Tuesday, October 29, 2013

9/11 Free Fall 10/24/13: Ziggi Zugam-- The Red/Gray Chip Debate

Ziggi Zugam-- a writer for “Debunking the Debunkers”-- discusses the latest in Mark Basile's push to raise money for a blind study of WTC dust samples, as well as the basics of Niels Harrit and team's nano-thermite paper, and the red/gray chip debate.  He also offers a perspective on the 9/11 issue as a resident of Iceland and talks about the reaction of people there when they're encountered with the WTC controlled demolition evidence.


Sunday, October 27, 2013

Petition: Join the Now Over 584,000 Others Asking the NSA to Stop Watching Us

"The organizers of the Stop Watching Us coalition, which includes over 100 public advocacy groups, are going to present a petition to Congress which has over 570,000 signatures." - Thousands March in D.C. Against NSA Domestic Surveillance



Read the following article and then answer the question at the end: Do you still believe that the government is only spying on bad guys in “targeted” searches?

Security Expert: “We Have To Assume That The NSA Has EVERYONE Who Uses Electronic Communications Under CONSTANT Surveillance”

Grand Theft Auto 5 Mentions Government False Flags & Inside Jobs (Staged Terrorist Attacks)

Published on Oct 26, 2013
GTA 5 Mentions false flag terrorist attacks and government inside jobs...

Join the Red Pill Forums: http://www.redpill.boards.net
Red Pill on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RedPillPhilosophy
Follow Me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/RedPillTweets

Cool Shirts: http://www.redpillphilosophy.com/store
Become a "Red Pill Member" for Exclusive Content: http://www.redpillphilosophy.com/Members

My FREE Newsletter: http://www.redpillphilosophy.com

Saturday, October 26, 2013

9/11 Best Evidence Playlist by ReThink911.org


ReThink911 NY Times Billboard Kickoff Event – Join Us!

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Noam Chomsky Manufactures 9/11 Consent

 A disappointed person recently asked us about Noam Chomsky´s comments at his 10/15/2013 University of Florida presentation. The offending bit of Chomsky´s lecture in question is about the 9/11 attacks, and the cause for alarm is the display of confusion and blatant denial by the lecturer. Chomsky does acknowledge the motive to invade Iraq for oil, but he seems to think that there is "overwhelming evidence that the US government was not involved." To support this conclusion he states that the government would have blamed Iraq for 9/11 if this had been a false-flag, instead of blaming its allies in the region - the Saudis. But Chomsky has completely reversed the reality here since the US government has never accused Saudi-Arabia of involvement, while one of the justifications for invading Iraq was indeed the bogus accusation that it had been behind the attacks - And in fact a 2006 survey showed that almost 90% of the US troops in Iraq still thought they were there to avenge for 9/11. And lets not forget the invasion of Pipeline-istan - which also happens to be rich with natural resources -supposedly to hunt down Osama even though Cheney et al. had not provided any evidence that Osama had been responsible for 9/11 - and never did.

Chomsky also completely ignores all the incriminating evidence suggesting that factions within the government were involved in various ways, including but not limited to the following whistle-blower revelations: The three-letter government agencies knew about the impending attacks but thwarted investigations that would have foiled the plans; some of the hijackers got their US visas through the same CIA embassy in Jeddah as the mujahideen did back in the day and Osama was in fact still working for the US government on 9/11. And then there is Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, the former US Navy Captain and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations (Nixon, Ford and Carter), who has stated in public that he is prepared to testify in front of a grand jury and reveal that a top general told him directly that 9/11 was an inside job. With this in mind, the confusion created by all those air-defense drills on 9/11 and the peculiar total failure of NORAD and all those three-letter agencies starts to makes sense.
As for the collapse of WTC7 and the 2000-plus architects and engineers behind the ReThink9/11 campaign, Mr. Chomsky states that(emphasis mine):
There's a consensus among a minuscule number of architects and engineers, tiny number, a couple of them are perfectly serious. They're not doing what scientists and engineers do, when they think they've discovered something. What you do, when you think you've discovered something, what you do is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT, or Florida or wherever you are..
First of all, Chomsky´s lack of research is astounding: These "perfectly serious" scientists representing 9/11 truth have actually published some of their discoveries in scientific journals, and there is now a healthy selection of papers that refute the official "natural collapse" narrative and support the controlled demolition hypothesis - research the evidence section of the AE9/11Truth webpage. Some of these scientists have given lectures at universities around the world, including Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Niels Harrit who delivered ninety university lectures in seven countries. And AE9/11Truth recently attended the American Institute of Architects' annual convention for the fourth time, along with 14,000 other architects - this is one of the ways the organization has gathered signatories through the years. Finally, Mr. Chomsky should note that these efforts have convinced over 2000 experts to sign the petition, and that many of them have prestigious credentials, including 17 signatories from MIT. The above information puts into perspective Chomsky´s following comment:
There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics; it doesn't work like that: there's a reason that there are graduate schools
Chomsky´s ignorance is jaw-dropping and sad, but his fallacy of appealing to the apparent popularity of the official narrative is enough to bring some of his former fans to tears. Appearances can also be deceiving as J-M Talboo points out in AE911Truth.org's FAQ 6:
One should not assume that the individuals comprising the majority opinion have all been exposed to all the relevant information on the topic. For example, a recent survey revealed that 75% of New Yorkers had never seen video footage of the destruction of WTC Building 7. It’s also true that most architects and engineers know nothing at all about the third worst structural failure in modern history... 
Those of us who have spent a few years advocating 9/11 truth also know that many people are not willing to publicly support the cause due to concerns for their careers, even though they will admit doubts about the official story in private. But Chomsky seems to think that this is completely false:
Now when this is brought up, there's a standard reaction, the scientists and engineers and professional societies and physicists, are so intimidated by the government, that they're afraid to take, they don't have the courage, to take this position. Anyone who has any familiarity with political activism, knows that this is one of the safest things you can do. It's almost risk less.
No risk? Try telling that to scientists and whistle-blowers Dr. Cate Jenkins and Kevin Ryan who both lost their jobs. Then try Dr. Steven Jones who was forced to retire in the aftermath of the publishing of the 2009 nano-thermite paper by Harrit et al., in which he was the second author. Ironically this happens to be the only paper that Chomsky mentions in this lecture! Chomsky goes on to admit that scientists may get laughed at for supporting 9/11 truth but dismisses that as not being risky, as if being ridiculed in the media does not involve the risk of being sidelined in your career. Maybe he should spend some time discussing this issue with Harrit et al. and others that have experienced the taboo status of 9/11 investigations within the academic community? And lets not forget that Americans live in a society where the secret service and the main-stream media have a tendency to paint "truthers" as nut-jobs and even potential terrorists, so in all perhaps not the safest thing one can do - let alone a good career move.

Most surprising of all is Chomsky´s attitude towards the discovery of an incendiary or explosive material in the WTC dust:
..now there are one or two minor articles. Like there's one article that appeared in an online journal, which claims to have found traces of nano-thermite in Building 7. I don't know what that means. You don't know what that means. But if it means anything, bring it to the attention of the scientific community.
I find it hard to believe that Mr. Chomsky actually finds it hard to understand what the implication is of an explosive material found in the rubble of the Twin Towers and Building 7 - and considering his uncharacteristic ignorance of all the published papers and all the work done to bring the evidence to the attention of the academia and the relevant experts, it sure looks like pure denial.

But at least Chomsky has admitted that there is no evidence for the official story of the 9/11 attacks, so it should not really trouble him to join us truthers in the demand for a new actual investigation? How about demanding some published papers that support the official narrative?


Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper- Corbettreport Oct 26, 2013

Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy

Noam Chomsky debunked on 9/11 Truth!

The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left. -TAKEN FROM CHAPTER FIVE OF BARRIE ZWICKER'S 'TOWERS OF DECEPTION'

EPA Whistle-Blower Fired Again

A recent article by the Environment News Service reminds us all that nothing has changed:

The EPA fired Dr. Cate Jenkins in 2010 for exposing EPA´s cover-up of the toxic dust in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in NY. The first responders did their work without sufficient protection because the EPA had told them it was safe, and as a result many of them have permanent disabilities. The EPA is still trying to get rid of Dr. Jenkins even though a federal civil service court unanimously ruled against it a year ago, and gave Dr. Jenkins her job back. PEER senior counsel Paula Dinerstein, who represent Dr. Jenkins, states in the interview with the ENS:
The evidence we have assembled shows a high-level involvement in instigating and pursuing these dubious allegations,” Dinerstein said, noting that starting in October 2001, Dr. Jenkins also revealed falsifications of asbestos levels and standards by the EPA and the City of New York.
Earlier, starting in 1990, Dr. Jenkins disclosed the manipulation of studies on workers exposed to dioxin, contained in Agent Orange, which had been used to deny Vietnam veterans health benefits.
In fact Monsanto had pressured the EPA to fire Dr. Jenkins in the 90´s for exposing fraudulent studies, but Jenkins won that fight eventually and lets all hope she wins this one as well.

Uncle Sam´s abuse of Vietnam veterans and 9/11 first-responders does not surprise anyone that has seriously researched the military industrial complex and the 9/11 inside-job hypothesis. I encourage you to read Dr. Jenkins´s extensive exposure of  EPA´s fraudulent WTC studies, and notice that one of the scientists charged with scientific misconduct is none other than Dr. Millette, the author of the unpublished and debunked report that was supposed to refute the 2009 study by Harrit et al. that identified nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

Open Letter: How should we remember the first world war?

Please sign the No Glory Open Letter. Over 400 people added their names yesterday, bringing the total number close to 6000 signatures. This shows the growing concern over attempts to use the World War One centenary in 2014 to revise history and re-define as "a price worth paying" the slaughter that killed over 15 million. No doubt we will also see politicians and generals exploiting next year's commemoration to justify the wars they are currently waging 100 years after the "war to end all wars" .

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Help to Spread the Word About ReThink911.org With This Street Brochure

Click on the links below the brochure cover image to see all the different deals available. From those links you also have the option to print out the brochures yourself via a free download. If you're not really one for handing out materials to strangers on the streets, then just hang them up about your area like so.

ReThink911 ‘Street’ Brochure (100-Pack)

ReThink911 ‘Street’ Brochure (500-Pack)

ReThink911 ‘Street’ Brochure (1000-Pack)

Monday, October 21, 2013

9/11 Truth Petitions/Polls and Debunking of Debunker Analysis Suggesting 9/11 Truth is Dead

Updates: A Majority of Americans Do Not Believe the Official 9/11 Story

And the grand total for the AE911Truth petition currently sits at 22,830 signatures for the general public. 3,122 separate signatories are comprised of architectural and engineering professionals.

Monday, October 21, 2013

Scroll down past the first four petitions for commentary.

Petition to the Senate to Investigate Oddities Involving 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

sponsored by Citizens for Legitimate Government

To: The U.S. Senate
Petition to the Senate to Investigate Oddities Involving 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Senate of the United States of America to thoroughly investigate the events surrounding the acts of terrorism that transpired in the United States on September 11, 2001. Such an investigation would include research into the following peculiarities relating to the terrorist attacks on the United States on 9/11:
1.) Thousands of put stock options put stock options that were purchased on United and American airlines immediately prior to 9/11/01
2.) Financial transactions totaling more than 100 million dollars that electronically passed through the World Trade Center immediately prior to its destruction on 9/11
3.) Black-box recordings from the four planes which crashed on 9/11
4.) Cell phone calls made by passengers on hijacked flights on 9/11 which never emerged on their cell-phone bills
5.) Interviews of any air-traffic controllers on duty on 9/11
6.) Eyewitness accounts detailing Flight 93's explosion prior to its crashing
7.) Aircraft debris strewn approximately seven miles from the crash site of Flight 93
8.) Unocal's role in its quest to build an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, plans implemented prior to 2001
9.) Carlyle Corporation's role in overseeing Unocal's quest to have an oil pipeline built across Afghanistan, plans implemented prior to 2001
10.) Role of remote-control sofware technology implemented in 9/11 hijackings and crashes
11.) George W. Bush's possible foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks on 9/11
12.) Role of the Northern Alliance in explosive growth of opium production in Afghanistan after U.S. military intervention
We respectfully petition the Senate to make public the results of this investigation.

Citizens' Complaint and Petition to Attorney General of New York for an Independent Grand Jury Investigation
http://justicefor911.org sponsored by 911truth.org, et al.

with New York legislators, first responders, victim families, and millions of NY citizens calling for a new investigation of unsolved 9/11 crimes, and the full prosecution
of those found responsible.
In memory and on behalf of:
* the more than 2800 murdered in New York on September 11, 2001, including 343 firefighters and 75 police officers;
* the hundreds of thousands of residents and workers variously harmed by the assault;
* the equivalent numbers suffering dire health effects from attack-related pollution;
* New York's collateral victims, human and institutional, who collectively lost billions of dollars in business, career and property damages; and
* the millions of New York citizens who have lost precious freedoms, rights, family members and/or faith in government in the resulting so-called "War on Terror."
We the undersigned:
a) think that there is ample evidence and probable cause to believe that many grave and still unresolved crimes were committed
by US officials prior to, during and after the events of 9/11;
b) observe that most of these apparent crimes, including but not limited to abetment of mass murder, criminal negligence, insider trading, and obstruction of justice, fall well within the jurisdiction of New York's top law enforcement officials, who thus become the People's last recourse when federal intervention yields no credible answers, relief or accountability;
c) therefore petition the Attorney General of the State of New York and the District Attorney of the Borough of Manhattan:
* to open urgent new investigations into the most serious, incriminating, and still largely unexplicated bodies of 9/11 evidence,
* to expose and fully prosecute the perpetrators of all discovered crimes,
* to restore damages, justice and honor to the state and people of New York, and thereby
* to reclaim the public trust in government and our system of law.
Justice for 9/11" Steering Committee--Sponsoring organizations: 911Truth.org, 9/11 CitizensWatch, WTC Environmental Organization

 Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission
Public's Right To Know - Declassification and Release of Documents

created by and written by Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken

To: U.S Congress; Press/Media
We, the undersigned, demand the immediate declassification and release of all transcripts and documents relating to the July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. It has been alleged that this urgent and out-of-the-ordinary meeting was called to discuss the increasingly dire warnings of an imminent al Qaeda attack within the U.S.

Given that much of the July 10, 2001 meeting has already been made public in Bob Woodward's newly released book, "State of Denial", it is unacceptable to continue to keep these documents and transcripts hidden from the American public's view.

In addition, we again call for the declassification and release of both the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI) and the CIA Inspector General's report, "CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks".

The disastrous nature of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks warrant the release of all of this information so that the American public may learn what its government did or did not do to protect them. Had this nation been properly warned of the looming and imminent terrorist threat, life saving choices could have been made that day.

Sincerely, (The Undersigned)


JREF "debunker" Oystein's article, "All 'Truther' Petitions fail miserably," used four other petitions than those above to illustrate his point. Stating in his conclusion that, "In my opinion, all these petitions document that, today, '9/11 Truth' is a fringe issue that no more than a few thousand individuals worldwide have an actual interest in."

I sent him much of the following info I'm going to debunk him with here, but he did not change his blog post much if at all.

Let's compare his choices to mine. The highest number of signatures achieved by any of the four petitions he cited, at the time of his writing, was 5,600. The top petition listed by me here currently has 30,035 signatures. The now closed "Petition to the Senate to Investigate Oddities Involving 9/11 Terrorist Attacks," had a tally of  "28,108 Total Signatures! (January 2006)"

The now closed, "
Scholars Call for Release of 9/11 Information" petition from The Petition Site had a final tally of  22,736.

And the grand total for the AE911Truth petition currently sits at 22,830 signatures for the general public. 3,122 separate signatories are comprised of architectural and engineering professionals.

As I wrote in a 'debunker' talking point inspired article I authored for AE911Truth.org: 

Why does AE911Truth represent only a small percentage of architects and engineers?

Most architects and engineers have never been presented with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition. In addition, most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true. As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports. Even so, in the end, the evidence stands on its own, regardless of how many professionals are aware of it.  A more detailed answer is available here.

Finally, the Justice for 9/11 petition below that of AE911Truth's currently totals 18,054 with 178 of that number still pending review. Oystein has went missing from the 9/11 debate world for awhile now, but if he were around and if the new ReThink911.org petition wasn't, he would likely argue that these are all older petitions and that support has waned as he said to "a few thousand individuals worldwide." The problem is that the ReThink911.org petition is around since his not being so and in approximately the past month and 3 weeks has obtained 14,616 signatories. Just overlap with the ae911truth petition? To some extent, yes, but the campaign promoting this separate petition was massive in scope. Many signatories on the rethink 9/11 petition are undoubtedly new.

The ReThink911 International Petition is open to all citizens worldwide. When this petition reaches one million signatories, it will be delivered to the Head of State of every nation that had citizens who died in the attacks on September 11, 2001.

If around, Oystein would likely, as he did with one of the polls before, weigh it against its lofty goal of a million signatures, thus he could still try to make the gap a proof of failure. However, the BBC reported just this last September that according to "a research team from Oxford University... few e-petitions soar above tens of thousands of signatures." Thus, most petitions would appear to be massive failures when measured against an unrealistic desired million signatories.

Even if the ReThink 911 petition suddenly stopped dead in its tracks, Oystein's claim that "'9/11 Truth' is a fringe issue," is refuted by a plethora of polling data, including both scientific polls and non.

As 911review.com notes, "Just before the fifth anniversary of the attack, Time published its first major article on public skepticism of the official story, Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away. Citing a Scripps-Howard poll, Time acknowledges that the view that government officials either "allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves" is a "a mainstream political reality".  Can't get much less "fringe" than that.

The fact of the matter is, the data conclusively shows that there is quite substantial and perpetually expanding skepticism of the official account of 9/11, and that an undoubtedly notable and also ever-growing percentage of this mass of doubters, suspects or is convinced to varying levels, of not just criminal negligence, but complicity and involvement by U.S. officials. Now let's compare Oystein's four analyzed petitions with four of the most recent polls. In 2011, two polls were conducted refuting Oystein's conclusion. A poll sponsored by the German magazine Welt der Wunder found that 89% of respondents questioned 9/11. Another poll commissioned by RememberBuilding7.org showed that more respondents favored a new Building 7 investigation than those who opposed one.

48% YES
44% NO
8% Unsure

Then this September, ReThink commissioned two polls that were conducted by the polling firm YouGov. The first results resulted in the headline, "New Poll Finds Most Americans Open to Alternative 9/11 Theories."

ReThink911 breaks it down:

Among the poll’s findings:

  • 38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it;
  • 46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7’s collapse, only 19% know the building’s name;
  • After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:
    • 46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know;
    • By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it.
As to the second poll...

New Poll Finds a Majority of Canadians Side with Ads Questioning 9/11

Posted by ReThink911.org — September 25, 2013

 51% Suspect Controlled Demolition of Building 7 after Viewing Video of Collapse

 44% Support Investigation into Building 7’s Collapse, Compared to 13% Who Oppose It

 54% Believe Ads about Building 7 Are Protected by Free Speech, Compared to 19% Who Think Such Ads Should Not Be Allowed

A new survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that most Canadians are not opposed to the ads currently appearing in Canadian cities calling for a new investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11.

The poll was commissioned by the sponsor of the ads, ReThink911.org, in response to criticism denouncing the ads as “disrespectful,” along with comments made by the Chair of Ottawa’s Transit Commission calling for a review of the transit system’s advertising policy. The poll shows that a majority of Canadians actually side with ReThink911.org in questioning the cause of Building 7’s collapse. After viewing video footage of the building’s collapse from four different angles:

  51% of respondents are sure or suspect that Building 7’s collapse was caused by a controlled demolition, compared to just 18% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 31% who don’t know;
  49% are more inclined to believe the critics who say that explosives were used to bring down Building 7, compared to 20% who are more inclined to believe the U.S. government’s conclusion that fires caused Building 7’s collapse, and 24% who don’t know;

By a margin of more than 3 to 1, 44% support a new investigation into the collapse of Building 7, compared to just 13% who are opposed. 34% neither support nor oppose a new investigation, and 8% are unsure;

Canadians are somewhat more evenly divided on whether Canada or an international body should launch an investigation into the events of 9/11, with a plurality of 36% supporting an investigation, 30% neither supporting nor opposing an investigation, and 27% opposed;

54% believe that the Ottawa transit system’s advertising policy should not be revised because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to free speech and the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards already establishes standards of acceptability in advertising; compared to 19% who believe that the advertising policy should be revised to place greater emphasis on community acceptability so that ads like ReThink911’s would not be allowed.
Furthermore, a March 30, 2010 article published by the Centre for Research on Globalization reported that the figures derived from an "Angus Reid Public Opinion survey of a representative national sample of American adults... translated to about 100 million Americans that question or find fault with the official 9/11 story, far from a trivial number and far too many to dismiss as conspiracy nuts and part of the lunatic fringe. This is the important message that merits public appreciation."

Another article by the organization published the prior month demonstrated that indeed the blind disregard of the topic was waning due to the "increasing influence of the 9/11 truth movement," noting, "In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account. Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a 'conspiracy theory' ignoring science and common sense."

From this data, it is logical to conclude that there is massive, mostly passive, support for 9/11 truth and there exists tens of thousands of activists deeply involved in the issue.

So, keep on keeping on, 9/11 truth is alive folks. We are doing fine. Make sure you've signed all of these petitions and make an effort to get others to do the same.

WTC 7 Petition to the National Institute for Standards and Technology, U.S. Congress, and President Obama

Petition for Awareness of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Sign The Statement For 9/11 Justice. It's the right thing to do. Sign here.

Struggling Petitions:

The Petition Site's 9/11 Truth Petitions

Petition Online's 9/11 Truth Petitions

Change.org’s 9/11 Truth Petitions


Re-Investigate 911


Todd Zinser, Office of Inspector General, Department of Commerce: Investigate why NIST created a fraudulent report on WTC7

Reveal the Truth about the Events of 9/11. You are the voice of this world. Please help this cause.  


Kevin Ryan's NEW BOOK 2013 "Another Nineteen"

Published on Sep 9, 2013

Another Nineteen - Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. Kevin Ryan talks at the August 9, 2013, Veterans For Peace National Convention about American involvement that made 9/11 possible. Starting with Dick Cheney - Vice President, Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense, George Tenet - CIA, Louis Frech - FBI, Paul Bremmer - Administrator Of Iraq, the list goes on and on. Ryan shows that they've been working together for years.

David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott praise the book - "Kevin Ryan's superb research has now produced a list of suspects, and the investigation has been taken to a new level."

Were the crimes of September 11, 2001 solely the work of Osama bin Laden and nineteen troubled young Arabs, or were more powerful people involved? After a decade of investigation, the long-time co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Kevin Ryan, offers an evidence-based analysis of nineteen other suspects and their deeply intertwined past.

Although any number of books and videos have conclusively demonstrated that the official accounts are false, "Another Nineteen" takes the next, crucial step toward a new investigation into the crimes of 9/11.

With the support of victim's families and leading 9/11 researchers, Ryan examines nineteen suspects who were in position to accomplish major elements of the crimes that still need to be explained. Detailed evidence is presented that reveals how each of the alternative suspects had the means, motive and opportunity to accomplish one or more aspects of the 9/11 events.

In light of a forty-year history of deep events and crimes against democracy, Ryan shows how 9/11 fits into the pattern of a deep state operation, how the alternate suspects worked together throughout that history, how each was connected to two men who were in perfect position to coordinate the attacks, and how these suspects can be charged with 9/11 crimes today.

For readers interested in buying Ryan's book, please consider buying it via the Amazon.com link below. If the book is bought after clicking on the link, a small portion of the proceeds will go to my Amazon account, which I will in turn donate to MarkBasile.org towards the completion of his new WTC dust/nano-thermite study. Thanks! The paperback is currently selling for $13.84 and the Kindle edition is just $8.99.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Wayne Madsen 2013 "Voices from the Grave"

Published on Oct 14, 2013 Wayne Madsen 2013 "Voices from the Grave"

9/11: Advancing the Truth Washington, DC September 13-15, 2013 dc911truth.org

This historic national 9/11 truth conference was held September 14-15, 2013 on the occasion of the twelfth anniversary of the events of September 11, 2001. This conference, which culminated a week of other Connecticut 9/11 Truth and Monterey CA 9/11 Truth held in Washington, DC this year, is co-sponsored by DC911truth.org, Connecticut 9/11 Truth and Monterey CA 9/11 Truth.

Many outstanding speakers participated including Matt Sullivan, Frank Tolopko, Richard Gage, Webster Tarpley, Kevin Barrett, Barbara Honegger, Isa Hodge, Barry Kissin, Louis Wolf, Mark H. Gaffney, Wayne Madsen, Dwain Deets, M.D. Alam, Dick Gregory, representatives of the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) and representatives of varying sides of the debate on what happened at the Pentagon.

The conference site was the Sheraton Pentagon City, located directly opposite the Pentagon, with a clear view of the west section of the building where the attack occurred.


The Mysterious Death of Author Phillip Marshal

Thursday, October 17, 2013


Published on Oct 10, 2013
ReThink 9/11 Mobile Billboard ~ Sept, 2013 ~ Los Angeles

A compilation of 4 days of outreach and visibility leading up to the 12th anniversary of 9/11

music: Gerald Trimble -- Celtic Odyssey

photos: Chic and Randy

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Chemist Ivan Kminek has Departed

Anyone that has seriously researched the 2009 nano-thermite paper, and the attempts to debunk it, is bound to have heard of Ivan Kminek and read some of his posts on the subject. Unfortunately for all of us, the respected chemist and author has passed away only sixty years old.

My condolences to his family and friends.

Kminek had been working on interesting experiments which he hoped would help to refute the 2009 paper, and discussing the results with me. I will post an article or two at a later date to go over our debate. Kminek was the only member of the "debunking side" of the JREF 9/11 forum that knew what he was talking about, so he will be missed - Rest In Peace.

Richard Gage 2013 "State of the Truth Movement"

Published on Oct 10, 2013
Richard Gage 2013 "State of the Truth Movement"

9/11: Advancing the Truth


Alex Jones and Richard Gage Debunk the National Geographic Hit Piece on 9/11 Truth

Richard Gage Debunks Popular Mechanics, AE911Truth

Richard Gage's Auckland Presentation Silences the Debunkers

9/11 Debunker Gets His Ass Handed To Him By Richard Gage - 20/07/2009

Richard Gage and Chris Mohr Debate WTC Collapse - Edited version of Gage and Mohr's debate with added comments and videos to address the sound issue and other points raised by Mohr.

AE911Truth Debates Explosive Expert: Richard Gage, AIA vs. Ron Craig -

Week 2 of the NYC Media Blitz: Hundreds of Letters to the Editor

Village Voice + Newsday Logos
Congratulations ReThink911 supporters – last week 2,100 emails were sent to five major news organizations in New York!

Join us for Week 2 of the ReThink911 NYC Media Blitz as we flood four major newspapers in the New York area – the Daily News, New York Post, Newsday and the Newark Star-Ledger – with hundreds of “Letters to the Editor”.
ReThink911 billboard in Times Square at night

The Plan

Please take Wednesday and Thursday to compose your letter. Then on Friday, October 18 join hundreds of people in sending your letter to all four newspapers. The goal: they will receive hundreds of letters in one day (Friday) and be compelled to publish at least one or two of the very best letters. At a minimum, all four newspapers will be put on notice about the growing ReThink911 campaign.

Instructions for Writing Your Letter

  • Make sure your letter is no more than 200 words in length.
  • Use the ReThink911 billboard in Times Square as a springboard for educating readers about the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7.
  • Optional: touch on the fact that 1 in 2 Americans still don’t know a third tower fell on 9/11, according to a recent YouGov poll.
  • Email addresses to send to:

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version

Below is a review of the film written by Debunking 9/11 Debunking author David Ray Griffin, followed by the film itself. I have major disagreements with points in the film regarding the Pentagon no-jetliner theories and Flight 93 allegedly being blown up as opposed to having simply crashed in Pennsylvania. I also take issue with the ideas presented that the hijackers were innocent scapegoats and drones being swapped out for the 9/11 flights. A more likely scenario is that the hijackers were involved in the plot and going to carry it out, before being hijacked themselves by remote control. For more info relating to these topics please view these pages:


That said, it's a very lengthy film with loads of solid points. So rather than tossing the baby out with the bathwater, please direct viewers of the film to this page.

Review of "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor."  A documentary by Massimo Mazzucco. 

David Ray Griffin

There have been several good films and videos about 9/11. But the new film by award-winning film-maker Massimo Mazzucco is in a class by itself. 

For those of us who have been working on 9/11 for a long time, this is the film we have been waiting for. 

Whereas there are excellent films treating the falsity of particular parts of the official account, such as the Twin Towers or WTC 7, Mazzucco has given us a comprehensive documentary treatment of 9/11, dealing with virtually all of the issues.

There have, of course, been films that treated the fictional official story as true. And there are films that use fictional stories to portray people’s struggles after starting to suspect the official story to be false. 

But there is no fiction in Mazzucco’s film – except in the sense that it clearly and relentlessly exposes every part of the official account as fictional. 

Because of his intent at completeness, Mazzucco has given us a 5-hour film. It is so fascinating and fast-paced that many will want to watch it in one sitting. But this is not necessary, as the film, which fills 3 DVDs, consists of 7 parts, each of which is divided into many short chapters. 

These 7 parts treat Air Defence, The Hijackers, The Airplanes, The Pentagon, Flight 93, The Twin Towers, and Building 7. In each part, after presenting facts that contradict the official story, Mazzucco deals with the claims of the debunkers (meaning those who try to debunk the evidence provided by the 9/11 research community).

The Introduction, reflecting the film’s title, deals with 12 uncanny parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11

The film can educate people who know nothing about 9/11 (beyond the official story), those with a moderate amount of knowledge about the various problems with the official story, and even by experts. (I myself learned many things.) 

Mazzucco points out that his film covers 12 years of public debate about 9/11. People who have been promoting 9/11 truth for many of these years will see that their labors have been well-rewarded: There is now a high-quality, carefully-documented film that dramatically shows the official story about 9/11 to be a fabrication through and through.

This is truly the film we have been waiting for.


Coast To Coast AM - Sept 11 2013 - 9-11 Truth/ Spying on Democracy - C2CAM Radio, Disclosure Radio

In the first half, Italian filmmaker and investigative journalist Massimo Mazzucco talked about his ongoing research into the 9-11 attacks, and why he's concluded that the official version of the events is false.

Michael Shermer the Pseudo Skeptical Propagandist

When it comes to disinformation and pushing official propaganda 'Skeptic' Michael Shermer is perhaps one of the best known talking heads in the mainstream media. With his use of trick arguments, often delivered as sweeping and false generalisations, including blanket denials that are made by appealing (wrongly) to an argument from authority, it sure looks as if Shermer is behaving as an experimental psychologist (his PhD). All too often Shermer's debating influence rests on misrepresentation or psychological/superficial means rather than through sound reason and verified fact.

This short expose will show where two separate researchers identified key problems with Michael Shermer’s arguments showing that Shermer mischaracterises 911 truth arguments, that he does not apply scientific principles, and that he muddles specific issues with all manner of conjecture and other matters not directly related to the specific questions raised by the data.

Shermer claims he follows the scientific method, but this is false.

The second critic of Shermer's listed here, Professor Anthony Hall, pointed out that Dr Shermer’s disinformation operates in large part through ‘guilt by association’ tactics (along with straw men arguments) and characterises this operation as a media performance, in which he (Shermer) peddles generalised or misrepresented dismissals of evidence, claiming academic rigor while obviously not practicing it.

Indeed, Shermer's tarring of 911 critics with the brush of mental illness, when appealing to a mass audience, can fool many people, but to a rational mind this is clearly a method of distraction away from dealing with the hard facts, which he misrepresents. Data or arguments are either substantiated or unsubstantiated - the state of one's mental health has no bearing when you are looking at specific details in science.

The first critic of Shermer quoted here is noted 911 researcher Jim Hoffman who saw through Dr Shermer's attempts at disinformation in 2005. Clipped from his 911 Research site is the following material that addresses Shermer's disregard of the scientific method:

Shermer's Unscientific Method

In fact, Shermer's entire method of attacking "conspiracy theories" is unscientific. Consider his language. Scientists almost never use universal quantifiers such as all to describe inexact phenomena. For being published in a magazine titled Scientific American, Shermer is fond of sweeping generalizations:

The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics).
All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.
All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted.
There are several errors in Shermer's assertion that "a handful of unexplained anomalies" cannot "undermine a well-established theory".

1. A single anomaly can undermine a well-established theory, as illustrated by the success of a single anomaly -- the Michelson-Morley experiment -- in overturning the well-established theory of ether.
2. The unexplained anomalies of the official story are better described as a mountain than a handful.
3. The official story is not well established in any scientific or legal sense, but only in the sense of being endorsed by corrupt government bodies, such as the 9/11 Commission, and unquestioningly embraced by nearly all media.

Shermer's approach is worse than unscientific -- it's fraudulent. He misrepresents his opponent's positions and attempts to associate them with nonsensical and offensive ideas. While failing to identify a single argument of the hundreds made by 911Research, Shermer fraudulently implies that our entire case rests on a straw man argument built on a single fact:

Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.
No melted steel, no collapsed towers.
For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers.
One needs only to read the slides for my talk The World Trade Center Demolition to appreciate Shermer's disregard for the truth. In that talk, we refer to the vast bodies of evidence compiled on the 911Research site and apply them in multiple lines of inquiry, examining:

The historical record on the effects of fires in steel-framed skyscrapers
The evidence-destruction operation at Ground Zero
The failures of the column-failure and truss-failure theories
The unverifiability of the progressive collapse theory
The Twin Towers' collapse features -- the symmetry, rapidity, blast wave, pulverization, and excess heat -- consistent only with controlled demolition
Four proofs that the Twin Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition

[Please visit the original article for linked information on these points.]

David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor, which Shermer insults as "conspiratorial codswallop," takes a similar approach. Contrary to the column's implication, Griffin explicitly developed his thesis as a "cumulative argument" (p. Xiv), which he summarizes in terms of 24 different lines of inquiry (pp. 132-34).

Shermer's attack could hardly be more hypocritical. He pays lip service to the kind of cumulative argument known as inference to the best explanation, which requires the consideration of all the relevant evidence. But he avoids the vast bodies of evidence cited by skeptics like Griffin, and fails to correctly state even a single one of their arguments. Instead, Shermer embeds mentions of the works of serious skeptics within a tapestry of ludicrous ideas so as to discredit them through guilt-by-association. This approach has nothing to do with science and everything to do with sophistry.

Source: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html

We should note that there is ALSO evidence of melted structural steel that rational truth advocates cannot not associate at all with Jet Fuel, but only with the independent demolition of the buildings. Regardless of whether Melted Steel is necessary to bring down the Towers it has been identified in abundance.

Shermer and many skeptics have outright denied, or tried (and failed) to explain away the molten steel through the use of false arguments (the jet fuel one) or to portray this as a feature of the post collapse fires. However, melted steel is present and no ordinary fire, even later ones in the rubble pile, can produce this result. This fact further contributes to the cumulative nature of the evidence in favour of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers (not to mention WTC7).

At a later date we find further criticism of Shermer this time from Professor Anthony Hall who outlines the basic nature of his phony arguments in 2010.

Professor Hall identified a similar fraudulent approach being used by Shermer in an essay titled 'Scholarship, Scams and Credentials in an Academic House of Cards'. In essence Shermer is found guilty of misrepresenting key 911 truth arguments by using false associations (ie melted steel to jet fuel, and 911 conspiracy theorists to Holocaust deniers). Hall writes that:

    I was not prepared for the virulence of Shermer’s verbal attacks on the wide array of targets he groups together with his McCarthyesque tactics of guilt by association. Shermer places a tent of his own imagination over a vast array of thinkers who have addressed a broad number of issues. Rather than dealing with individual thinkers as such, or dealing with the specific elements of this or that contention, hypothesis or theory, Shermer simply groups together the targets of his ridicule as an undifferentiated mass of “conspiracy theorists.” For Shermer conspiracy theorists include all those who question the lone gunman theory concerning the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, those who believe that the US moon landing was a staged event, those who address the possibility that Earth has been visited by creatures from outer space, and those who challenge various aspects of the government interpretation of what happened on 9/11. As he conflates all these issues, Shermer projects multiple power point slides showing images of human brains. These images seemed to me to be calculated to convey the message that mental illness forms the common denominator of those Shermer collectively condemns as crazed conspiracy theorists.

Shermer does major violence to the laws of evidence and proof by making vast and unsubstantiated generalizations about so-called conspiracy theorists rather than addressing the diversity of good, bad, or indifferent work done by thousands of investigators exploring scores of circumscribed problems. Shermer’s circus of pseudo-skepticism sets a terrible example for students and junior researchers. They would and should be blocked from advancing up the ladder of professional scholarship if they were to replicate Shermer’s unique brand of materialist evangelization aimed at turning the zeal of his converts against the demonized others. The complex of alleged connections said to link all thinkers with whom Shermer disagrees draws vital intellectual energies away from the tried and true methodology of setting out specific research problems that are narrowly enough defined to be comprehensively addressed with careful reference to relevant academic literature.

Shermer adds insult to injury when he indicates that all those addressing subjects that he has decided are closed to further critical examination belong in the same category as Holocaust Deniers. Here Shermer really crosses the line from mere malevolence into outright slander. As I see it this despicable smear tactic, one too frequently deployed in the effort to discredit those calling attention to certain categories of human rights violation, demeans and exploits the horrific legacy of the Nazi efforts to annihilate European Jewry. Such semantic abuses do severe injustice to the sanctity of the memory of a terrible event in history that illustrates the depths of depravity to which human beings are capable of stooping.

The key point to remember with 'Skeptics' like Michael Shermer is they will use a mixture of approaches that, although not constituting a rational argument, can seem reasonable to the undisciplined thinker - especially to those not familiar with the subject matter:

1. They mix together real examples of debunked, or highly questionable belief, with the current issue under review, in order to generally slander a particular line of legitimate inquiry. To these 'skeptics' there are no distinctions between the various subjects under examination - everything is the same! It is guilt, or ridicule, by association rather than addressing the specific evidence (or lack thereof) of each case. This is an exercise in presumptive dismissal. It is an unscientific and illogical approach and good observers will realise its use by pseudo skeptics to avoid whole issues as well as providing cover against answering a specific question.

2. In specific arguments the 'skeptics' often claim they are using the scientific method but instead propagate a false analogy or 'explanation' in order to dismiss the argument being made or the evidence cited. Often their false 'scientific' arguments rest on wrong assumptions. They can go into great detail, but when their basic premises are in error, they are not talking about the relevant issue.

For example, regarding the jet fuel or office fire argument that contends that the fires didn't need to melt steel but only weaken it in order for the Towers to collapse - this is an example of a false argument designed to cover for the fact that melted steel was actually found. Great detail can be made in explaining how normal fire temperatures cannot melt steel in order to avoid the fact that it was found.

The 911 truth argument is simply that there is evidence of large quantities of molten steel found in the rubble pile - that it clearly came from melted beams or columns, that there were pools of melted steel, and large amounts of iron spheres found in the dust. The obvious and logical implication here is that incendiaries must have been involved since office fires and jet fuel could not cause such phenomena.

It is apparent that Shermer's overall approach seeks to discourage rational thought (via misplaced ridicule) and to hide or obfuscate key evidence that points to inside involvement in the crime with false arguments.  However, by carefully following the Shermer line of argument, and asking if he has adequately addressed the specific points of key evidence (this sometimes requires a bit of research on the part of the observer), anyone can deduce whether what is being put forward is credible - especially when it comes to basic points like melted steel or the freefall collapse rate of WTC7 (not to mention the recorded sounds of explosions and the witness testimony to these events).

Any rational witness to intrinsically false arguments, such as the ones advocated by Shermer, will almost always be able to recognise them. This leads us to suppose that Michael Shermer, who is obviously not unintelligent, more than likely realises the bankruptcy of his own arguments and is, as the critics above suggest, an agent of disinformation.

More Debunking the Debunkers blog posts relating to Shermer.


Shermer set up David Cole, the holocaust denier, to get beat up by thugs, and was recorded admitting that he helped incite violence against him or something close to that. Ry Dawson interviewed Cole about what happened (malicious slandering etc):


He “debated” James Fox and Stanton Freeman on CNN. Shermer uses his generalist reactions and doesn't properly rebut points made by (actual cases) the other panelists:

UFO Experts James Fox,Michael Shermer,Stanton Friedman,C2C Noory+ On Larry King Live 13Jul2007

Here’s an earlier post with Shermer vs Gage in late 2008. At this stage it looks like Shermer was wheeled out to give a generalised rebuttal, which then morphed into a slightly more ‘sophisticated’ ‘rebuttal’ a number of years later:


And then there is the issue where James Randi admitted, in reaction to rape claim against Shermer, that he has a bit of a reputation for this sort of thing (being sleezy to women, and getting complaints). Shermer denies everything, but even Randi makes that admission, which seems like a real kicker to me:


Sunday, October 13, 2013

Learn History with Philip Zelikow!

As Philip Zelikow prepares to teach an online history course, we peel back the layers of propaganda from the former Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. From cover up to predictive programming, we examine the ways that Zelikow helped to shape (and write) the history he's now teaching.

Most of us know the official story of the 911 attacks is a lie. Learn how the 911 Commission Report was organised so that the truth could be kept hidden.

9/11 Truth Debunking 911myths.com WTC Molten Steel Web Page

Published on Oct 12, 2013
Eric Lawyer FF for 9/11 Truth well-argumented Version

9/11 Everything is Missing, MSM Fraud by the ton! Major 9/11 Oddities Review 2013


November/December 1998, Volume 77, Number 6


By Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow

Dr. Ashton B. Carter is on leave to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense.

It can only we are going to be hit again. The only question is where and when.

John Deutch is an emeritus Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In May 1995, he was sworn in as Director of Central Intelligence

MIT came up with the Pancake Theory.

The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study

September 2000
Strengthening the National Security Interagency Process

9/11 Truth Debunking 911myths.com WTC Molten Steel does not include USGS molten spheres. Dr. Richard J. Lee Recounts RJ Lee Group's Involvement in WTC Aftermath
http://www.rjlg.com/2011/09/27/dr-richard-j-lee-recounts-rj-lee-groups-involvement-in-wtc-aftermath/ Dr. Steven Jones

9/11 Arson and Fire Evidence and Witness Plus the Non Investigation

Video includes but not limit too FireFighters for 911 Truth.org Eric Lawyer 911 2013 Leslie E. Robertson Witness to Molten River, Witness Les Robertson Confirms Molten Metal in WTC Basement WTC dust contains steel, ABC, 19:35, 9/13 Epic single reason why 9_11 was an inside job_ Gun Filled Rocks 9/11 Office Fire Theory is just as stupid as Pancake Theory 9/11 close up molten lava evidence 2012 Damas home video NIST

Web sites and PDF's
Debunking http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html


Museums included
NYC NYPD Police Museum Molten Concrete Evidence


Dear Beth, Audio Fire Fighter Eric Lawyer NYPD Museum Can you include this video on your internal TV's?

9/11 Arson and Fire Evidence and Witness Plus the Non Investigation

Thanks Dan

Friday, October 11, 2013

Open Letter to New York Media Personnel

John-Michael Talboo recently posted an article that is a call to action to partake in a grass-roots effort where people like you contact chosen media outlets in New York to support the ReThink9/11 campaign. The article provides all the necessary instructions for writing your own letter, including the relevant email addresses. If you are too busy to compose your own letter I encourage you to copy my letter (below) since a copied letter is better than no letter. Also feel free to create your own modified or edited version, if you have a couple of minutes to personalize your letter.
To whom it may concern:
I am sure that you are aware of the huge Times Square billboard asking people to reconsider the official narrative of the 9/11 tragedy, but have you accepted the challenge?
Have you asked yourself why over 2000 experts have signed the petition by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in support of the evidence for controlled demolition of the three WTC towers? Did you know that the third tower (WTC7) that collapsed on 9/11 fell in free-fall for over two seconds, meaning that about 100 feet of the steel-framed skyscraper failed to offer more resistance than a vacuum?
I hope you realize that this is something experts in controlled demolition normally achieve through the use of cutter-charges and explosives? Do you think maybe this explains the peer-reviewed and published discovery of microscopic fragments of an active energetic material in the rubble? Did you know that "Super-Thermite" happens to be a novel incendiary/explosive material developed by laboratories funded by the US government? Did you know that NIST "investigated" the collapses of the three Towers and that it refused to look for this material, and that it was one of those entities that helped to develop it in the first place?  
Maybe for these reasons people like Dwain Deets and Dr. Robert Bowman have signed the petition? http://rethink911.org/
- Do you think the former Director for Research Engineering and Aerospace Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, and the former head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology are some sort of fraudster morons with tin-foil hats?

Please give these people the respect that they deserve and let their voices be heard!
Thank You.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

ReThink911 Media Blitz - Updated With New Actions at Bottom

If you haven't taken any of the below actions please take all of them. Even though the mass of emails to certain media outlets already went out, it can't hurt to email them a little late.

From ReThink911.org:

Up until this Saturday, five major New York City newspapers including The New York Times, the Daily News, the New York Post, the Village Voice and Newsday, will receive a flood of emails from ReThink911 supporters worldwide.

Join this media blitz campaign to tell the NYC media that there has been a giant ReThink911 billboard in Times Square since September 3rd. The 54-feet-tall billboard asks New Yorkers if they know a third tower fell on 9/11. A recent poll shows that, after 12 years, only 1 in 2 Americans know about the collapse of WTC Building 7. Mainstream media cannot and should not ignore this ─ but they have so far. With the participation of thousands of ReThink911 supporters like you, this can change.


On this Tuesday October 9, please take 5 minutes to contact the New York Times at these addresses:


BCC: us at this address so that we can keep a tally of our progress: NYCmedia@ae911truth.org

Later this week we’ll send instructions for the other news outlets:

Thursday: Daily News and New York Post
Saturday: Village Voice and Newsday

Tips for Writing Your Email


It is best if every letter is different. So, rather than providing a standard letter, here are the main points worth touching on:

  • There’s a billboard in Times Square (1 to 2 sentences suggested)
  • Introduction to Building 7 (2 to 3 sentences suggested)
  • Why they should report on the Times Square billboard (2 to 3 sentences suggested)
  • A link to the website: www.ReThink911.org

Thank you for getting involved!


Days 1 and 2 of the ReThink911 Media Blitz saw the New York Times receive over 500 emails from ReThink911 supporters worldwide.

Let’s aim for over 1,000 on Days 3 and 4 – because if anyone in the mainstream media is going to report on a massive billboard in Times Square asking New Yorkers if they know a 3rd tower fell on 9/11, it’s New York’s two biggest tabloid newspapers: the Daily News and New York Post.

Please take 5 minutes to send a separate email to each newspaper:

Daily News


NY Post


BCC: us at this address so that we can keep a tally of our progress: NYCmedia@ae911truth.org


The Daily News and New York Post each received a flood of emails from 500 ReThink911 supporters on Days 3 and 4 of the Media Blitz Week. Thank you to all those who participated!

Next on the agenda on this final day of the Media Blitz are the Village Voice and Newsday. Two of the Village Voice’s partner alternative weekly newspapers – the Dallas Observer and SF Weekly – already covered the ReThink911 campaign, so there’s a good chance the Village Voice will, too – if we send a loud enough message.

Please take 5 minutes to send emails to each newspaper:



The Village Voice

Copy and paste your letter into the “letter” field and fill in the required info on this page:


BCC: us on your Newsday email at this address so that we can keep a daily tally: NYCmedia@ae911truth.org