire fire-alarm system had been “placed on test” at 6:47:42 a.m. for “routine maintenance.” Researchers apparently saw nothing amiss in the log operator (“DYJ”) calmly reporting “completing test over” at 14:48:22 (2:48:22). The last firefighter presumably was gone and adequate time was left for experienced arsonists to complete a job.38

The report stated that at 11:30 a.m., firefighters discovered no water was available (broken city water mains) except for a sprinkler tank on the 46th floor. Presumably, they were hunting a source to hose off the building’s exterior.39

But, suddenly at 12:10 p.m., small fires started in the building’s midsection—Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30. Though these blazes blew out a few windows and admitted oxygen, they “did not spread far before dying out,” thanks to the sprinklers, the report stated. Then, at 2 o’clock small fires sprang up between Floors 7 and 13—below the sprinkler system’s reach, the report stated. With no water from below or above, the remaining firefighters were ordered to leave at 2:30 because someone had concluded saving the building was an impossibility. And so the fires continued to burn.40

As yet, no one has questioned why firefighters were not permitted to extinguish the fires. Or why firefighters and lawmen had surrounded the building from noon on, warning bystanders the building was going to fall.

Or why a countdown to the 5:20 collapse was clearly overheard on the street.

After the release of the 9/11 Revisited video, suspicions went around the globe, not about arson, but about Silverstein’s possible pre-planned demolition of all three buildings to save millions on repairs should terrorists attempt a repeat of the 1993 bombing of WTC 1 and 2. Repairs had come to $700 million. The Port Authority had told bidders on the lease during the 2000 negotiations that asbestos removal and cladding replacement for WTC 1 and 2 probably would cost at least $200 million and plumbing/electrical upgrades might bring the total to $800 million. Silverstein’s 15-year old WTC 7 also needed asbestos removal and utility upgrades. Yet a year later on the PBS 9/11 special America Rebuilds he recalled that he told the fire commander around 5 o’clock on 9/11: “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they [sic] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”41

Any long-time developer like Silverstein knew the verb “pull” was a demolition term—and he’d used it twice. His spokesman tried to cover that slip by explaining it referred to pulling firefighters from the building, though all 4,000 tenants had fled by 10:30 a.m., all firefighters were out by 2:30 p.m. Considering the time involved in preparing a demolition of a building that size, it was plain to demolition and building experts that No. 7 had to have been rigged long before 9/11.42

None of these factors seemed to concern NIST’s researchers as they moved toward their 2008 deadline on the WTC 7 report. And they had been warned about their research methodology. One architect tracking their progress up to late 2007 had warned they were performing substandard and biased work that would negate conclusions. Left unsaid was that such flaws would also harm the Institute’s reputation as a credible source by Congress and subsequent Administrations.43

The warning may have explained the low-profile of the report’s release in August 2008. It was immediately met by withering criticism about those methods and credibility from 16 national and international experts in structural engineering, architecture, physics, and chemistry. Thousands more probably would have joined them had NIST permitted more than a three-week review of the 1,000-page document and demanding $19,000 for photographic evidence of WTC 7. That such behavior smelled of “cover-up science” was indicated by emails between two members of that group:

NIST employs numerous tactics to distance their research and themselves from public scrutiny while giving the semblance of actual interaction with the public. NIST has never allowed scientists, engineers, architects to directly question them on camera, allowing only time-limited Web casts (advertised only a day in advance) during which they will deal with technical questions submitted by email only if they have time or feel like answering them.

They open themselves up a little more to career reporters from the mainstream media, but largely these reporters were selected by their media companies—perhaps in part because they would not ask tough questions. (This certainly was the pattern of behavior exhibited at the August 21, 2008 press conference coinciding with NIST’s release of their report on Building 7.)

NIST publishes extremely long documents that virtually nobody would bother absorbing (1,000 pages for their WTC 7 report). NIST makes the false promise that it would discuss these matters once the report has been released, but NIST has already denied me a chance to interview them. 44

They were also scored on already known and obvious omissions (foreknowledge of collapse, silent demolition compounds such as thermate)

However, the major attack was on their sole reliance on computer tests that were rigged to imitate“ the highest temperatures [of fires] and the most amount of structural damage” and trying to hide that fact. The last straw was NIST’s refusal to provide peers with the models and data. The first rule in any scientific or technological project is that experiments must be replicable anywhere in the world to be accepted as credible 45

A separate and equally scathing verdict from a chemist encapsulated the objections:

The 9/11 Commission told us that the attacks on September 11th succeeded ultimately because of a “failure of imagination.” NIST will never be accused of that kind of failure, as its new WTC 7 report is nothing but imaginary tripe.

This new story contradicts the previous major claims by NIST, ignores the most important of the existing evidence, produces no scientific test results to support itself, and is so obviously false on its face that not even a fictional character from another planet would believe it.

Fires that could only last 2 to 30 minutes lasted 4 hours (what was burning?). Imaginary temperatures that, according to NIST would have easily weakened the same steel in the towers, left beams fully rigid so that they could push one girder a full 2.2 inches, somehow breaking numerous bolts and studs in unison, as well as buckling the girder, before the beams themselves were affected in any way. Suddenly, this one-girder failure caused numerous floors to collapse, one hair-trigger “switch” column to buckle, and the whole building to fall in a total of 8 seconds.46

It was plain to outside peers that NIST once again had fitted results around White House policy concerning 9/11. A major overhaul of the entire study was strongly recommended before publication. Compliance is unlikely because that would mean scrapping the report.

In short, any accurate, objective, and definitive investigation about the collapses will require a truly independent investigation by other experts in science and technology who will be far removed from the influence of FEMA, NIST—and the White House.

New Probe Is Demanded

A new investigation about the collapse causes is not only needed, but wanted by a growing national and international chorus of bellicose peers as well as public figures all demanding a new investigation.

NIST’s chief of Fire Science Division, Jamers Quintiere, Ph.D., resigned over the research quality for the 2005 report and joined 1,550 peers calling for a second “real” investigation. They ranged from the military, intelligence agencies and pilots to scientists, engineers, architects, scholars as well as first-responders and 9/11 victims’ families. Some 280 architects and engineers from that group and more than 2,000 affiliates and university majors also are now petitioning Congress for a scientific and technical investigation about the collapses.47

International critics began speaking out. Former president of Italy Francesco Cossiga told a major Rome daily in late November 2007 that it was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies that the Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad, Israel’s counterpart, had done the attacks to get Western powers to control Iraq and Afghanistan. Japan’s minority party leader Yukihisa Fujita was televised nationally in the Diet in January 2008 demanding it conduct an investigation on behalf of the 24 nationals who died in the attacks.

In Canada last June, the New Democratic Party Deputy House Leader, Libby Davies, presented a petition from 500 Canadians to launch its own investigation (24 dead Canadians), and to “pursue the guilty parties in the international courts.” That was the view also of an Italian member of the European Union’s Parliament, Giulietta Chiesa, who wants an international tribunal.48

In the U.S., the outcry for a second investigation is monumental set against a poll showing 84% doubt the Administration’s official story about 9/11. Manhattan canvassers from a 9/11 group have started the ball rolling by gathering 25,000 signatures toward the 30,000 needed to get a referendum measure for a 2009 special election in New York City establishing a privately funded, subpoena-powered independent 9/11 commission.49

A tsunami of supporters for a substantive investigation has come from the Jersey Girls, both co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, but a host of national figures: writer Gore Vidal, actor Ed Asner, former Senators Lincoln Chafee and Mike Gravel, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura (a onetime demolition expert in the Navy Seals), presidential candidates Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, U.S. House candidate Cindy Sheehan, Daniel Ellsberg, MD (of Pentagon Papers fame), the Green party, and Arizona state senator Karen S. Johnson. And if elected president Nov. 4, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama vowed he would take action (“…if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront…”).50

The proposed new bill to investigate 14 possible causes of the WTC collapses provides Congress and a new Administration a major avenue to stave off the embarrassment of international inquiries and tribunals. More importantly, however, it provides a second chance to rectify the heavily discredited, significantly limited studies of FEMA and NIST and the Administration’s questionable concealing of most WTC data as a national security risk. If builders and owners cannot find out what caused the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7, what kind of construction codes can protect tenants and property against future attacks? Biased and implausible research combined with indefensible secrecy can only continue and intensify the current public and professional charges that “9/11 Was An Inside Job.” And cast doubt on the veracity of any research contracted to FEMA and/or NIST.

These are much the same conditions that have confronted juries or truth seekers for centuries. But ultimately as Galileo’s work proved, truth has a way of slipping through the most suppressive and censorious hands. As the poet (and retired censor) John Milton observed nearly four centuries ago:

Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.51

Whatever the outcome in this proposed investigation, at least definitive information helpful for safety protection—other than fire—in high-rise buildings is likely to emerge. It may also lay to rest once and for all whether 9/11 was an inside job.

1 “A bill to establish an independent committee of scientific and technical experts to investigate the structural failures causing the collapse on September 11, 2001 of New York City’s World Trade Center’s Buildings No. 1, 2, and 7, and to make recommendations for legislative action and federal regulatory changes to address such problems in present and future high-rise buildings.” July 16, 2008, 1.

2 Ibid., 1.

3 Barry Ball, Mdiv, facilitator, Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance; Barbara Ellis, Ph.D., former professor of technical journalism, Oregon State University; Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D, former professor of engineering, University of Wisconsin/Madison and senior associate in the Congressional Office of Technical Assessment; Warren Pease, BA, writer and technical editor.

4 Personal observation.

5 Patrick O’Driscoll, “High-rises remain vulnerable after 9/11.” USA TODAY, Sept. 25, 2002 ( [1-3]).

6 NIST’s World Trade Center Investigation, Fact Sheets from NIST, Sept. 8, 2006 ( [2]). No data is available yet from NIST specifying WTC 7 research costs, but the budget proposal for laboratory projects in FY2005, the year research on No. 7 began—considered by a House/Senate conference—was $373,372,000 ([1]).

7 President George W. Bush, press conference, Sept. 15, 2006 ( l1-2].

8 The three were Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Ph.D., and Kevin Ryan (Letter to Stephen Cauffman, NIST, from Richard Gage, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan, Sept. 15, 2008 ( [passim]).

9 Evan Lipstein, “City moving towards improved high-rise building safety (’facilities-commercial-real-estate/4506803-1.html [1-2]). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004), passim. Sally Regenhard, Statement to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Nov. 19, 2003 (http:J// [1]). Ibid. , 1-2. Statement of Sally Regenhard to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, Nov. 19, 2003, Commission Archives ( [4]). Accessed on 10 - 7 – 08

10 Eric Lipton, “Agency Fights Building Code Born of 9/11,” The New York Times, Sept. 8, 2008 ( [1-4]). Y

11 “World Trade Center Insurance Litigation Settles for $2B,” PlanNYC: New York City Planning Information Portal, May 24, 2007 ( [1]).

12 Barry B. LePatner, ”Upgrading building codes post 9/11,” Real Estate Weekly, July 2, 2003 ( [1-2]). Patrick O’Driscoll, “High-rises remain vulnerable after 9/11,” USAToday, Sept. 25, 2002

13 Executive Summary, World Trade Center Performance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002), 4

14 Eric Darton, “The Process of Creating a Ruin,” Business Week ( [1-2]). Accessed on Oct. 9, 2008. Patrick Buchanan, “The Unspeakable Truth of 9/11,” ([1]).

Greg Szymanski, “Ground Zero Worker and 9/11 Hero Dying of Cancer From Toxins at WTC,”,

( [1]). Accessed on 10-9-08.

Silverstein Makes a Huge Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks,” What Really Happened. Com ( [2]). “Numerous Failures Led to Fatal Fire at Deutsche Bank,” PlanNYC: New York City Planning Information Portal, Aug. 20, 2008 ( [1]).Accessed on 10-9-08. “Huge Fines, Many Violations Found at Deutsche Bank Tower,” Feb. 20, 2008, ( [1]). Accessed on 10-9-08. If dismantling expenses are significantly higher than anticipated profits, many companies will renegotiate contracts to use demolition; some prefer arson and risking prison. In the Deutsche Bank job, unexpected expenses involved careful removal of 766 pieces of human remains on the roof and bagging and shipping 41 floors of highly toxic materials to foreign repositories (Curtis, interview, Oct. 6, 2008).

15 Eric Lipton, “Agency Fights Building Code Born of 9/11,” The New York Times, Sept. 8, 2008 ( [3]). Accessed on 10 – 7 - 08.

16 Ibid., [1].

17 The Jersey Girls are Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “9/11 Widows Skillfully Applied The Power of a Question: Why?” The New York Times, April 1, 2004, ( [1-2]).

18 Paul Wolfowitz, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, Project for a New American Century, September 2000, 51. Wolfowitz wrote: "Further, 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." Alan Bullock and William Foote Whyte, “Hitler, Adolph, “ Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, 15th Ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979), VIII, 967.

19 Ramon Gilsanz, Edward M. DePaola, Christopher Marrion, Harold “Bud” Nelson, World Trade Center Performance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002), Chapter 5, 1, 20.

Ibid., Chapter 5, 1, 31.

20 Ibid. Michael E. Newman, “Latest Findings from NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released
 Probable Collapse Sequences for Both Towers Finalized; Reports Issued for Three Projects,” NIST news release, April 5, 2005 ( [1]). Fact Sheets, NIST and the World Trade Center, Aug. 30, 2006 ( [2-3]). Department of Commerce (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office: August 2006), xxxi. NIST 2008 Report (NCSTAR 1A), 43. “The Brown Building,” Landmark Preservation Commission, March 25, 2003 (, [2-3]).

Alex Jones Interviews Naomi Wolf

25 October 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

There is an amazing development and evolution of understanding going on between these two individuals, who traditionally would have had little in common. I am impressed at the level of respect shown by each to the other.

This is one positive sign among so many negatives: as society closes down and the global control grid begins to hum into motion, the old political divisions are being erased. This is essential if we are to get out of the mess we are in.

Naomi is beginning to realise that the left/right paradigm is phony, and Alex is willing to acknowledge that Naomi, despite her alleged NWO credentials (as a Rhodes Scholar) is a true ally.

We still have much work to do in Australia even to get this far. We have no prominent intellectuals here who realise that the core system is rigged. Our pseudo-intellectuals snigger about "conspiracy theorists", banning discussion of 9/11 on prominent political websites, and refusing to ask the difficult questions.

We have a long way to go.

Mike Rudin (BBC Conspiracy Files) on the defensive again

24 October 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Mike Rudin

21 Oct 08, 11:54 AM

I've just been sent a video on the net which accuses me of being "Eurotrash" and of producing a "hit piece" about 9/11.

World Trade Center

Almost inevitably I've been enmeshed in the ever growing net of the conspiracy theory. They've added my name to a long list of imagined conspirators - the secret services, police, people who worked in the building, first responders, the fire service, city officials...and also those who they think have deliberately set out to cover up this huge conspiracy - the official investigators, the world's media...

Last month we were in New York to film the seventh anniversary of 9/11 at Ground Zero for a new programme about the allegation of a conspiracy to deliberately destroy the three skyscrapers at the World Trade Centre. "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower" is to be broadcast at 9pm on BBC Two on Sunday 26th October 2008.

We also filmed self-styled truthers who think 9/11 was an inside job, either carried out or allowed by the US government; and they needed to destroy a third tower at the World Trade Center, Tower 7, which they think contained the plans for the plot.

It is a fact that Tower 7 had some interesting tenants - the CIA, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Office of Emergency Management - the very office which was intended to co-ordinate a response to a disaster or terrorist attack.

When we were filming we were surprised that some of the truthers seemed particularly keen to interview us on camera about the last programme we made about this third tower at 9/11. They think we have deliberately set out to conceal the truth. As one said to me "You already know the truth."

The group who made the video are called "We are change". They claim we misrepresented the chronology involving one important witness who we interviewed in our last programme about 9/11.

The first responder Barry Jennings was trapped inside the building for several hours along with another New York City official. They were crucial witnesses to what was going on inside Tower 7 after everyone had been evacuated shortly after the Twin Towers were hit by the two planes.

As I tried to explain to them at the time, we recorded a long interview with Barry Jennings. We also carefully considered other information and came to our own view based on all of that.

As the two men tried to get out of the skyscraper they were suddenly thrown into darkness. Barry Jennings said he heard explosions. We think it is likely that this was when Tower 1 collapsed, showering debris onto Tower 7.

We have also recently recorded an interview with the other man there, Michael Hess.

Michael Hess was Mayor Rudolf Giuliani's chief lawyer, in charge of 800 New York City lawyers. In his first interview since 9/11 he confirms our timeline. Hess says all the lights went out and he felt the building shake like an earthquake and he adds that he did not hear explosions.

In his mind he thought there might have been an explosion. In the only interview he did on 9/11 he told a reporter he had "walked down to the eighth floor where there was an explosion."

But as our interview with him shows, he is now certain that he did not hear an explosion. He just assumed on the day it could have been an explosion because he had witnessed the lights going out, the staircase filling with smoke and the building shaking vigorously.

We now know, courtesy of the final official report on 9/11 [pdf link] by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, that the official investigators think that two areas of Tower 7 were badly hit when the 1,350 foot Tower 1 collapsed. Seven columns were severed on the southwest corner and they suggest debris also hit the top centre face of Tower 7.

The lead investigator of NIST told me that "it's likely that all of those huge failures and damage really caused noises that were incredibly loud."

If our timeline is wrong then why didn't Barry Jennings and Michael Hess see and hear the moment of impact when Tower 1 fell. It must have been very loud.

The group also criticizes us for not including one sentence from an interview with the owner Larry Silverstein. Apologies now because this gets very complicated. However, some people think hidden in this is a vital clue that can unravel the biggest conspiracy in modern times.

The theory is that the owner Larry Silverstein is meant to have implicated himself in a conspiracy to destroy the buildings he owned and leased at the World Trade Center. And what exactly did he say that supposedly gave it all away?

He said "pull it" which some people interpret as an order to demolish the building.

The interview was conducted the year after 9/11 and Larry Silverstein said:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

"We are change" activists think there is something sinister in the fact that we did not include an extra sentence when Larry Silverstein said:

"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

I don't have a problem talking about it. And just for the avoidance of any doubt we included it in the Worldwide version and we will include it in the new programme for BBC Two.

However, I do not understand how that implicates the owner in any wrongdoing. Interestingly one prominent website, 9/11 Research which is highly critical of the official explanation, is not convinced either and thinks it might even be "bait" to discredit the truth movement.

The crucial words seem to be "pull it" and Larry Silverstein's spokesman provides an explanation:

"Mr Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those fire fighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

I talked to the man who assumed command of the New York Fire Department that day. Chief Daniel Nigro told me that it was his decision to decide what to do about Tower 7.

In other words there is no way Larry Silverstein could have ordered the fire department to leave the building and wait for it to be demolished. As Chief Nigro told me the fire service was not part of conspiracy, they were doing their job:

"When we are in charge of a building, we are in charge and that decision will be the fire chiefs and his alone...That's why I know there is no conspiracy, because for me to be part of that would be obscene and it disgusts me to even think of it."

For good measure the truthers at Ground Zero added one final criticism, saying that the BBC is funded by General Electric. I'm not sure what that's based on, but I can say with absolute, yes absolute certainty, it isn't...nor have I ever been part of a conspiracy to cover up what really went on 9/11.

Mike Rudin is series producer, The Conspiracy Files

Page 87 of 111 pages ‹ First  < 85 86 87 88 89 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

ten years ago, people who had concerns about 9/11, were told, relax, youre imagining things, there is nothing to be concerned about.

the same people who said that, are now saying theres nothing to be concerned about chemtrails.

some remain willfully ignorant, others simply flat out liars.. but the glaring evidence is beyond doubt. ( or sometimes the lack of it, as in the case of flight 77 and the pentagon, no verifiable evidence flight 77 hit )

i dont mean to speak for phoenix man.. but josh asks..

Can you specify what you mean by bizarre and inconsistent flight paths?

seriously? it is a straightforward statement.. the definitions of all those words are understood by most with a basic understanding of english, im not sure why you think anyone owes you the time explaining and justifying every word and expression they make..

i think its self explanatory and that is the sort of thing that is so annoying and time wasting.

perhaps if you can show that planes never travel on bizarre and inconsistent flight paths..  simply post that. otherwise, you could qualify why youre asking the question, to make it sound less pretentious.. like..

Can you specify what you mean by bizarre and inconsistent flight paths? - because it is my understanding that planes always fly in a direct pre determined route, and there is no way planes would criss-cross, or fly over areas that are not on a direct route between capital cities etc etc etc..


By agin mee on 2012 11 13 - 10:23:12
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Skywatcher/Meagain/agin mee said:

“fenton insulted me first, ive done no worse than he.”

Then why did you start insulting me ?

“please stop banning my ip and deleting my comments.. “

Why not try to write a post free of insults ?

this is not meant as an insult, just saying, but the problem with you josh is you dont pay attention to what other people say. ive told you already why i have issues with you, and if they havnt been deleted, you can go back and peruse them at your leisure, or i shall tell you once more, in the hope you finally get it this time.

reasons are, but not limited to, you sit on here, as some sort of self proclaimed arbiter of what is, and what isnt, a contrail or a chemtrail.

you tell me that what im looking at, in a smarmy condescending way, that i have no reason for concern, with no knowledge of what im looking at.

you refuse to acknowledge any kind of geoengineering program that people offer you evidence of, and dismiss the concerns of millions worldwide as issues with their imaginations.

youve now appointed yourself hall monitor for this thread that youve dominated from the start, and tell others exactly how appropriate it is for my comments to be deleted and for me to be blocked from commenting, all the while, while youve been guilty of the same things.

i could go on, but from past experience, im not sure of what use it is to try to explain things to you.  you have been dealt with patiently and politely by others, but thats not my style, its also not my problem.

a post free of insults… again, youre in no position to call thatr one, however, like i said, my first post here was a simple criticism, polite and succinct. MR FENTON took umbrage that i dare call hypocrisy, hypocrisy, and subsequently not only deleted my posts, and blocked my ip, declared me a TROLL and then changed his comments in an attempt to make himself look less foolish.

I am supposed to show that sort of behavior any sort of respect?

like ive said previously, i treat people the way they treat me, you might not use the colourful language that i do, but your posts and attitude is definitely insulting.

perhaps you dont have concerns about chemtrails, but that doesnt mean you should be entitled to belittle anyone else who does, in the light of the plethora of evidence that suggests their concerns are legitimate, especially when the only thing you have to counter anything anyone posts here, is your unqualified opinion.

now, i hardly think people come here to discuss my arsenal of insults, or how many barbs i throw into a comment, thats not the topic here.

i suggest, most respectfully, that after 30 pages, your point of view has been made perfectly clear, and unless you have some information that can show beyond all reasonable doubt, that people have nothing to be concerned about, then id suggest youve said all you need to.

people here are expressing their concerns as to why MR FENTONS article is wrong in their opinion, they are not asking what you think of their concerns, nor are they asking you for the answers, as you are not answering in any sort of official capacity.


By agin mee on 2012 11 13 - 09:48:11
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Phoenix Man said:

“Upon closer observance it has become increasingly difficult to ignore the activity of numerous high altitude aircraft leaving plumes that over the course of several hours expand and coalesce to make massive cloudlike formations that could be easily mistaken for overcast above sometimes naturally-occurring cumulus clouds.”

What you describe are most likely persistant contrails and “contrail cirrus”. They behave like clouds because that’s what they are. Initiated by human beings, of course, but their further development depends on the prevailing conditions in their environment.

About the contrail frequency: perhaps the increase can be attributed to the rise in air traffic over the last decade.

Did you try to identify the planes with the help of flightaware or flightradar24?
A simple telescope may also reveal more details about them.

“I recognized how throughout most of the year this was an almost daily phenomenon initiated by planes with sometimes bizarre and inconsistent flight paths”.

Can you specify what you mean by bizarre and inconsistent flight paths?

By Josh on 2012 11 13 - 06:24:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

You need to look at the satellite video of Hurricane Sandy. There is evidence of massive interference in the form of Chemtrails.They are clearly obvious. This issue can’t be left in the realm of “opinion” you need to deal with it scientifically and the evidence proving their existence is monumental.

By Tony on 2012 11 13 - 05:26:17
From the entry 'Chemtrails Revisited'.

Skywatcher/Meagain/agin mee said:

“fenton insulted me first, ive done no worse than he.”

Then why did you start insulting me ?

“please stop banning my ip and deleting my comments.. “

Why not try to write a post free of insults ?

By Josh on 2012 11 13 - 02:09:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.



please stop banning my ip and deleting my comments.. 


By agin mee on 2012 11 12 - 23:25:53
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Mr. Fenton if you don’t mind, agin mee. Have some manners, man.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 11 12 - 22:36:29
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

is there anything fenton wont delete?


you should try focusing on the more important issues in phoenix mans post.. rather than simply more pot stirring

By m3again on 2012 11 12 - 18:34:58
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.


By agin mee on 2012 11 12 - 20:45:42
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

josh.. tell the whole truth, or its not the truth

fenton insulted me first, ive done no worse than he.  dont you pretend to be holier than anyone else either..

your smarmy condescension in your unqualified commentary, and pretense that there is no evidence to support a counter view, is as insulting as a direct insult, of which you have also indulged in.

to call you a hypocrite is not an insult… its a fact



these comments deleted 3 times now… if only fenton had of not called me a troll, and deleted my comments, for simply pointing out his blatant hypocrisy for telling everyone to get of facebook while he whole heartedly embraced it..

my simple truth wouldve slipped into oblivion..

now he wants to play these silly games..

deleting comments and blocking ips.. sigh….



more deletions ...

your comprehension issues are no ones fault but your own.

  persistent contrail occurrence is relatively rare.

its plain and simple.

i have no interest in what you understand, or what you dont understand, but clearly you are unqualified to be telling anyone anything, as if you are some sort of authority on the subject.

By meagain on 2012 11 11 - 12:17:37

the “Space Preservation Act of 2001”

defines “chemtrails”

as an exotic weapon.

The term `exotic weapons systems’ includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

josh shouldve been there to tell them all “theres no such animal”

By meagain on 2012 11 11 - 14:56:47


As an admin on this site, I wish to apologise for the way in which this thread has been taken over by people who think childish insults and out of context quotes are a clever way of advancing an argument.

Unfortunately, the parties concerned have previously evaded my attempts at banning by spoofing IP addresses.

I refuse to engage in any further dialogue with those concerned. I recommend they stop posting here as they are not welcome.

I will try once again to block the offending IP addresses.


@ fenton..

back to censorship again eh? you should apologise for your deceitful hypocrisy


btw.. i havnt taken over the thread, the quote is not out of context, and you cant back up a single claim you make with anything except your unqualified opinion..

if your forum membership numbers are any guide, the only people whove read you pathetic apology is me and a ahndful of others.. get a clue - just because youre head is shaped like a spark plug, that doesnt make you a champion.


@ josh..

i just did a google search for unicorns..

18,300,000 results..

and last time it rained here.. there were no beer glasses in the sky either

@ fenton, get off the internet, your not welcome.


yeah… despite govt description of chemtrails, and the report that govts spay populations with chemicals.. you say theres no such thing..

onya goober

ya cant answer anything, you have nothing, so lick my taint


this video posted called chemtrail proof

what others are witnessing all over the world, every day..


“Be advised, I will continue taunting you like this until you go away. I won’t waste my time blocking your IP address again, since you have, with the skills of a pubescent car jacker, learned how to circumvent these security measures. “

liar liar pants on fire ...nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah (_X_)
security measures… bwahahahahahhahahahahahah

try sticking to the truth loser… that way you wouldnt stuff up so much.


public opinion says josh is an idiot


btw.. i havnt taken over the thread, the quote is not out of context, and you cant back up a single claim you make with anything except your unqualified opinion..

if your forum membership numbers are any guide, the only people whove read you pathetic apology is me and a ahndful of others.. get a clue - just because youre head is shaped like a spark plug, that doesnt make you a champion.

By meagain on 2012 11 11 - 18:47:10
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.


@ fenton..

back to censorship again eh? you should apologise for your deceitful hypocrisy

By meagain on 2012 11 11 - 18:40:51
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.

By agin mee on 2012 11 12 - 20:43:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.


By Anon on 2012 11 12 - 20:39:13
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.