LISTEN LIVE OR CALL IN » CLICK HERE!
Most Popular
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out
We Are Change Sydney and Truth News Australia are proud to host a screening of this exciting new documentary film by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Saturday, September 10, 2011, 7:00 PM
Sydney Mechanics' School of Arts
280 Pitt Street, Sydney (map)
The film features cutting-edge 9/11 evidence from more than 50 experts in their fields – high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled demolition technicians, and more. They are each highly qualified. Several have Ph.D’s, including renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis who was awarded the National Medal of Science, and who exposes in this film the fraud of NIST and discusses how the scientific method should have been applied to the destruction of evidence and to the high temperature incendiaries in the WTC dust samples. The documentary is filled with wisdom from experts such as Les Young, one of several high-rise architects interviewed in the film, who remarks,
“I would not have expected the whole building[s] to just give in at once. And I thought it rather odd that they fell almost perfectly – in very similar ways. It seemed odd that lightning would strike twice.”
The full-length documentary includes interviews with almost a dozen psychologists who help us to understand why 9/11 Truth is so difficult for the public to even face, much less accept – and what we can do better to reach them. We also hear from several 9/11 victim family members who support AE911Truth in our call for a new investigation.
Psychologist William Woodward, Ph.D, one of eight mental health professionals who are also AE911Truth petition signers, provides a profound insight in that section of the film:
"Reconciliation through the truth is a deep path to psychological recovery from the myths and lies around which this historic event has been cloaked in the official view."
We look forward to seeing you there!
Richard Gage AIA and Jan Utzon of Sydney Opera House discuss 9/11 truth
Luckily, TNRA was there to record this historic meeting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txUaDtIbLow
Like 964 other professional architects and engineers Mr Utzon has signed the ae911truth.org petition demanding of Congress an independent investigation into the collapse of the 3 World Trade Center buildings in New York on September 11, 2001
Please circulate this video widely.
A big thanks to EVERYONE who helped make this happen (:
Best regards,
Hereward Fenton
An interview with Richard Gage, AIA
Tonight it is my great pleasure to welcome Richard Gage to the show.Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He is the founding member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org). He has been a practicing architect for over 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. Most recently he worked on the construction documents for a $400M mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail, parking structure, and 320,000 square feet of mid-rise office space - altogether about with 1,200 tons of steel framing.
AE911Truth.org provides an extensive resource of expert opinion on the structural failure of three WTC buildings on 11 September 2001.
During the interview we engage with all the key questions surrounding the collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2 & 7 - including a critique of the flawed reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) .
We also get into the subject of connections between NIST and nano-thermite which Gage and an international group of scientists believe were used in the demolition of these buildings.
This is an extremely important interview - I encourage our listeners to forward this to as many people as possible, particularly those who are new to the subject or adhere to the official theory, which maintains that the WTC towers were destroyed solely as a result of plane impacts and fires.
Recent Comments
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dane-wigington-on-infowars-4-4-13/#comment-33658
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:31:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:28:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:19:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
the video you linked is a really old conglomerate of all sorts of claims that have been debunked ad nauseam.
What do you think is the ultimate proof for the existence of chemtrails?
Why should we have to assume there is such a thing like chemtrails? How are they different from contrails?
By Josh on 2013 04 10 - 06:59:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://realnewsworldwide.com/2008/09/10/chemtrails-ultimate-proof/
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 09 - 16:31:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
If you open the link you will see the reference to chemtrail area forecasts. The other link I wish to post is refused by the “Truth news” which claims it may be SPAM and “will be moderated”, probably because it mentions chemtrails in the link. However, I will try again by separating the words. http://www.chemtrail forecast.com/main.html
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 09:02:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
about the link you posted - where is the relevance in the discussion about persistent contrails?
By Josh on 2013 03 13 - 08:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.haarpstatus.com/status.html
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 08:44:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
after you consistently refused to accept the fact that fuel combustion generates more water than the equivalent of fuel burnt - even when a Qantas pilot confirmed this - I am highly skeptical of your “aviation life experience”. I hope you understand that.
So there are more explanations needed before your claims can be taken seriously.
1. How did you determine that the ambient conditions at the upper troposphere were not conducive to the formation of contrails this summer?
2. How did you determine the causal connection between trails and lack of rain?
3. How did you determine the altitude of the low trail that you saw? How can you be sure it was below the cumulus? Why not above (remember: 3D viewing up to 160m max)? Any pictures maybe?
If you want to do REAL research on the Internet, I strongly suggest to repeat every search query that you issue with the word “debunked” appended. That is the way to do proper research because you see both sides and their arguments. Don’t just fall for sensational claims.
Unfortunately, the Internet is loaded with bunk.
By Josh on 2013 03 02 - 18:06:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Josh Anonymous,
You apparently do not do much research. Notice how, over the Eastern Australian summer, there have been many chemtrails coincident with usual weather patterns where obvious rain should have been the outcome had the chemtrails not been laid, and it was not, and this during the season when ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Chemtrails are entirely different to what you term “persistent contrails” as you would know if you had sufficient aviation life experience. You may try to explain how there was recently, and I have observed the same many times before, a chemtrail below a layer of fair weather Cu at 8,000 ft and how this could possibly occur without the laws of physics and thermodynamics being turned on their head. I suggest that you do an Internet search for the activities of Bill Gates and geoengineering.
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 02 - 13:51:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.