Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

10 August 2011 | Source | Permalink | comments: 1
By Hereward Fenton

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.”

9/11: Explosive Evidence DVD

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!

Comments

Anyone who can’t see it’s controlled demolition (WTC 1, 2 & 7)) needs to get their eyes and/or judgement checked big time. Passes the blind freddy test, no problems.

By Robin Pratt on 2011 08 20 - 21:08:09

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Listen Live

Recent Comments

fenton, i didnt say i didnt want to engage in rational debate, i said i wasnt interested in engaging with an obviously mendacious shill. i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive, and as far as failure to prove anything goes, ignoring evidence does not mean evidence has not been provided, nor proof been established.

you have certainly not proven by any stretch of the imagination, that chemtrails are imaginary, and the concern of thousands of credible experts worldwide is without justification.

may i suggest if you can not prove what you are asserting, that you also take a hearty sip yourself. have a shitty day.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 31 - 15:33:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

The onus of proof is on those promoting geoengineering (David Keith, etc.Ken Caldera) to prove that what they say about the spraying, i.e. that it is a proposal, not a global reality, is true. That follows from the precautionary principle.

By W, Hall on 2014 10 31 - 15:10:14
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

As admin of this site I feel I need to step in here. Andrew, if you do not not want to engage in discussion and debate that’s fine, however you have absolutely no right to tell anybody to “STFU”.

I have provided a comment section to encourage free discussion and debate. Your dictatorial and abusive tone merely demonstrates your failure to prove anything.

Since you don’t want to engage in rational debate may I suggest that you refrain from posting here?

Have a nice day!

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 10 31 - 14:52:32
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

@ lumpen josh
what part of “I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say, ” is too hard for you to understand?
I do not have to justify anything to you, i dont have to point you to anything, i dont have to engage you in any sort of conversation here because you have proven yourself to be of no credibility, a nonsensical bore.

nothing you can say can prove that chemtrails are a figment of the imagination of highly qualified credible people worldwide, so how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU and stop pretending you are some sort of authoritive arbiter on anything.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 31 - 14:08:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

First off i applaud you for seeking facts rather that resorting to slander as i have all too commonly seen among alternate media. On that note i would like to make known some experiments the Australian government was carrying out! My grandfather was an aircraft maintenance technician many years ago. He obsessively tells me of an experiment they carried out where dry ice was shoveled into a modified chute into the clouds. He claimed they were at the aircraft altitude ceiling and the dry ice would cause the clouds to drop their water. He claimed they were wearing oxygen masks to breathe!

By Stephen on 2014 10 29 - 14:39:09
From the entry 'Chemtrails brownshirts renew threats against TNRA'.

Andrew Adams,

‘looking up’ does not tell you much about atmospheric physics. You can’t see that the air gets cooler with increasing altitude and decreasing density. You can’t see the wildly varying relative humidity, the pockets of ice supersaturation or the jet streams.
It takes knowledge and measurements to understand and make predictions. That’s what meteorologists and atmospheric scientists are there for, after all.

Regarding the notorious “Case Orange” text - supposedly compiled by an anonymous group of people - it is not even coming close to a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It piles up a lot of conjecture together with well-meaning statements that everybody can subscribe to. It also constantly mixes up contrails, cloud seeding and low-altitude chemical dispersion which are entirely unrelated things.

Can you point me to the best evidence in this text for the claim that persistant contrails are deliberately mixed with spraying material, as part of “large-scale geoengineering projects through commercial aviation”? I can’t find any.

What do you think is the single most important fact that supports the theory that persistant contrails are not just ice crystals? I am ready to be convinced if it stands up to scrutiny.

By Josh on 2014 10 28 - 09:51:35
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

ankara travestileri ankara travestileri ,travesti zuhalin kişisel resim galeri haberler günün sözü icerik ankaradakitravestiler.com

By Ankara Travestileri on 2014 10 28 - 05:01:25
From the entry 'Meet Brendon O'Connell, Australia's first political prisoner'.

Josh
Pardon me iff I dont take you seriously. Chemtrails or if you like, persistant contrails, are nothing new. To suggest that because something is “exotic” means that it is hypothetical, shows your disingenuousness or your stupidity, or both.. Ive learnt long ago not to trust unqualified anonymous numpties on the internet who say things like, “Still no evidence that persistent contrails are anything but.” when all one needs to do to discredit that nonesense is to be in possession of a functioning cognisant ability, and to look up.  If thats not enough, there is plenty of scientific proof also. that shows chemtrails are actually not that exotic at all, that they have been used for decades for various purposes. It is all documented. I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say, you have said it all, countless times already in this post. You really should get yourself a hobby, maybe go outside once in a while, unless youre scared.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 27 - 09:47:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

two remarks in reply to your post:

1. The “British academic” is David Lim, a former PhD candidate at University of Reading, his subject “Construction Management and Engineering”. His field of research included urban/domestic energy concepts, like in this project.

He has dropped out in 2013 after getting involved with the chemtrail conspiracy theory (and others). He now calls himself an “independent researcher”, but unfortunately he is obviously just reurgitating some long debunked mainstream claims of the chemtrail community, like the one you quoted.


2. The original text of H.R. 2977 was written by Alfred Webre, Carol Rosin and others from the ‘Institute for Cooperation in Space’ (ICIS).

The term ‘chemtrails’ is listed under the category ‘exotic’, along with other hypothetical weapons like ultrasonic, tectonic or psychotronic ones (see original text).

Dennis Kucinich removed these ‘exotic weapons’ in a second version of the bill. It seems he hadn’t scrutinized the first version properly. He said “When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’” (Reference : Ohio Newspaper “The Plain Dealer”, 2003-03-12)

Carol Rosin later commented on the modification: “This bill will only ban space-based weapons and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit. It is NOT a bill to ban chemtrails and/or psychotronics or mind control devises or any specific weapons listed in the category of definitions in the original bill.” (Reference)

So that’s all there is to it. Apparently, you can write anything into a congressional bill; there is no obligation for reality checks (unlike with scientific papers).

Still no evidence that persistent contrails are anything but.

By Josh on 2014 10 26 - 21:38:41
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

John Pilger and his mate chumpsky are disingenous gate keepers. Nothing they say here is unheard of, or un reported elsewhere.. The whole world knows of why israel is copping justifiable criticism. They pretend to be on the side of truth and justice, all the time perpetuating the lies.

Pilger stated the most “plausible” scenario for 911, is that “they” let it happen.  His good mate julian assange is on the record saying that those who question the official account of 911 “annoy” him.  After more than a decade of investigation of the evidence, the consensus would suggest the most “plausible” explanation would be that “they” engineered, executed and implemented the cover up.

Pilger is therefore either willfully ignorant, or deliberately deceptive.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 25 - 10:51:03
From the entry 'How you have been betrayed by your government and your media'.

Categories