Sunday, July 27, 2014

Mohr Non-Sense: Chris Mohr Debunks Millette Kaolin Result

A reader sent an email with some questions about the latest gossip going around on the JREF 9/11 forum, including one about a particularly hilarious comment from one Rev. Chris Mohr, the commissioner of Dr. Millette´s now-defunct study of Dr. Harrit´s nano-thermite paper, where he inadvertently debunks Millette´s preliminary report in his over-zealousness to debunk Harrit et al.

On July 20, 2014, Chris Mohr stated that:
"Beachnut, you are wrong when you say that "Jones and Harritt did no test find out what the dust was." Jeff Farrer did TEM and Kevin Ryan did FTIR. Results of these materials characterization tests were never released. Steven Jones then went on to do a THIRD test, as he wrote here: “After our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments.”

So you see Beachnut, Jones/Harrit/Ryan/Farrer did the tests all right, they just didn't like the results and never published them! Gotta stay accurate about these things ya know..."
Part One: The XRD could not conclude if the aluminum is elemental or in a compound like kaolin.

The XRD testing is about establishing the EXACT form of the aluminum seen in the XEDS graphs in Harrit et al. The MEK test reveals indirectly that the aluminum is in elemental form, as figure 17 shows there is no other element present for bonding the aluminum in a compound.

But Dr. Jones apparently tried to confirm this finding with more sophisticated XRD analysis which can potentially allow the DIRECT identification of the structure and form of crystalline materials. The XRD records the pattern of your material and compares it to a database and matches it to a known material, if it is on file, sort of like a fingerprint can be matched to a known print on file. If you think there is aluminum-oxide present, the XRD can confirm it and tell you exactly what form of an oxide you have, and if you think you have kaolin it can confirm that.

BUT in this case the XRD was not able to match the pattern to ANY KNOWN form of aluminum. This does not mean the aluminum signals observed by the XEDS are not there as Rev. Mohr seems to think. Of course not. The XRD result is in other words INCONCLUSIVE since it cannot answer the question whether or not the aluminum in the chips is in elemental form or bound in a compound (such as kaolin)...there was no identification of any material and hence no conclusion. The XRD does not rule out elemental aluminum or aluminum compounds; it simply could not identify the form/structure of the aluminum.

Part Two: No aluminum-bearing compound = no kaolin = Millette debunked!

Chris Mohr has managed to not only misinterpret data he does not understand to support his faith, but also accuse Harrit et al of hiding the data to protect their conclusion. The funny and sad thing is that Rev. Mohr does not understand that IF he wants to continue to interpret the XRD data as some sort of an ultimate debunking of Harrit´s aluminum data, he will also debunk Millette´s preliminary report which says the aluminum is in the aluminum-bearing compound known as kaolin. That´s right, the XRD detected "no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound"...NO ALUMINUM COMPOUND = NO KAOLIN!

Reverend Mohr may have made an honest mistake but he had already been warned about this little predicament via email correspondence some time ago.

The evidence for Harrit´s aluminum is covered in this recent article, which is basically one chapter of an extensive essay covering the Harrit-Millette debate: It covers that quote by Dr. Jones and Rev. Mohr had of course read this essay.

Part Three: But what does that XRD result really mean?

Rev. Mohr refers to a comment that Dr. Jones made on 911blogger, but Mohr omits other comments which are needed for context:
"Studying electron-diffraction patterns obtained with the TEM, Dr. Farrer found that that the iron-oxide was in the form Fe2O3. He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us. There are possible explanations for this; see for example"
 And Jones clarifies what is meant by "no aluminum found in a form recognized by this method" in a comment:
"The reference here speaks of amorphous aluminum alloys; I have found that even the existence of this amorphous form relating to aluminum is surprising to some scientists who somehow had not heard of it."
And then comes the comment that Rev. Mohr cites, but he has taken it hopelessly out of context by omitting the discussion that leads up to it. This comment actually means that the XRD just like the TEM did not recognize this form of aluminum:
"I will say that after our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments."

Again, this does not mean there is no aluminum there; it simply means the XRD could not recognize the form of aluminum, and therefore it could not say whether it is elemental aluminum or a compound. It could perhaps be argued that the samples are too small to work with, but it would not make sense that the XRD could not "read" or  identify something as mundane and common as kaolin, since that is commonly done:

It makes much more sense that the hard-to-identify aluminum is something a little bit more exotic, for example a synthetic nano-material for thermite. Dr. Jones pointed out that the aluminum might be in an amorphous form, which means it lacks an ordered crystalline structure. This is because the XRD is mainly a technique to detect crystalline materials, but if the sample is amorphous or coated in hue of amorphous film, the XRD may not work:

Part Four: the FTIR

Rev. Mohr also states that, "Jeff Farrer did TEM and Kevin Ryan did FTIR. Results of these materials characterization tests were never released."

We already know from the comments by Dr. Jones discussed above that the TEM results were inconclusive just like the XRD, meaning they could neither support nor refute direct and conclusive identification of elemental aluminum. And Chris Mohr knew this before he posted that comment because I discussed the XRD issue with him via email. Chris Mohr also knows that Kevin Ryan has shown his FTIR results in public and that we have discussed them in several articles, including:

Chris Mohr also knows about this data because I discussed it with him and his fellow JREFer Ivan Kminek via email, and they even discussed the FTIR on their beloved JREF forum:
Chris Mohr also knows that Ryan´s FTIR data does not match Millette´s FTIR data, and that we have argued that this means Millette did not study the correct chips (same chips as Harrit et al). This would explain why Millette did not get the same results as Harrit et al when he soaked his chips in MEK solvent, and also why Dr. Jones´s XRD test did not detect kaolin: If Millette is right about finding kaolin in his chips, and if Harrit et al are testing the same chips, then the XRD should have easily identified the kaolin.

It is patently ridiculous that Rev. Mohr is trying to pretend that he does not know about Ryan´s FTIR data and what it implies.

Reverend Mohr probably also known that Kevin Ryan himself showed and discussed his FTIR data in an article that has been published by GlobalResearch ( and the Foreign Policy Journal ( And just like us, Kevin Ryan notes Millette´s FTIR data and that his own FTIR testing concluded "with a much different result."

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Mohr Non-Sense: Adiabatic Flame Temperature

Every now and then I get an email about the latest non-sense that is being passed around on certain forums where the so-called "debunkers" get together to talk trash. These days, this sort of forum chit-chat has become so obviously sad and wrong that people don´t bother mentioning it most of the time, but sometimes the BS is covered with enough sophistry to hide the worst of the stench.

For example, Rev. Chris Mohr posted a comment on the JREF forum on July 11, 2014, where he actually cites authentic scientific papers! He does believe they back-up his faith in the fairy-tale that says office fires melted rust-flakes in the Twin-Towers on 9/11, and formed iron-rich spheres.

Part One: Macroscale temperature vs the microscale.

 Rev. Mohr has up until now refused to accept the concept of the "melting-point" and refused to believe that metals (iron for example) do not melt until they reach the designated temperature point at which they begin to melt. This concept has messed with his faith because the melting-point of iron is around 1500C, while the maximum temperature of a building fire is about 1000C, and the realistic temperature to be expected is less than 650C, which means an office fire cannot melt iron.

Rev. Mohr has finally implicitly admitted that the "melting-point" of a metal means exactly what you would expect it to, but he has managed to use his imagination to find a way around it:
"...a typical office fire might burn at, say, 1100-1800F bulk temperature. But, the adiabatic flame temperature, the theoretical upper limit of burning materials starting at room temperature, is much higher. For hydrocarbon fuels it is 3600-4500F, for wood it is almost 3500F. If you use laser to focus in on the flame temperature as they did in these published papers (below), observable local instantaneous temperatures can actually approach the adiabatic temperature. Any tiny flake of rust exposed to such micro near-adiabatic temperatures could easily hit the melting point of iron."
He essentially claims that although the temperature of the "bulk" of a fire might be less than 1000C, you can find microscopic spots at double that temperature, if you have equipment sophisticated enough to detect those spots. You might want to ask how microscopic those spots are and for how long they remain so hot, but you would get no answers because the cited papers in support of this phenomenon do not actually feature, describe, or mention it at all, and are therefore utterly irrelevant (more on that below). Rev. Mohr may not be intentionally lying; he just does not understand technical papers or know what he is talking about.

The other problem with this theory is that even if true, it would have no relevance to the "real world" or the potential of an office fire to melt iron or rust flakes. If you research things on a small enough scale, you can start to feel like Alice in Wonderland, but careless researchers can really humiliate themselves by making silly assumptions based on the nano-world.

Part Two: You may be wondering what Rev. Mohr´s cited papers actually talk about? 

Before we go into that, let´s quickly review the topic at hand: the adiabatic temperature of a carbon-fueled fire vs the actual temperature of an open-air fire, as explained by Dr. Thomas Eagar in 2001.

The adiabatic (the theoretical maximum) temperature from a carbon fuel (like jet fuel) is about 3000C, but that requires the fuel to be premixed to contain pure oxygen in the perfect ratio. Normal fires, however, rely on the same external air supply that we breathe, not pure oxygen mixed into the fuel, so the actual maximum temperature of an open-air fire is about 1000C, even with jet-fuel. In-between those two extremes, there are jet-engines and various other burner/furnace/torch designs that involve multiplying the supply of air with turbines etc, or adding a stream of pure oxygen. Using various techniques, blast-furnaces, burners, jet-engines, and torches can achieve temperatures way above 1500C, and torches with premixed pure oxygen can achieve over 2500C. This is old news, but normal fires in open air are still limited to the 1000C, and the only thing any researcher has to remember is to not confuse open-air fires with jet-burners and torches etc.

You can probably guess now what mistake Rev. Chris Mohr made? His first source is a paper on "piloted methane-air jet flames stabilized on a burner" which is basically a pressurized gas burner that yields a blue-hot flame. This burner also happens to be a hybrid design that burns air and the fuel is also partially pre-mixed with oxygen: the jet fluid is 3/4 air for "a more robust flame." Again, this is a known technique to increase the temperature, and one should not confuse gas-burners and torches with open-air flames.

Rev. Mohr goes on to say that "You can also use as a reference showing temperatures in the vicinity of 2000C a paper out of Purdue" and this is another paper on a gas burner. This burner can indeed achieve close to 2000C at the optimal distance from the nozzle, and even close to 2500C when run on pure oxygen.

- Note that these are the actual temperatures of the "bulk" of the flames at the optimal distances from the jets or the nozzles, not some microscopic points in the flame - these burners really are this hot. This is impressive, but again utterly irrelevant to a normal open-air fire, which is still limited to about 1000C.

Part Three: Flatulence along with the stinker.

Mohr´s forum buddies did not notice that his cited papers do not support his premise in any way, or even touch the subject for that matter. The premise that his cited papers show normal fires achieving adiabatic temperatures is completely bogus, and the papers are not about temperatures at the micro level at all either. Mohr´s theory is all non-sense, but this does not stop the flatulent and rambling comments from people who seemingly never verify "information" purported to support their faith:
"Only that we need to remind ourselves that behavior on the macro level is not necessarily reflective of behavior on the micro level. And that's a mistake I think we all commonly make - myself so very included - even outside this issue. This post helps remind us of that"
"Thanks, Chris. I fully expect the Trust hers to focus on "Sandia National Labs" instead of the truth of what is being said."

"In other words...AE Truth is full of it!"

"Thanks Chris, let's hope MM forwards this information to his super hero Neils Harrit ? although I expect the peer reviewed article will be ignored due to it not being presented in a court of law"
Part Four: Rev Mohr also talks about iron reduction at low temperatures, trying to tell himself that the fires at the WTC could have melted iron and reduced it:
"There are several oxides of iron, and each has a different melting point. The lowest of these is FeO (also called wüstite) at ~ 1377 C, i.e. lower than the melting point of Fe (~ 1535 C). Rust (Fe2O3, or hematite) decomposes/reduces around 1566 C in air, but under partially reducing atmosphere this can shift to much lower temperature. For instance, in an incompletely-burned fuel fire with hydrocarbons and CO, reduction of iron oxides to metallic iron can occur << 1000 C (I’ve seen it at 600 C under a dilute hydrogen stream). Stating from hematite the reduction sequence would be as follows: Fe2O3 – Fe3O4 – FeO – Fe, thus as rust is reduced it reaches FeO (lowest melting phase) before Fe.Could it be that the “iron rich” microspheres are FeO, or a mixture of Fe and Fe3O4 from the disproportionation reaction of FeO (4FeO = Fe + Fe3O4)?"
No, the iron-spheres featured in Harrit et al are not FeO as even the "typical" ones have a 2:1 Fe-O ratio (see figure 21), meaning if you want to assume the one part oxygen is bound as FeO, the other part Fe is still oxygen free; you began with two parts iron and are still left with the other half of the Fe without any oxygen to bind with, meaning at least half the iron is pure iron. Harrit et al also observe that their iron spheres have Fe-O ratios "up to 4:1" so the conclusion that there is substantial amount of pure iron in the observed spheres is quite solid. Not all of the iron is pure iron and that is to be expected in thermite reactions: some of the iron will be bound with oxygen, perhaps as Fe3O4 or FeO, or as inter-metallic aluminum-iron-oxygen compounds (see Harrit et al figures 24 to 26).

Partial carbon-reduction of iron-oxides can take place well below 1000C but full reduction to pure iron requires about 1200C. Again, it may be possible to do this at lower temperatures in controlled lab conditions in the presence of special elements and specific conditions such as "under a dilute hydrogen stream" but such findings have no relevance to an open-air building fire.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Informing Federal or State Prosecutors


"If anyone knows of a Federal or state prosecutor who would be willing to convene a grand jury investigation into 9/11, please let us know ..."

All about the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)


By reading between the lines, connecting dots hidden in plain view and seeking corroboration of the alleged version of September 11 events from regional and federal governments by way of Freedom of Information laws, September 11 researcher Aidan Monaghan provides evidence of not only a seeming cover-up surrounding the events of September 11 but has also developed scientifically based and peer reviewed alternatives for the reported events that unfolded over the skies of America that day.


Ask Officials to Investigate Building 7


Ask Officials to Investigate Building 7

The ultimate goal of the Remember Building 7 campaign is to initiate a local investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. Please join us in contacting each of the officials listed below.  For your convenience, a form letter is below, but we encourage you to write your own. And keep it short and respectful to make sure your message is heard.  Lastly, please confirm your participation using the form below.
1) Christine C. Quinn, City Council Speaker Contact: go on and click the “Contact Speaker Quinn” button in the menu below her picture.
2) Cyrus Vance Jr, Manhattan District Attorney Contact:
3) Your Council Member — To find out who your Council Member is and what his or her email address is, click on this link, and type in your street address.

Please confirm your participaton

Please take a minute to complete this brief form and let us know who you have contacted so that we can keep track of how many letters are being sent to them.

NOTE: This form is NOT made to contact officials directly but to simply let us know that you have sent them an email.

Thank you for your participation!

Optional Form Letter

Dear _______________, 
I am writing to ask that you do all that is in your power to open an investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001. Based on evidence brought to light by thousands of scientists, architects and engineers, I am deeply concerned that the report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology fails to adequately explain how and why Building 7 collapsed as it did. I respectfully submit that as part of your duty to represent, serve and protect the people of New York City, it is your responsibility to help bring about a new investigation. 
Sincerely yours, 
YOUR LOCATION (as specific as you would like to be)
Fill out participation form at:

Action Alert: NORAD Should Stand Trial for 9/11 Stand-down


The NORAD Stand-Down on 9/11 has been used as the basis for a lawsuit in the past and it can be again! We've uncovered  a lot more damning evidence since then and there are other people to legitimately go after, like "The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander."  George W. Bush was a lofty goal for a starting point.

So, please read my post about informing federal or state prosecutors and consider presenting a few of them with this information along with, or maybe instead of, demolition evidence. They might shy away from this less and if they are implored to look over how much stronger the case for complicity concerning lack of air defense has gotten since the first lawsuit, we might just find the person for the job. The case for complicity is detailed in the very bottom link on this page.
The "Summary of Facts" will set the foundation to support Plaintiff Counts as set forth herein.
However, a complete highly researched timelines of "911" by American Citizen Mark R. Elsis
( and ) who has agreed to testify to his research
on behalf of Plaintiff, and believed to be one
of the "most comprehensive minute by minute accounts of the events of "911".


Plaintiff asserts perhaps the single most damning indictment of Defendant GWB and all Defendants who failed to protect our nation on "911" was the failure of Defendants DOD/NORAD to follow normal military protocol to be followed as standard procedure.  The following testimony of "911" victim family member Mindy Kleinberg, presented on March 31, 2003 before the "911 Commission" is so articulate that it stands with Plaintiff's "open letter" to Defendant GWB as cited at "A" and to support this Count:

"Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings. These 'protocols' were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason -- with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to 'intercept' commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.

If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semi-annual exercise known as 'Vigilant Guardian." This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, 'fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board.'

Lucky for the terrorists that none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th. Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example:

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston's Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m.  Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control.  Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight.  Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost -- (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).

Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew.  At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.

Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.

Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD?  Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets?  How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?

Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets.  Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the World Trade Center.

Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases.  For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C.  As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th.  At 9:41 a.m., one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.  The fighter jets were still miles away.  Why?

So the hijackers' luck had continued.  On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures.  Who were the people that delayed the notification?  Have they been questioned?  In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.

"Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives."

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Please Sign and Pass Along These Petitions

Everyone is welcome to sign the petition, not just building professionals.  AE911's campaign has a petition that's easier to fill out as well.

Counter-Intelligence -- The Interview

This is Scott Noble from Metanoia films.

I recently did a two-part interview for Dissident Voice on the subject of my recent documentary, Counter-Intelligence.
The interview covers a wide variety of topics, including the birth of the CIA, the rise of military industrial intelligence complex, black operations, plausible deniability and compartmentalization, mercenary groups, "national security," NSA spying, false flag and pseudo operations, the 911 truth movement, "conspiracy theory," "debunkers," definitions of terrorism, and modern warfare.

Part 1:

Part 2:

The film itself can be viewed online here:

Thank you.


NY1 coverage of the High-Rise Safety Initiative

We made the nightly news! Watch NY1's "relatively" balanced coverage

NY1 coverage of the High-Rise Safety Initiative

Published on Jul 12, 2014

Visit for more info.


Looking for a Truther Good at FOIA Requests

Did you Sign and Share the International Petition Yet?

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.


9/11 Truth Petitions/Polls and Debunking of Debunker Analysis Suggesting 9/11 Truth is Dead Focused Activism - A Blog Made in Support of the Campaign

Demand transparency on U.S. drone strike targets

You Can't Debunk Truth

Click to Enlarge

New Goal for Fundraiser

In this interview: Mark Basile states that even though the goal was set at $5,000, that he could more ideally use $10,000. The amount raised thus far is $6002. Please make any sized donation you can so this important work is done as thoroughly as possible.

Click Here to Donate Now Via PayPal at: Click here to read Basile's: Proposal of Analytical Work

Debunking the Debunkers - the Blog !

Debunking the Debunkers - the Blog !

This brilliant site destroys the fake science and claims made by the 911 debunking fraternity. I highly recommend that everyone visit this blog in order to get some basic scientific principles set in mind. It is level-headed analysis at its best.

Also, their selection of links to other 911 truth webpages and resources is invaluable.

For activists wishing to present a deconstruction of the key debunker falsehoods, thereby strengthening the case against the official web of lies, I suggest drawing upon the information found at Debunking the Debunkers. Encourage others to learn the truth and fight in the information war.

With continuous and unrelenting actions we will inevitably expose the 911 FALSE FLAG attack for what it was. We can then bring about a measure of justice for all the victims of 911 and END the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.



[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, June 30th, 2012.]

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Tell Congress We Want The Truth About 9/11 And Nothing Less

Banner image The People's Email Network Tell Congress We Want The Truth About 9/11 And Nothing Less

By the admission of the chairmen of the 9/11 commission itself, they did not get to the truth, and were deliberately impeded and deceived through their entire investigation.
We are not going to attempt on this page to theorize about what the actual truth is. The one thing we know for sure is that the “official” story is a fairy tale.

Now that the American people are waking up to the fact that they’ve been lied to about everything else in the last 6 years, is it any wonder that they are increasing skeptical about how it is that our air defenses just evaporated on 9/11, so as to ALLOW any terrorist plot to succeed on that day.
Don’t you think it’s time, AFTER the deaths of 3,000 Americans in New York City, and even more in Iraq, AFTER squandering a trillion dollars or more of our treasury on a phantom WMD and Al Qaeda chase in that country, don’t you think it’s time that the American people were finally told the truth?

The one click form here will send your personal message to all your government representatives selected below, with the subject “Reopen the 9/11 Investigation” At the same time you can send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper if you like.

Friday, July 11, 2014

WE DID IT! 67,192 signatures submitted to the City of New York


67,192 signatures submitted to the City of New York

Representatives of the High-Rise Safety Initiative stand in front of the City Clerk's office on July 3, 2014 before submitting 67,192 signatures. Left to right: Ted Walter, NYC CAN Executive Director; Valerie Lucznikowska, Aunt of Adam Arias; Bob McIlvaine, Father of Bobby McIlvaine.

67,192 Signatures Submitted

We are proud to announce that earlier today we submitted over 67,000 signatures to the City of New York - 37,000 more than the requisite number for a charter amendment to be submitted to the voters at this November's election. If passed by voters on November 4th, it would require the City's Department of Buildings to investigate the collapse of WTC 7 and any future high-rise collapses. We would like to extend our deepest gratitude to everyone who contributed blood, sweat, tears and hard-earned dollars toward this remarkable achievement. Together we did it!


New consensus show NIST ignored critical WTC 7 evidence: AE911Truth may launch suit

[Contact AE911 at and say that you support them launching a suit.]

Building 7 small fire
“NIST simulations omitted basic structural supports that would have made this girder failure impossible.”
By Craig McKee

They admit they ignored evidence, and they don’t care.
According to one of three new points released this week by the 9/11 Consensus Panel, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has dismissed the importance of architectural drawings for World Trade Center Building 7, accessed through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which prove that the claim that the building was brought down by office fires cannot be correct.
If NIST doesn’t correct its faulty technical analysis, it could find itself being sued by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (more on that below).

According to a press release from the Consensus Panel (co-founded by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth), their first new point deals with the computer simulations offered by NIST, “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-story building at 5:21 in the afternoon.”

But the release goes on to state that the drawings show “that the NIST simulations omitted basic structural supports that would have made this girder failure impossible.”
From the Consensus point itself:

“Review of the released WTC 7 drawings showed that there were two serious structural feature omissions from the NIST analyses relevant to the NIST “collapse initiation” theory. They were:
 1.    Steel plate stiffeners that provided critical support for girder A2001.
 2.    Floor beams S3007, G3007, and K3007, which provided lateral support for beam G3005.
Analyses performed by independent engineers show that when the stiffeners and lateral support beams are included, NIST’s probable collapse sequence is impossible, because:
 1.    The girder flange for column 79 could not bend or fail with the stiffeners present.
 2.    Beam G3005 – which NIST claimed buckled from thermal expansion and led to the collapse of WTC 7 – could not have buckled if G3005’s omitted lateral support floor beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 were present.”

The conclusion of the point reads as follows:

“NIST’s claim that the collapse of WTC 7 was initiated when Girder A2001 was pushed off its seat at Column 79 is untenable.  

With the alleged initiating event ruled out, all of NIST’s claims about subsequent structural failures must be considered baseless and invalid.”

Human rights attorney William F. Pepper, representing Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of the Inspector General in December 2013 reporting the omissions from the NIST report and calling for an independent engineering study. He followed this up in March 2014 by phone and received acknowledgment from NIST that it had omitted the stiffeners, but that they did not need to be considered.

Pepper is best known for having represented the family of Martin Luther King in a 1999 wrongful death suit against Lloyd Jowers and other unknown conspirators in the MLK assassination. The jury found Jowers responsible along with “governmental agencies.” Pepper also represents Sirhan Sirhan who was convicted of assassinating Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.

An article on the AE911Truth web site by Dennis McMahon and James McDowell goes into the details of efforts by Pepper and AE members Tony Szamboti and David Cole to press NIST to “produce a corrected analysis and report on the collapse of Building 7.”

Szamboti, a mechanical engineer who has just joined the 9/11 Consensus Panel, was told by NIST that its engineers did not agree with Pepper’s letter. This has led Szamboti to start work on a technical analysis of the “relevant structural elements” to show that NIST calculations are in error. Once this work is completed, the findings will likely be passed on to NIST in another letter from Pepper. If nothing is done at the point (as we can expect nothing will be), AE911Truth is already on record as saying that a lawsuit against NIST may follow.

WTC 7 steel was available

The second new Consensus point refutes the repeated claim by NIST that no steel was recovered from Building 7. NIST has used this claim to shut down all questions about what the steel might prove about what really caused the destruction of the building.

The Panel makes the point that if NIST’s explanation of a collapse due to “thermal expansion” were true, then examining the steel would have been extremely important in preventing future occurrences.
The Panel reports that the “best evidence” includes that fact that three scientists from the Worchester Polytechnic Institute wrote a letter entitled “An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel WTC Building 7”to a technical journal in 2001. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a report by the same three scientists in 2002 that examined the corrosion and thinning of WTC steel using as an example a beam that “appeared to be from WTC 7.” That it did come from Building 7 was confirmed by the lead author of the FEMA study in a 2008 BBC documentary.
A FOIA request yielded photographs of WTC 7 steel being examined by John Gross, the co-project leader on NIST’s Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis. And all this evidence is supported by media reports in the New York Times and the official publication of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

This 9/11 Consensus Panel point concludes:

“More than ample evidence shows that NIST’s claim – that no steel from WTC 7 was found – is false. By denying this evidence (which was even cited in one of NIST’s own reports), it could claim that there was no evidence that the building had been brought down by explosives.
By denying the availability of WTC 7 steel, moreover, NIST positioned itself to explain the collapse by resorting to a computer simulation into which variables could be inserted at will – given the fact that there was to be no peer review – and which has been shown to be false.”
Foreknowledge of ‘collapse’

The final new Consensus point addresses the considerable evidence that there was foreknowledge of the “collapse” of Building 7 both by authorities and the media.

It starts by pointing out that there have been two official stories about the WTC 7 destruction. One stated that the building was critically damaged by flying debris and that fires were fueled diesel fuel stored in the building. The second, in the form of the 2008 NIST report, stated that it was strictly office fires that led to the collapse and that this had resulted from an effect called “thermal expansion” that played a significant part in initiating a global collapse.

As the Consensus Panel points out, neither scenario fits the evidence. And certainly neither would explain the certainty that seemed to exist that the building would be coming down. Examples of this knowledge included officials on the scene (the fire chief, assistant chief, firefighters, and paramedics) and media (CNN and the BBC reported the collapse before it happened, while MSNBC reported that “several different officers” had said that Building 7 would be the next to come down).
So the Panel’s concludes:

Neither Account 1 nor Account 2 of the collapse of WTC 7 can account for the certainty of many people on the scene that the building was going to collapse, the fact that some of them had this foreknowledge long in advance, and that two of the TV networks were able to announce the collapse prematurely. This foreknowledge, it would seem, must have come from people who intended to bring the building down.

This foreknowledge corroborates, therefore, the evidence and conclusions presented in previous Points (see Consensus Points WTC7-1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) that WTC 7 was brought down through a process of controlled demolition.”

This brings to 40 the number of points approved by the 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel so far.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Donate to the High-Rise Safety Initiative


Goal: $250,000 by July 20th

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

The Reasons Why Thousands Of Victims' Family Members Want a New 9/11 Investigation

Before any family members voiced their opinion that they wanted a new investigation, it must be noted that if it were not for them there wouldn't have been an investigation at all. It's also important to demonstrate that the facts were the deciding factor in their determination that the investigation they did get was totally inept. That said...
Obstructed Investigations:
For 14 months the Bush administration was able to hinder and obstruct any public investigation of the attack. According to Senator Tom Daschle, both the President and the Vice President lobby him for no 9/11 investigation. Dick Cheney even threatens Congressional Democrats with “interfering with the war on terror” if they press for a 9/11 investigation.
When the Commission was formed, the families were none too pleased that its executive Director, Philip Zelikow, had "deep, lasting ties to several members of both the Bush I and Bush II administrations," co-authored a book with Condoleeza Rice, was a part of the Bush II transition team, participated in White House briefings on al-Qaeda in 2000 and 2001, and sat on Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

According to an unnamed source on the Commission Zelikow was "calling the shots" and "skewing the investigation and running it his own way."

Commissioner Max Cleland didn't resign specifically due to objections over Zelikow, although from looking at press reports, he wasn't happy about it. When asked about Zelikow by Amy Goodman, Cleland stated it was "not the staff director’s fault, it is the White House’s fault, it’s president Bush’s fault." So in his view Zelicow was doing the bidding of administration officials, but that doesn't absolve his actions. 

In an 2003 PBS interview Cleland levied serious criticism at the Commission, the transcript reads:
Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal”, stated in a 2003 PBS interview,
“I’m saying that’s deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration’s policy was, and its priority was, we’re gonna take Saddam Hussein out.”
Cleland, speaking with Democracy Now, said,
“One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.
The article reported that:
Meanwhile, a pair of public interest groups, The 9-11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch, have called for the resignation of the director of the independent 9-11 commission, Philip Zelikow.

The calls for resignation come after former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke revealed that Zelikow participated in Bush administration briefings on al Qaeda prior to Sept. 11.

To talk about the commission, we are joined by one of its former members, former Georgia senator Max Cleland. After his appointment to the commission in 2002, Cleland became the chief critic of the White House stonewalling over releasing documents and lack of cooperation.

In October last year, Cleland said the Bush administration was purposely stalling the investigation because of the 2004 election. Cleland said, "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted."

In November, after the White House set conditions for the examination of documents Cleland said, "If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised." summed it up like so:
The first two years after September 11th saw the rise of the Families’ Movement, which kept the issue of the “unanswered questions” alive, and which forced the creation of the official 9/11 Commission. The Bush administration acted to delay, stonewall and starve all official investigations – with the complicity of the mainstream media, who ignored the festering questions or at best ridiculed those who asked them.

Many signs confirmed that there was indeed a 9/11 Cover-up: outrageous conflicts of interest within official investigating bodies, such as the appointment of Henry Kissinger and then Philip Zelikow to the 9/11 Commission; destruction of evidence; the silencing of whistleblowers; and the promotion of the very officials who were responsible for the supposed failures of September 11th. For many, the 9/11 cover-up itself became the smoking gun pointing to wrongdoing: the untenable excuses of massive serial incompetence; the endless coincidences; the insulting fairy tale that “no one could have imagined planes as weapons”; the omission and suppression of any evidence contradicting the official story.
Media participation in the cover-up was exposed in a 2007 piece at The article summed up the instructions given by Fox Headquarters to reporters on how to cover the 9/11 Commission. Basically, conduct cover-up coverage. The article reads in part:
It is clear (especially within the context of the other memos presented in the video) that Fox headquarters was essentially instructing its reporters to stay away from reporting anything controversial about 9/11. The memo constitutes evidence that Fox reporters were ordered not to mention that:

(1) It was obvious that the administration knew more than enough to stop the 9/11 attacks (that is -- in the words of the Watergate prosecutors -- Bush and Cheney knew a lot, and they knew it before the attacks started)

(2) The Commission wanted to interview Bush and Cheney, but they would only testify if they could be interviewed jointly, and if they were not under oath
(3) The investigation of 9/11 was important, because the government's story made no sense

While you might think that Fox News is an especially-biased news source, this is really just business as usual in terms of media coverage of 9/11.
And as if all that wasn't enough, comparisons of 9/11 to other major catastrophes makes it perfectly clear that foot dragging and underfunding was at hand, despite claims to the contrary.
9-11 Commission Comparisons ... 411 days later ...

9 Days until an investigation was ordered into the Pearl Harbour attack:

7 Days until an investigation was ordered into the Kennedy assassination:

7 Days until an investigation was ordered into the Challenger disaster:

6 Number of days until an investigation was ordered into the sinking of the Titanic:

Number of days until an investigation was ordered into the 9/11 attacks: 411

Amount of money allocated for the 1986 Challenger disaster investigation: $75 million

Amount of money allocated for the 2004 Columbia disaster investigation: $50 million

Amount of money allocated for Clinton-Lewinsky investigation: $40 million

Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million

Amount of money authorized by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan�s intelligence agency (ISI), to be sent to suicide hijacker Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11: $100,000 USD
Number of references in the Final Report to foreign governments providing funding for al-Qaeda operatives: 0 references

This is not presented as a conspiratorial fog, these are simple facts pertaining to activity by authorities and known details in the Commission report.

Try and stay on topic, none of the above hints at explosives in the towers, or any such hyperbole. It just seems strange to compare Clintons cock receiving $40 million and this a mere $14 million.

Read more at nitpicks this info, pointing out why there are such gigantic gaps in funding in some cases, simply based on the differing logistics involved investigating different types of catatrophes. Be that as it may, again, we are talking about the whereabouts of Clinton's penis vs. the death of almost 3,000 innocent Americans and nearly 9,000 American troops. Not to mention some other group of folks that we Americans never seem to keep up with in the 9/11 death statistics. The organization FAIR reports:
But the major U.S. press rarely considers a most basic measure of that impact: how many Iraqis have been killed. When they do mention the toll, they consistently ignore or malign two major statistical studies, the first conducted by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and published in the prestigious British medical journal the Lancet (10/11/06), and the other released by the British polling firm Opinion Research Business (9/07). Both indicate that over a million Iraqis have now been killed. Yet an Associated Press poll in February (2/24/07) that asked Americans how many Iraqis have died received a median response of less than 10,000.

Thousands Of Victims' Family Members Believe 9/11 Was An Inside Job

9/11 Icon Bill Doyle Openly Condemns US Government Complicity and Cover-up
Alex Jones: With your 7,000 members, I'm sure you've talked to most if not all of them. Run the gamut, what percentage, a guesstimation, would you say believe 9/11 is an inside job, to some extent? 
Bill Doyle: Maybe half, maybe. It's probably 50-50.  

Click to Enlarge
Families, First Responders, Survivors Speak Out

We, the undersigned Families, First Responders and Survivors of September 11 raise our voice with those from across our country and around the world in support of NYC CAN and the establishment of an independent, impartial subpoena powered investigation into the events surrounding the September 11 attacks on our nation.

We believe a new investigation is our only path forward to the answers and accountability every American deserves and our only path back to the moral high ground upon which our great nation was built.

We unite with NYC CAN and the citizens of the City of New York in support of an unbiased nonpolitical rendering of evidence and fact wherever they may lead and ask every American and every concerned citizen of the world, in defense of our nation and in defense of freedom, to join with us today!

Family Members

Donna Marsh O’Connor  —  Mother of Vanessa Lang Langer
Bob McIlvaine  —  Father of Bobby McIlvaine
Helen McIlvaine  —  Mother of Bobby McIlvaine
Jean Canavan  —  Sister in Law of Sean Canavan
Manny Badillo  —  Nephew of Thomas Joseph Sgroi
Chris Burke  —  Brother of Tom Burke
Michele Little  —  Sister of David M. Weiss
Lorie Van Auken  —  Wife of Kenneth Van Auken
Monica Gabrielle  —  Wife of Richard S. Gabrielle
Patricia Casazza  —  Wife of John Casazza
Mindy Kleinberg  —  Wife of Alan Kleinberg
Robin Della Rocca  —  Aunt of Vanessa Lang Langer
Michelle Madden  —  Mother of Richard B. Madden
Barry Zelman  —  Brother of Kenneth Zelman
Margaret Canavan  —  Mother of Sean Canavan
Ciaran Canavan  —  Brother of Sean Canavan
Celine Traynor  —  Sister of Sean Canavan
Kathleen McKeon  —  Sister of Sean Canavan
Teresa McCaffery  —  Sister of Sean Canavan
Mimi Kelly Donegan  —  Sister of Bill Kelly Jr.
Gayle Baker  —  Sister of William A. Karnes
Cynthia Droz  —  Wife of Charles A. Droz
Cherie Faircloth  —  Sister in Law of John Resta
Lorraine Moskal  —  Wife of William D. Moskal
Paul E. Geidel  —  Father of Gary Geidel, FDNY
Teresa Badillo  —  Sister of Thomas J. Sgroi
John Sgroi  —  Brother of Thomas J. Sgroi
Eileen Sgroi  —  Sister-in-law of Thomas J. Sgroi
Anthony Badillo  —  Nephew of Thomas J. Sgroi
Lauren Badillo  —  Niece of Thomas J. Sgroi
Ann F. Rago  —  Aunt of Thomas J. Sgroi
Susan McCormick  —  Sister of Lt. Paul T. Mitchell
Thomas Resta  —  Brother of John Resta,
Sylvia San Pio Resta, and their unborn baby
Robert Carlo FDNY  —  Brother of Michael Carlo, FDNY
Ivy Moreno  —  Mother of Yvette Nicole Moreno
JoAnn Meehan  —  Mother of Collen Ann Barkow
Maureen Santora  —  Mother of Christopher A. Santora
Al Santora  —  Father of Christopher A. Santora
Maureen Godshalk  —  Mother of Bill Godshalk
Adele Welty  —  Timothy Matthew Welty, FDNY
Gila Barzvi  —  Mother of Guy Barzvi
Robert T. O’Connor  —  Stepfather of Vanessa Lang Langer
Robert Andreacchio  —  John Andreacchio
Dolores LaVerde  —  Mother of Jeannine LaVerde
Madeleine Zuccala  —  Wife of Joseph J. Zuccala
Madeline Bergin  —  Wife of John P. Bergin, FDNY
Nancy Yambem  —  Wife of Jupiter Yambem
Patricia J. Perry  —  Mother of John W. Perry
James L. Perry  —  Father of John W. Perry
Joel R. Perry  —  Brother of John W. Perry
Janice Perry Montoya  —  Sister of John W. Perry
Maureen Hunt   —  Sister of Kathleen Hunt Casey
Patricia Reilly   —  Sister of Lorraine Mary Riley
Jo Anne Bruehert  —   Wife of Richard G. Bruehert
Cathy D'Alessandro  —  Sister of Rocco Nino Gargano
Richard Pecorella  —  Fiancee of Karen S. Juday
Renee Stahlman,  —  Mother of Eric Stahlman
Sam Stahlman  —  Father of Eric Stahlman
Gary Meo  —  Best Friend of Eric Stahlman
Judith Hobson  —  Mother of Robert Wayne Hobson, III
Michelle Spinelli  —  Frank Spinelli
Christopher Spinelli  —  Frank Spinelli
Manuela Nita-Vasquez  —  Wife of Cono Gallo
Janine Winter  —  Cousin of Kathryn LaBorie
Alissa Torres  —  Wife of Luis Eduardo Torres
Robert Mercado  —  Brother in Law of Marc David Sullins
John M. Ulhich  —  Cousin of Bradley Van Hoorn
Madeline Smith  —  Mother of Jeffrey R. Smith
Audrey Magnuson  —  Wife of Ronald Magnuson
Christine O'Neill  —  Wife of John P. O'Neill, FBI
Sally Asaro  —  Sister of Carl F. Asaro, FDNY
Buzz Smith  —  Father of Jeffrey R. Smith
Myrta Gschaar  —  Wife of Robert Gschaar
Joanna Jakubiak  —  Daughter of Maria Jakubiak
Carol Eckna  —  Mother of Paul Robert Eckna
Stanley Eckna  —  Father of Paul Robert Eckna
Richard Eckna  —  Brother of Paul Robert Eckna
Maria R. Fisher  —  Sister of Andrew Fisher
Margaret Mauro  —  Sister of Dorothy Mauro
Eileen Woods  —  Sister of James Woods
Joyce Woods  —  Mother of James Woods
Robert Nelson  —  Nephew of Richard Fitzsimons
William A. Brinnier  —  Best Friend of Frank DeMartini
Catherine Statz  —  Sister of Patricia J. Statz
Ira Lassman  —  Father of Nicholas C. Lassman
Bill Kelly  —  Father of Billy Kelly
JoAnne Kelly  —  Mother of Billy Kelly
Kathleen Hamilton  —  Sister of Billy Kelly
Colleen Kelly  —  Sister of Billy Kelly
Meigan Keane  —  Sister of Billy Kelly
Robert Madden  —  Brother of Richard B. Madden
Susan Newton-Carter  —  Wife of Christopher Newton-Carter
Laura Paterson  —  Steven B. Paterson
Patric Tengelin  —  Brother of David Tengelin
Geraldine Lewis  —  Mother of Adam Lewis
Patricia Bingley  —  Mother of Kevin Dennis
John Echavarria  —  Cousin of Matthew Pedicini
Michael McNulty  —  Uncle of Sean Peter McNulty
JoAnn Statz  —  Mother of Patricia Statz
Cathie Ong  —  Sister of Betty Ann Ong
Valerie Lucznikowska  —  Aunt of Adam Arias
Bryan Jackson - Cousin of Commander William Donovan Jr.
Jane Pollicino - Wife of Steve Pollicino
Jacqueline Statz - Sister of Patricia Statz

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth Tribute Page


Survivors Graphic 300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members



Family Members
  1. Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
  2. Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
  3. Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
  4. Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
  5. Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th floor
  6. Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
  7. Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
  8. Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC, 105th floor
  9. Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
  10. Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd floor
  11. Ralph D’Esposito, father of Michael D’Esposito, WTC, 96th floor
  12. Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th floor
  13. Adina D. Eisenberg, sister of Eric Eisenberg, WTC
  14. Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul “Geep” Fisher, Pentagon
  15. Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
  16. Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
  17. Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
  18. Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard Guadagno, Flight 93
  19. Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
  20. Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One, 95th floor
  21. Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
  22. John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
  23. L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor, KBW
  24. Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
  25. Paul & Barbara Kirwin, parents of Glenn Davis Kirwin, Cantor Fitzgerald 105th floor
  26. Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC firefighter
  27. Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in WTC, Tower One
  28. Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
  29. Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
  30. Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
  31. Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
  32. Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
  33. Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
  34. Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
  35. Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
  36. James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W. Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
  37. David Potorti, brother of James Potorti, North Tower, WTC, Marsh & McLennan
  38. Terry Kay Rockefeller, sister of Laura Rockefeller, North Tower, WTC
  39. Grissel Rodriguez-Valentin, wife of Benito Valentin, WTC1, 94th floor
  40. Alissa Rosenberg-Torres, widow of Luis Eduardo Torres, post-9/11 mother, writer
  41. Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
  42. Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2, 84th floor
  43. Paula Shapiro, mother of Eric Eisenberg, WTC2
  44. Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September 2001
  45. Adele Welty, mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY, Squad 288
  46. Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th floor
  47. David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
  48. Nissa Youngren, daughter of Robert G. LeBlanc, flight 175
Click Here (232KB)
Over the years, 9/11 Family Members Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, and Monica Gabrielle, or the September Eleventh Advocates, have written open letters about different issues concerning the 9/11 attacks. I have compiled every letter that I have (not every letter is written by all of them), and put them into one file for you to download. I figured that along with the report written by Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg regarding how well the 9/11 Commission answered the 9/11 Family Steering Committee's questions, as well as the new report on the nano-thermite, this could be printed, and handed out to people. Please spread this around, and thank you. - Jon Gold,
Click to Enlarge

This Petition is Closed
• Who: President Barak Obama
• Sponsored by: 9/11 family members, Michele Little, Jane Pollicino, Bob McIlvaine, Josef PrinciottaMatt Campbell, UK 911 Family Member, refuses to pay the TV licence and appears at Hasting Magistrates Court, March 23rd 2015.
Expert witnesses, Adrian Mallet, Peter Drew and Chris Coverdale are interviwed along with solicitor Mahtab Aziz and Ken O’Keefe.

Manny Badillo, Leslie Young, Tony Szamboti and Bob McIlvaine joined other family members and technical professionals in the latest ad from the Remember Building 7 Campaign
  Geraldo Rivera, Bob McIlvaine, and Tony Szamboti make November a month to remember. Geraldo publicly questions the destruction of WTC 7, citing the credibility of "those 1,300 architects and engineers".

"The Jersey Girls" support AE911Truth efforts

911 Families in the UK doubt official account.
Matt Cambell lost his bother in the 9/11 attacks and been speaking out publicly for three years in a so far futile attempt to get the UK and US authorities to release the evidence to support the official theory of how the attacks took place.

Matt informs us that he is now making progress in persuading other relatives to swallow their disgust at the possibility that the 9/11 attacks may have been some sort of an inside job and start asking questions too.

The conspiracies that won’t go away: Brother of 9/11 victim claim the US orchestrated the atrocity as new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire:
I just got back from Sarah Van Auken's play entitled, "THIS IS NOT ABOUT 9/11." It was a wonderful experience. She shared some of the most intimate aspects of her life as the child of a 9/11 victim. She reminded us about how important it is to never forget what happened that day, how hard it's been to channel the anger that she feels from the loss of her father, but also how important it was for her to do so. She reminded us about being blind to obvious problems that have come up in this country as a result of the attacks, and to question what we were told about that day. The end made me cry. Something I thought Sarah was going to do throughout the entire play, but did not. She is truly a professional, and so are Bob Stineman and Ellie Ruttenbergand. If you have the chance to see this play, you won't regret it. - Jon Gold, via Facebook

Our families support the 9/11 families. Truthers as charged!



Kristen Breitweiser, 9/11 widow and activist, Responds To Ann Coulter