Sunday, June 29, 2014

How to Distinguish Thermitic Red/Gray Chips from Red/Gray Paint Chips in the WTC Dust

John-Michael Talboo and Ziggi Zugam cover the whole Harrit VS Millette debate in an essay written for Mark Basile´s fundraising effort:

Harrit et al reported the finding of Active Thermitic Red/Gray Chips in the WTC dust, in a peer-reviewed 2009 paper. But the notion that all red/gray chips found in the WTC dust are the thermitic chips in question is a common misunderstanding, that was perhaps spread around by supporters of Dr. Millette´s "replication study" that had been planned for 2012, but never delivered. Millette claims in is preliminary report that he found paint chips, but his lack of care in selecting the correct "chips of interest" may have doomed Millette´s study as a failure before it even started. This may be why Dr. Millette never moved on to complete the study and publish it in a reviewed journal, even though Chris Mohr had promised that "the results will soon be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal."

Some may try to argue that the Truth Movement invented this problem of multiple kinds of chips in the dust as an afterthought in response to Millette´s March 2012 preliminary report, but Reverend Chris Mohr, who commissioned Millette´s study, reveals on January 10, 2013, that one of Harrit´s co-authors made them aware of this issue before the study commenced:
"...when Kevin Ryan was still talking to me, he said that he has in his possession both red-grey paint chips and red-grey thermitic chips, "and I can tell you they are not the same." He claimed that they look different to the eye, but more importantly, that the thermitic chips have an exothermic quality that the paint chips don't. Unfortunately, he refused to release the samples to me or Millette, and our personal connection broke down around that time. I was never able to get samples of these different kinds of chips, or more info about them in relation to the Bentham paper. Nor did I know at that time about the two different types of paint primer in use at WTC..."
One of Dr. Harrit´s co-authors, Dr. Steven Jones, talks about the many different chips in the dust, and notes the same exothermic difference on September 8, 2012, in a public letter on 911blogger:
"...James Millette did NOT do DSC analyses at all for his report MVA9119. What a shame, really, and I hope you will do better as you propose....When Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peak in our Fig 19. This is one of the many tests he did to check things...There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material...."
Another co-author, Dr. Jeff Farrer, notes in a 2010 interview that these tests confirm that paints demonstrate completely different behavior in the DSC ignition tests:
"There have been some who have argued that these red/gray chips could be paint of some form. We did a study on some epoxy paint. We put that in the DSC. We found that paint would just burn up and turn to ash. You may get a minor exothermic peak but it is not energetic. It is a very smooth wide peak and it is certainly not an energetic material. As part of the actual paint [WTC] that we ignited in the DSC, it was basically ash. There were no micro-spheres found. We also took paint that came off of the WTC steel and looked at that in the scanning electron microscope and did compositional analysis of that and found that it was not similar to the red layer of the red/gray chips. The red/gray chips are not the primer paint that was used on the WTC steel."

Chemist Mark Basile has performed the same tests independently, and in a 911FreeFall interview on December 27, 2012, he states that:
"There are a lot of paint chips in the dust! You should make that perfectly clear! Just when you, if anybody in the audience, let's say, would get out there and get a World Trade Center dust sample, and they pull out red chips from this, I'm not telling anybody in the world that every red chip you're gonna pull out of there is one of these nano-thermite chips. The vast majority of them actually are primer paint, from what I'm finding, but that doesn't mean they all are."

One would be forgiven to think that the careful selection of chips goes without saying, as well as the following of the protocol set out in the Harrit et al paper, but some people have decided that muddying the water is in their interest. Harrit et al clearly set out several ways to identify the correct chips, and comments by Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrer in the sources cited above make things even clearer. The many different ways to identify the correct thermitic chips are not hard to understand and follow:

- To experienced researchers, the texture of the correct red material is visually distinctive.
- The chips are brittle and tend to cleave and fragment in certain ways.
-  Resistivity testing shows a huge difference between this material and paints. (Millette did not perform this test.)
- The MEK test reveals how porous the red material is, and that it remains hard even after more than 50 hours of soaking, while paints become soft and limp. (Dr. Millette´s chips become soft when soaked in MEK.)
- The MEK soaking disrupts the red matrix material and shows that the aluminum in the platelets is not bound to the silicon, which demonstrates elemental aluminum and rules out kaolin. (Millette´s chips do not show this disruption and he claims to find kaolin.)
- The red material XEDS signature does have some common elements with some paints, and Millette´s chips, but Dr. Jones notes that the devil is in the details.
- The ignition tests reveal a dramatic difference between the thermitic chips and paints. (Millette did not perform these tests.)
 - Dr. Frank Legge, another co-author of Harrit´s paper, even notes that the gray layer can also be distinctive, since the iron-oxide gray layer of their chips does not match Millette´s metallic gray layer.

It should be noted that some people may still try to argue that Harrit and Millette studied the same chips and that they are indeed WTC paint, but besides all the points outlined above, these people tend to stay silent about the fact that only two different WTC paints have been identified (Tnemec and LaClede), and that even Millette himself rules out both. As noted in Part III of our essay, Millette admits that "..none of the 177 different [Tnemec]coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study." We add that even though LaClede does have some of the same basic ingredients as both Harrit´s and Millette´s chips, the composition does not match in either case because the quantities of those ingredients do not match and there are also other differences. Millette´s TEM analysis, for example, fails to identify the expected strontium chromate in his chips. Chris Mohr summed up the problem when he stated that:
 "OK but Jim Millette specifically said to me, unequivocally, NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE. It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it. I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede." 

Sunday, June 22, 2014

9-11 Truth for Peace

'911 Deniers' Never Existed Anywhere but Whithin the Twisted Mind's of 'Debunkers'

Invoking the term "denier" through the years, is a blatantly obvious smear tactic that works with some via guilt-by-association.

The word Holocaust goes hand in hand with the word denier. Surely most people will think of this connection and be reminded of those insulting holocaust deniers. Some after doing so will see the rouse at hand. I think most. But 'debunkers' also know that even if the dots of their trickery are not connected, the term denier is virtually always used in the pejorative. The term thus subconsciously brings about aversion to whatever it's being applied to.

For this very same reason, 'debunkers' corrupted the term of endearment "truther," once meaning one was a courageous citizen, having dedicated large portions of their life, in an attempt at finding that noble root word, better left unheard for 'debunkers'---TRUTH.

They had see to it that the truther meme be hijacked and subverted by it being mispronounced as twoofer or toofer, implying that we were just a bunch of dolts looking for truths that aren't there to find. But they truthfully don't look to see if this is so most of the time. They presuppose their being correct, on what they perceive as their superior understanding of logic and probabilities, as opposed to letting the evidence go opposite those directions if that's where the truth leads. See truth doesn't give a shit what you think about it's likely hood of being truth.

It's really pretty simple, the duh-bunkers lie when using dirty tricks like this while denying it. They are liars and deniers of uncomfortable truths, that may lead to unbearable truths. Truth capable of taking their establishment defending based world view and shattering it into oblivion.
So, they are pseudo-skeptics, liars, and empiricism deniers. They could say in response to the above, that they rather be a debunker than a truther. That's fine, just so long as they say truther correctly.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

A Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 - Countering Disinformation and Misunderstandings (RECAP)

Unfortunately a lot of people, who understand that 911 was an inside job, think there is good evidence to show the Pentagon was not hit by an aircraft. However, when one examines the crime scene there is actually no good evidence to support this hypothesis and plenty of evidence to show an aircraft impact.

For those that still think the Pentagon Strike didn't involve an aircraft it is time to carefully weigh up the data and ask why many respected 911 researchers, who know full well that the attacks were staged, have rejected this hypothesis.

Just as AE911Truth's Blueprint for Truth examined the World Trade Centre attacks using the scientific method, where evidence was tested by looking closely at various relevant details, one can similarly examine the specific claims made about the Pentagon Strike.

In these two short easy-to-follow videos we are given summaries of key evidence concerning the Pentagon Strike, often referring to 911research, with visuals to SHOW why there is evidence for the impact of an airliner. While the analyst may be abrasive he is nevertheless making a series of logical, evidence-backed points concerning specific details of the crash:  

The Pentagon Entry and Exit Holes Explained and Clear Evidence of Aircraft Debris

Below is a further explanation concerning the aircraft wreckage and light poles, which are designed to fall over when hit. The analyst's analogy with the aluminium baseball bat is not great. Regardless, minor damage from light poles would, in all likelihood, not immediately hinder the aircraft. As independent thinkers, we can understand the point being made:

Engines at the Pentagon and light poles Explained


If you have not already done so, please make sure to visit the 911research site and go point by point through their analysis of the Pentagon Strike. There is no evidence to show it was hit by a Global Hawk Drone or Missile (part of the no Boeing/no plane theories) and there are plenty of witnesses that saw it hit the building.

When it comes to any issue, do not be dogmatic about what you think, or too hesitant to look at new evidence. If your position is correct, then you should be able to account for what is being presented.  However, if you never take the time to reflect and re-examine your beliefs, you risk falling into the trap of assuming too much and are likely to be fooled by your first impressions, which can sometimes be wrong. Early researchers into the September 11 attacks seem to have fallen into this trap of first impressions.

The least you (especially those that don't think an airliner hit the Pentagon) can do here is to simply watch these two straightforward videos and then come to your own conclusions.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

FACES OF 9/11 TRUTH w/ Susan Lindauer Need help with creating a 9/11 awarness picture? Email your (face) picture to

Today the Covert Report gives a special shout to all of the 9/11 Truth Community! My guest, Claudio Marty, talks about the campaign sweeping social media, “I am the Face of 9/11 Truth,” and why 9/11 Truth continues to be a decisive matter in defining our political conscience that refuses to go away. Though 9/11 is often factionalized, my interview with Marty focuses on the forces that unify the movement into a force of reckoning, which has trumped corporate media efforts to kill it off. It’s intended to celebrate the umpteen thousands who wear the badge– and ALL the organizers on Facebook and social media, who have made 9/11 Truth the face of America and the World! Sometimes truth feels lonely. Through social media (and radio!) we are bold and indefatigable! Let’s just say it: Truth rocks–


Stew Bradley Challenges the Skeptic Community on 9/11 Free Fall

On the most recent episode of the No Lies Radio show "9/11 Free Fall", Andrew Steele interviews Debunking the Debunkers contributor Stew Bradley about his "Conspiracy Funhouse" video series and his experiences trying to convince the leaders of the Skeptical community to re-consider their biased opinion of the NIST reports. Listen to the interview here:


You can watch the new "MythBusters 9/11 Parody" and other Conspiracy Funhouse videos here:

Special thats to JM Talboo for all his support, friendship, and for helping make this interview possible.

DON'T BE SUCKERED BY DISINFORMATION: 9 Core Problems with the Arguments and Behaviours of the 911 Truth "Debunkers"

Stand out and be Noticed! Need help with creating a 9/11 awareness picture? Email your (face) picture to

Contra Craig McKee: A Boeing 757 Did Strike the Pentagon

Researcher Craig McKee has recently posted an article claiming to show evidence that one of the five frames showing the Pentagon strike was deliberately doctored. His conclusions are taken from the film "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" (DVD 2, min. 17). The maker of the film, Massimo Mazzucco, has already been strongly advised to revise this particular section of the film, as it does not take into consideration the work produced by others in the Truth Movement which shows that a Boeing 757 did impact the building.

The McKee article contains a number of bizarre and false claims, such as:
[O]ther key evidence (including the nature of the damage to the building, the lack of debris outside the building, and the on-camera accounts of credible witnesses who put the plane on a different flight path that the one required to produce the damage path), proves that the Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash and that 9/11 was an inside job.
Each of these claims have been refuted numerous times. There was a considerable amount of debris recovered from the Pentagon that clearly came from a Boeing 757. The damage to the building is perfectly consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 (not a bomb or a missile).

And I'll let the eyewitnesses speak for themselves.

But the key point of Mr. McKee's article is his insistence that one frame from the Pentagon footage was doctored, which as far as he's concerned is proof 9/11 was an inside job. There's certainly evidence the official story is false (even in regards to the Pentagon), but the conclusions reached by both Mr. McKee and the film regarding the Pentagon footage are demonstrably false. The frame in question is the one pictured below, which according to Mr. Mckee and the film shows only the tip of the incoming plane, rather than the main body of the plane.

Frame taken from "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" 
(DVD 2, min. 21:16) The arrow points to what the narrator
calls the nose of the plane.
This, says Mr. McKee and the film, is inconsistent with a frame taken from the second video showing the Pentagon strike, which does show what at least appears to be the tail and horizontal stabilizer of the plane. And thus, at least one of these videos must have been doctored. 
However, this conclusion is based from a misrepresentation of the footage used in the film, which is of very low quality. What Mr. Mckee and the film identify as the "tip" of the plane is actually the leading edge of the white smoke produced from the plane, likely caused by damage the plane sustained when it impacted the light-poles. 

A higher quality version of the footage shows that a plane can reasonably be made out and seen. The plane is in fact in front of the smoke trail.

As much as I sympathize with Mr. McKee and others in the Movement in calling for a new investigation, we must do so on the grounds of solid evidence. And the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon simply doesn't fit that criteria.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

DEBUNKING: 'Video Proof Showing No Planes Hit The WTC On 9/11' [AGAIN!]

Every so often a disinfo-misinfo video that claims to be proof that no planes were used during the 911 attacks appears. Or reappears. This video is doing the rounds presently:

While the attacks of 911 were definitively the result of an 'inside job', constituting a criminal conspiracy, real aircraft were involved. The video in question makes two claims, both of which shall be addressed.

The 1st claim is that the plane cannot cut through the steel structure of the building.

It can.

Given enough speed it should. In WW2 relatively slow flying Japanese propeller driven aircraft, made of aluminium and wood, that hit steel battleship armour put airplane shaped holes through the sides of the ships:

The 2nd claim was that the wing of the aircraft should have covered the building as it flew by but appeared to disappear when it made contact.

The answer to this 'problem' is found by understanding the camera's perspective. The buildings we see on the left are actually in the foreground. The aircraft's wing moves behind it because it's positioned in the background along with the Twin Towers. A direct debunking of this point can be found here:

World Trade Center - Holographic or CGI Plane? - Debunked

Besides, there's HEAPS of witnesses and other videos of the second plane hitting the building:

It is more logical to assume there is something 'wrong' with that one video than all the rest of the evidence.

Plus there are photos of plane wreckage in the towers after they collapsed, and part of an engine in the street ....


The no planes video is misinformation. I believe it is being pushed intentionally to smear the truthful evidence of inside help in the attacks. Rational people who research this matter should be able to make up their own minds about the (lack of) strength to these claims.

Related links:

Sunday, June 8, 2014

MythBusters 9/11 Parody Mixes Truth and Humor

Have you ever wondered why the popular MythBusters show refuses to discuss 9/11 and the NIST reports? Many people claim not to understand the science of the NIST report, but this presentation lays out in simple terms, point by point, how the NIST report is false. A bit of humor and a lot of truth.

Saturday, June 7, 2014

9/11 Memorial Honors Rescue and Recovery Workers

9/11 Memorial Honors Rescue and Recovery Workers THAT AGREE WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY THAT IS. My comment did not make the cut.


Fellow Firefighters,

A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn. We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harm’s way in the public’s service. This is what we are paid for and it is our honor...

Lt. Vodvarka served on FDNY Ladder Co 26, Rescue Co. 3, Rescue Co. 1, Engine Co. 92, Ladder 82 and Ladder 101. He was awarded the Merit Class 1 award, the Prentice Medal.

Firefighter Tribute Page:

Related: Talk to Children about 9/11 Talk to Children about 9/11


Mural created by the Lower School Art Students of Porter Gaud School in Charleston, South Carolina in Mrs. Laura Orvin's Art Class for the people of New York. Gift of Lawrence Knafo.
Discussing 9/11 isn’t an easy task. We often hear, “I want to tell my child what happened but don’t know where to begin.” These tips have been prepared to help you navigate these conversations by offering simple and effective guidelines for talking to your children about such a difficult topic.
The September 11 Memorial & Museum page then goes on to list some of their suggestions. Feel free to compare and contrast, but here are our suggestions for how to introduce the kiddos to the subject of 9/11.

The Three Tall Buildings Ebook - PDF for download - Awaken Your Kids Books

That one day that changed everything. Two hijacked planes brought down - not two skyscrapers – but three. Bld 7 collapsed in almost perfect free-fall in what appears to be a classic demolition. So this is about how the huffed and puffed and 'pulled' the baby building down. Unlike the other books from the Awaken series which have 'comic' illustrations and are A4 in size, this book is smaller - A5 book – and has hand painted illustrations by a young art student in Lisbon, Mariana Santos (which were then scanned), and words by Dalia Mae Lachlan.

50% of the purchase of the book will be donated to Architects and Engineers of 9/11 ( All future profits will go back into producing more books like this. TO BE READ WITH ADULT SUPERVISION.

Once you purchase the book, you will get an email with the download link (available for 72hrs)

Kids’ book says 9/11 a conspiracy

Where there’s smoke, there’s conspiratorial fire.

THE 9/11 Memorial opened this week in New York City. By all accounts it’s a beautiful, sombre museum dedicated to those who lost their lives on the greatest act of terrorism perpetrated on United States soil.

The events of September 11, 2001, are officially regarded as an al-Qaeda plot. But conspiracy theorists have long tried to rewrite the official history. Some says Saudi Arabia was involved. The more extreme blame the US Government.

It’s one thing when 9/11 conspiracy theories bounce around the more colourful corners of cyberspace. But now, children are directly exposed to them through an illustrated kid’s book written right here in Australia.

Melbourne author Dee McLachlan, writing under the name “Dalia Mae Lachlan”, has penned a book called “The 3 Tall Buildings”. It tells the story of how the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, plus its neighbour World Trade Centre Building 7 (WTC 7), crumbled “like a big magic trick”.

We’ll have to give the rhyming scheme the benefit of poetic license.
“September 11 was most likely a false flag operation, and whatever powers that be wanted to create an enemy for a war machine,” McLachlan says, explaining her motivation for the book.
McLachlan says the events of that day were so horrific, so graphic and so fundamentally shocking to the western soul, that we’ve falsely pinpointed a face of evil who must have been behind it.
“It is much, much easier for us to believe that some foreign mad people orchestrated this very, very complex attack,” she says. “It is much easier to withstand the trauma than accept the evidence that says this is not the case.”

McLachlan believes the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, and WTC 7, all toppled with the aid of explosives. WTC 7 is the focus of much of her book, as stated in the promotional blurb:
“The book is about how they huffed and puffed and pulled the baby building down.”

The baby building in question was WTC7, a comparatively small 47 storey tower dwarfed by its near neighbours. The official report found that intense fires eventually led to floors failing, columns buckling and complete collapse. 9/11 conspiracists say it was demolished in the sort of implosion you occasionally see on TV where old hotels or obsolete high-rises are destroyed.

An official inquiry explained in precise detail how this building collapsed. Explosives had nothing to do with it. The main culprit was a lack of water (supplies were cut off due to the Twin Towers’ collapse). This meant unchecked fire caused catastrophic structural damage. Source: NewsComAu



The question is, why push the conspiratorial twist of events on young minds? The official version of events is hard enough to explain to the young (just ask this reporter, whose 7-year-old was born on September 11). Why not just tell a straight history and let kids grow old enough to process their own version later on?

“We have to work and think for ourselves as children or as adults,” McLachlan says. “We have got to look for where the truth might lie.

“Children have had rhymes about plagues and witches and all sorts of bad things. This book is the same. It’s a warning we need to think for ourselves.”

McLachlan is a film producer, director and writer and the parent of two teenagers. She says she wishes she didn’t have to write this book, but that she felt compelled to bring the truth behind 9/11 to light.

“I don’t want this stuff in my life. I would so prefer to be an artist who wants to make films, but the lies and deceit that I see plain in sight are so egregious that to be truthful to myself, I want to speak out,” she says.

“I honestly don’t want to do it, but for sake of my kids, I feel we have been drawn in by lies.”

Conspiracists say the Twin Towers would never have blown debris out so far without explosives. Because apparently they’re experts in what happens when huge buildings collapse. (AP Photo/Richard Drew) Source: AP

Anyway, if you’re curious, you can buy it here. Royalties will go to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a loose collection of individuals whose work has been discredited by many of their peers.

Experts in what happens when huge buildings collapse you say?
Please go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for further information about the individuals listed below (apart from Torin Wolf and Danny Jowenko).

Tom Sullivan

worked for Controlled Demolition, Inc. for almost three years before and during 9/11 as a Site Photographer and Explosives Technician. He is also licensed by the FDNY to handle explosives. His explosives technician duties included placing explosives in buildings to prepare them for demolition. His profile page at AE911Truth is here, and his in-depth interview at AE911Truth can be found here.

Torin Wolf

Building construction contractor, certified structural welder, certified asbestos and hazardous materials worker, demolitions expert with long experience

See Torin's 9/11 presentation on National Writers Syndicate.

Dennis A. Thompson

Commercial Blaster's License, Calif., General
Lic: No. 2158 (Rtrd), Eureka, CA

Bio: Have been working with explosives since Navy 1968, first with torpedoes and then became licensed commercial blaster first in Hawaii and then in California on August 17, 1988. AE911Truth profile page

Tim Erney
A & P
A.S. Aviation Maintenance Technology

Bio: Licensed A & P mechanic. U.S. Army Reserve, Combat Engineer, Specialized in Demolitions, Honorable Discharge.

Personal 9/11 Statement:
"In the Army Reserves I was trained in demolitions so I know what it takes to bring down a building in a controlled symmetrical fashion and what it looks like when it happens. As an aircraft mechanic, my knowledge of the properties of fuels, specifically Jet fuel (or highly refined kerosene), brings the conclusion that fires couldn't be hot enough to cause symmetrical structural collapse. Based on what I know, looking at it from various disciplines, it's obvious that all three WTC buildings collapsed due to pre-planned, well placed, precisely timed controlled demolitions." AE911Truth profile page

Danny Jowenko

Owner of a Dutch controlled demolition company, over 30 years of demolition experience

Click here for Jowenko's views of WTC 7.

John Suffoletta

Journeymen Operating Engineer

I have worked in the construction and demolition industry for 23 years. I run heavy equipment and help in the planning of demolition of building and factories around the country and in Buffalo, NY

I know what it takes to bring a building down, I am a 20 year member of local #17 of the Operating Engineers and often work for a national demolition company. I have worked at several nuclear facilities around the country including Connecticut Yankee, West Valley Demonstration Project and Rocky Flats."
AE911Truth profile pagePersonal 9/11 Statement:
I am 100% sure the official story is a planned made up fantasy!
There is no way any of those buildings fell because of fires, it would take a lot bigger fires and a lot more time to drop one of those buildings -- like "days" not hours then when they did fall they would have dropped and contorted, not imploded. This was a planned demolition in all aspects, the planes were just a nice diversion from the "truth" and that is what these people fear the most!

Roman Korol
Lic: 14524

Bio: Military engineering incl. demolitions; bridge and road design and construction; construction of airports, office buildings, commercial structures. Contract administration. Management of the design and construction of buildings. AE911Truth profile page

Frank J. Cullinan

P.E. Civil Engineer
Lic: C 50794

Bio: My expertise is in structure construction of bridges and to a lesser extent demolition of bridges. AE911Truth profile page

Jesse Ventura

38th Governor of Minnesota 1999 - 2003. Member of U.S. Navy Underwater Demolition Team 12 (precursor to SEAL) 1969 - 1975.

Read about Ventura's 9/11 views here.

Chris De Gouw

Military Engineer

Bio: 32 year old, former Canadian Military Engineer in the Canadian reserves trained in small explosives and demolitions. AE911Truth profile page
David C. AvinaEngineer

Bio: Project Construction Manager 15 years of heavy utility and Industrial construction experience, and 5 years of operations. I also have 10 years of project engineer experience in the construction of large utility power plants and industrial process facilities . In this capacity my responsibility exposed me to all phases of construction practices and procedures from demolition, civil, structural, mechanical electrical controls, and through startup and commissioning. AE911Truth profile page

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth... work has been discredited by many of their peers?
FAQ #6: 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.

Who is Winning the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Battle?

Offended? Too bad, so are we. Being offended doesn't make you right. Facts do.

9/11 Coloring Book Teaching Kids ‘Truth’ About Terrorism Full Of Lies And Propaganda

‘A new 9/11 coloring book claiming to teach kids the truth about terrorism instead uses lies and propaganda to brainwash the next generation to support illegal perpetual wars. Government propagandists have released a new 9/11 coloring book that is supposed to begin teaching our children the “truth” about terrorism.

The coloring book is aimed at convincing children as young as 3 years old that illegal perpetual wars are necessary to protect American freedoms. While containing controversial and objectionable graphic content it has some how been slapped with a PG rating.

The book is full of half-truths, outright lies, and a distorted perception of reality that will breed deep-seeded hatred against Muslims in American children. It also serves to desensitize our children to the illegal terrorist activities being performed by our own government.’


The National September 11 Memorial & Museum welcomes any feedback, comments and questions. Please email us using the below form and your message will be reviewed.

Niels Harrit speech at Bilderberg 2014 in Copenhagen

Published on Jun 1, 2014
AE911truth Denmark

Dr. Niels Harrit's speech at the secretive Bilderberg conference, right in front of the Mariott Hotel.
(Simultaneously, Bilderberg attendee Diederik Samsom, appeared surprisingly at the entrance to the protest area, and several protesters and media went to interview him.)

Dr. James Hufferd Interview on Meria Heller Show, May 20, 2014

Published on Jun 6, 2014
5/20/14 Meria interviews James Hufferd, historian on his book "Troublesome Country, Why We Need to Live Up to Our Creed: A History of War, Injustice and Greed".

Monday, June 2, 2014

World Trade Center Building 7’s Controlled Demolition​: 9/11 Consensus Panel Releases New Evidence from Witness Testimonie​s and Architectu​ral Drawings

PRESS RELEASE:  World Trade Center Building 7’s Controlled Demolition: 9/11 Consensus Panel Releases New Evidence from Witness Testimonies and Architectural Drawings

June 1, 2014 –The 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel – which includes physicists, chemists, engineers, commercial pilots, attorneys and lawyers – today announced three new studies confirming the controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7.

The studies scientifically refutes the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claim that, for the first time in history, fire caused the sudden and complete collapse of a large, fire-protected, steel-framed building on 9/11. 

(Note that whereas the Consensus Panel uses a scientific methodology to peer-review its work, the NIST report was not peer-reviewed.)

The first Panel study deals with the NIST computer simulations, which purported to show that fire-induced thermal expansion caused a girder to be pushed off its seat at Column 79, thereby initiating a global collapse of the entire 47-storey building at 5:21 in the afternoon.  

However, a recent FOIA request has produced WTC 7 architectural drawings showing that the NIST simulations omitted basic structural supports that would have made this girder failure impossible.
The second Consensus Panel study deals with NIST’s claim that it did not recover any steel from this massive steel-frame skyscraper.

This is extraordinary, given the need to understand why a steel-frame building would have completely collapsed for the first time in history from fire alone, and to thereby prevent a recurrence.
We know now that some of the steel was recovered.  Photographs recently obtained by researchers show the strange curled-up paper-thin WTC 7 steel, with a NIST investigator pointing it out. 

The third Panel study shows that on September 11, 2001, many people were told hours in advance that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield said early in the afternoon: "I’ve heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is going to go down next.” 

Many members of the New York Fire Department were confidently waiting for the building to come down:

Firefighter Thomas Donato: "We were standing, waiting for seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.”

Assistant Commissioner James Drury: "I must have lingered there. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down.”  

Chief Thomas McCarthy: “So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down.”

In addition, CNN and the BBC made premature announcements.

This foreknowledge corroborates the evidence presented in previous Consensus Points (WTC7-1 to WTC7-5) that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Source:            The 9/11 Consensus Panel   @911consensus
Co-founders:    David Ray Griffin, Elizabeth Woodworth 

Thinking About Conspiracies: BASIC Analytical and Information-Filtering Principles

While some people will believe anything labelled 'conspiracy' some will not believe in any claim of conspiracy no matter how hard the evidence. Not everything is a conspiracy but they do exist, as evidenced from history.

Often a lot of relatively ordinary actions are conspiratorial in nature, especially in business and government. A lot of the problem in comprehending how things work comes with the idea of a 'big conspiracy'. When something seems impossible or too heinous to have been the work of elements from 'our own side' the mind tends to reject the notion.

The key for the interested observer is to engage in some level of research, to check basic facts, while thinking logically and conservatively. Look for hard, concrete proof that can settle the case/debate one way or another. Also look for fundamental errors in official accounts that will consist of internal contradictions, impossibilities, or unprovable conjecture masquerading as fact. It basically comes down to recognising the difference between the unsubstantiated (official) claims versus the ones you can trace to hard data or observation. You should also be thinking about the nature of primary and secondary sources of information when it comes to determining what happened. When the verifiable evidence runs contrary to the official narrative, you can be fairly certain that the said account is false (or a half truth).

The following text, taken from a previous post, highlights the fundamental truths that underpin the forensic evidence proving the 911 attacks on the World Trade Centre Buildings MUST have involved inside help:
''People who are unfamiliar with the scientific evidence, that proves the World Trade Centre buildings were destroyed using explosives on 911, commonly make the mistake of ASSUMING that it would be 'impossible' to rig these structures for demolition.

This is not true: it would be difficult, but NOT impossible.

However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find Molten Steel, Thermite traces, plus actual fragments of high tech explosives in the rubble pile, and to have the freefall collapses of these buildings, WITHOUT the presence of chemical incendiaries/explosives of the sort commonly used by the military and demolition companies."
Another big problem faced by many before they even begin to filter information (looking for fundamental points of evidence) is the fact that there is a mixture of disinformation artists and kooks that can dissuade many from looking into the details of a case.

The disinformation artists, often posing as experts, or using their expertise to deceive, plus those that believe them, will peddle false explanations and heap ridicule that can mislead and discourage the unwary. Because of this, many people shy away for fear of either being wrong, in the face of authoritative rhetoric, or in fear of being labelled a 'conspiracy-tard' or 'truth-tard' with associations to stupidity or mental illness. On the other hand the genuine kooks (plus the disinformation artists posing as such) will dissuade the inexperienced thinker via their confabulation of the conspiracy in question to all manner of fanciful, or seemingly fanciful issues.

However, once you accept that there is a culture of ridicule, a psychological barrier, and disinformation surrounding important 'big conspiracies', you can go forward with your evidence-seeking mind-set and look for hard facts. The only thing that will be imporant is the hard evidence. Often there will be glaring points of data that reveal the real story - but you have to take the time to look !

Fundamentally the term 'conspiracy' is only a dirty word for those that have (an understandable) trouble discerning fact from fiction. This exercise is not helped by a 'consensus' forming corporatised and untrustworthy media, including online, that is populated by various disinformation artists and professional propagandists. Verified facts can help sort out this mess and undo our psychological programming.

Please note: Stuck on my computer is a small piece of paper that reads: Always Ask Questions. Don't Assume Too Much. Be Curious. Investigate.