Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.

Archive

Tag: Shanksville

By Rady Ananda
Global Research
April 29, 2011

Bush court dismisses 9/11 suit against Bush officials, orders sanctions

Rather than judicially review significant evidence in the events of September 11, 2001, on April 27, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of an Army Specialist’s complaint against former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers.

One of Plaintiff April Gallop’s attorneys, William Veale, didn’t know whether to relate the decision to “Kafka, Orwell, Carroll, or Huxley,” referring to the absurdity and dearth of reason emanating from the court regarding the deadliest attack on U.S. soil the nation has ever faced.

“The Court’s decision, analogous to reviewing an Indictment in a liquor store hold-up without mentioning the guy walking in with a gun, refuses to acknowledge even the existence of the three defendants much less what they were doing that morning or saying about it afterwards,” Veale added.

Of the three judges on the panel, John Mercer Walker, Jr. is first cousin of former President George H.W. Bush and first cousin once removed of George W. Bush, who used 9/11 to manipulate public emotion to support passage of the unconstitutional PATRIOT Acts and waging illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East. According to Wikipedia, Walker shares a grandfather with the 41st president, George Herbert Walker, whose daughter married Prescott Bush. A motion to force Judge Walker’s removal from the case was denied, despite a clear conflict of interest.

The lawsuit, prepared by the Center for 9/11 Justice, accuses the defendants of conspiring to facilitate the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that killed 3000 Americans and which has resulted in the deaths of many more, due to the toxicity of the clean-up conditions at Ground Zero. The plaintiff and her son were both injured in the attack on the Pentagon, multiple videos of which the government has refused to release to the public.

Read more

June 9, 2017
The Corbett Report

via 911FreeFall.com: Host Andy Steele is joined by independent journalist James Corbett and by AE911Truth CEO Richard Gage, AIA, to discuss 9/11’s impact on American society and the road forward for the truth movement. They also talk about their upcoming presentations at the Red Pill Expo in Bozeman, MT, on June 23rd and 24th.

May 25, 2017
911 Blogger

Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. secretary of defense, proceeded as normal with his daily intelligence briefing at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001, despite learning that a second aircraft had hit the World Trade Center and America was clearly under attack. Even when the Pentagon was attacked, over 30 minutes later, he still did nothing to assist the military’s response to the crisis and instead hurried outside to the crash site, simply to inspect the damage and help carry a stretcher. By the time that he became involved in defending his country, the terrorist attacks were over.

Rumsfeld, as secretary of defense, had important responsibilities that day. And yet he repeatedly ignored the appeals of colleagues when they tried to get him involved with the military’s response to the attacks. Remarkably, he rejected the advice of two aides to abandon his usual activities because, he told them, if he did so, “the terrorists have won.”

Some government and military officials, as well as journalists, have criticized Rumsfeld for effectively deserting his post at such a critical time, when he should have been focused on preventing possible further attacks. These commentators have made clear how unusual and unacceptable his actions were.

In light of what is known about the defense secretary’s actions on September 11, we need to consider whether Rumsfeld’s behavior while the 9/11 attacks were taking place was simply due to negligence and recklessness or the result of something more disturbing. Might Rumsfeld perhaps have known in advance what was going to happen on September 11?

If he had foreknowledge of 9/11, he would presumably have known he could get away with abandoning his responsibilities as secretary of defense while America was under attack. And if he knew what the targets would be, he would have known that the area of the building where his office was located would not be hit when the Pentagon was attacked, which meant it was safe for him to continue with his intelligence briefing. He would also have known there would be no second attack on the Pentagon and so he could safely go to the crash site after the building was hit.

Official investigations have failed to thoroughly probe Rumsfeld’s actions on September 11 and the media have never inquired why the secretary of defense acted so inappropriately in response to the terrorist attacks. It is important, therefore, that we now closely examine what Rumsfeld did that day.

RUMSFELD THOUGHT THE FIRST CRASH WAS A ‘TRAGIC ACCIDENT’

Donald Rumsfeld was hosting a breakfast meeting in his private dining room at the Pentagon, attended by several members of Congress, when the first hijacked plane–American Airlines Flight 11–crashed into the World Trade Center, at 8:46 a.m. on September 11. [1]

He learned of the crash shortly after it occurred when Larry Di Rita, his special assistant, sent him a note telling him what had happened. [2] Vice Admiral Edmund Giambastiani, his senior military assistant, received the note and passed the message on to him while he was in the meeting. He assumed the incident was a “tragic accident,” he has recalled, and took no action in response to the news. His meeting apparently therefore continued until 9:00 a.m., when it was scheduled to end. [3]

He then went to his office for his intelligence briefing. [4] Giambastiani turned on the television and he then started watching the coverage of the burning World Trade Center. [5]

RUMSFELD WENT AHEAD WITH HIS INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING, DESPITE KNOWING AMERICA WAS UNDER ATTACK

Rumsfeld received a daily intelligence briefing, similar to the one provided to the president each morning. [6] The briefing on September 11 was scheduled to run from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and was going to be delivered by DeNeige (“Denny”) Watson, an analyst with the CIA. [7]

Watson learned of the first crash at the World Trade Center when she arrived at the Pentagon that morning and saw people watching the coverage of it on television. She learned of the second crash, and presumably realized that America was under attack, before she went in to brief Rumsfeld, seeing the incident live on television, at 9:03 a.m., in the anteroom of Rumsfeld’s office. She immediately called the operations center at CIA headquarters and asked what people there knew about what was going on. She was told there were 50 airborne planes still unaccounted for.

In light of what was happening, Watson apparently expected Rumsfeld to cancel his schedule so he could focus on responding to the crisis. As she was about to go into his office, she “declined to even open her briefcase to pull out the PDB [President’s Daily Brief], figuring it had been overtaken by events,” author David Priess described. The secretary of defense, though, was determined to go ahead with the briefing.

Inside Rumsfeld’s office, Watson relayed what she had been told by the CIA’s operations center. And yet, while this information surely indicated that more attacks might be imminent, Rumsfeld just nodded his head and started flipping through the copy of the PDB she had brought with her. [8]

RUMSFELD WAS DETERMINED TO STICK TO HIS SCHEDULE

Around this time, while he was receiving the briefing, Rumsfeld was told about the second crash by Edmund Giambastiani. “Someone came in and said that another plane had hit a different tower of the World Trade Center,” Rumsfeld recalled. [9] “I went in and informed the secretary [of the second crash],” Giambastiani said. [10] At that point, “it became clear that it was more than an accident,” Rumsfeld commented. [11] “We knew there was a problem here,” Giambastiani stated. [12] All the same, Rumsfeld continued with the briefing as if nothing unusual had happened.

Minutes after Watson entered the office, two of Rumsfeld’s aides came in: Victoria Clarke, Rumsfeld’s spokeswoman, and Larry Di Rita.

Clarke had been in her office at the Pentagon when she learned of the first crash from seeing the coverage of it on television. She’d called Di Rita to discuss the incident and, as the two were talking, they saw United Airlines Flight 175–the second hijacked plane–crashing into the World Trade Center live on their TVs. Realizing this was “clearly a terrorist attack of some kind,” Clarke headed to Di Rita’s office, down the hallway from Rumsfeld’s office.

On the way, she made some notes about what needed to be done in response to the crisis, such as contacting the president, the vice president, and the director of the CIA. She and Di Rita then went together to Rumsfeld’s office to discuss “the kinds of things [Rumsfeld] needed to do in response to this,” Clarke recalled. [13] Upon entering the office, they told Rumsfeld what they knew about the terrorist attacks and that the crisis management process was starting up. [14]

Clarke and Di Rita wanted Rumsfeld to cancel his schedule, presumably so he could focus on responding to the attacks. “Sir, I think your entire schedule is going to be different today,” Di Rita said. [15] But Rumsfeld refused to change his plans. [16]

He told them to go to the Pentagon’s Executive Support Center (ESC), which was well equipped to deal with crisis, and said he would join them later. At that time, he “wanted to make a few phone calls,” Clarke recalled. The two aides therefore left the office and headed to the ESC. [17] Rumsfeld, meanwhile, went back to skimming through the PDB. [18]

Read more

May 16, 2017
The Middle East Media Research Institute

On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat published an exceptionally harsh article on this topic by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, who argued that the U.S. itself had planned and carried out 9/11, while placing the blame on a shifting series of others – first Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, and now Saudi Arabia. He wrote that American threats to reveal documents that supposedly point to Saudi involvement in 9/11 are part of standard U.S. policy of exposing archival documents to use as leverage against various countries – which he calls “victory by means of archives.”

“September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings… Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation – they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. [This policy] can be dubbed ‘victory by means of archives.’”

“On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined. Some of them can be enumerated as follows:

“1. The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia.

“2. Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism – [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic…

“3. The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country’s budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you.

“Lo and behold, today, we see these archives revealed before us: A New York court accuses the Iranian regime of responsibility for 9/11, and we [also] see a bill [in Congress] accusing Saudi Arabia of being behind it [sic]. This is after the previous Iraqi regime was accused of being behind it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were also blamed for it, and we do not know who [will be blamed] tomorrow! But [whoever it is], we will not be surprised at all, since this is the essence of how the American archives, that are civilized and respect freedoms and democracy, operate.

“The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy… [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war – the Cold War… Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans’] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy – and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself.

“So why not let these achievements be credited to the American administration, while insurance companies pay for the damages, whether domestic or foreign? This, my dear Arab and Muslim, is the policy of the American archives.”

Source

05/14/2017
Aidan Managhan
Journal of 9/11 Studies

Aidan Monaghan is an engineer and an open records researcher of the 9/11 attacks. He is the author of the book Declassifying 9/11: A Between the Lines and Behind the Scenes Look at the September 11 Attacks.

Here’s the abstract:

It has been the consensus of informed observers that the loss or alteration of Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) information for the four September 11 flights was caused by accused hijackers allegedly seizing control of the aircraft flight decks and manually turning off or adjusting each plane’s Mode S (Mode Select) transponder. This was presumably for the purpose of evading detection and interception by U.S. air defense systems. However, this view appears to be based only on circumstantial information – the simple loss or change of SSR flight data to Air Traffic Control (ATC) – and seems unsupported by conclusive facts. Following these transponder operation changes, ATC was still able to tag and track the primary radar returns of three flights and estimate their locations, directions, ground speeds, and even altitude changes.

Read more

Dr. Jonathan Weisbuch says failure to investigate the towers’ destruction has direct health consequences for those exposed to Ground Zero air.

Dust from Imploded WTC Towers Leads to Cancer and Other Illnesses Years Later

By Craig McKee
May 8, 2017
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

Lies can kill. And few lies have killed more than those disguised as the “truth” about what happened on September 11, 2001.

Today, more than 15 years after 9/11, exposing those lies is as relevant and necessary as ever. Not only does the false official narrative about what brought the World Trade Center towers down continue to claim victims in the global “war on terror,” but the false claims about the air quality at Ground Zero on 9/11 and in the weeks and months that followed are still killing hundreds and making thousands of others seriously ill.

The numbers of first responders, recovery workers, and residents of lower Manhattan who are affected aren’t falling; they’re rising sharply. Even those exposed to the toxic dust and air at Ground Zero who have not become sick have no way of knowing whether that day is lying in wait.

Read more

“I’m not an engineer or an architect or a physicist, but I’m pretty sure a 100-plus-story building doesn’t fall apart like that.” Rachel Colton

One of the Many Signs in the Crowd: ‘Science does not Take Sides’

By Mark Oliver
May 3, 2017
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Rachel Colton organized a coalition of 9/11 Truth volunteers to attend the recent March for Science. “Why?” you may be asking. Because she believes that scientists can — and do — help uncover the truth behind 9/11 — especially the cause of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse.

“A building will not descend at free-fall acceleration unless the structure underneath has been removed” by demolition explosives, maintains Colton, who represented Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth at the Washington, D.C., march on April 22nd — Earth Day.

While holding an AE911Truth sign and passing out flyers with fellow volunteers, Colton attracted a good deal of attention, had a number of memorable conversations, and read the signs held by other attendees of the event.

She shares her observations here:

“A common sign at the march said, ‘Science does not take sides.’ I found this interesting, because there are several controversial issues in science — vaccines, climate change, 9/11. The problem seems to be that the research is not unbiased. The individuals and groups behind the research have an agenda that’s driven by power or money or something else.”

“Another sign said, ‘Science is not a liberal conspiracy.’ As a 9/11 activist, I cringe at the word ‘conspiracy.’ It’s used to discount alternative theories without considering the evidence behind them. I have taken that word out of my vocabulary.”

“A man stopped to talk to us and said that we were ‘on to something,’ but mostly he wanted to talk about who planned the attacks of 9/11. He said that we [AE911Truth] would have to be the ones to do an investigation. Then he mentioned [New York City Mayor Rudy] Giuliani having foreknowledge and Building 7 being evacuated.”

“A man who claimed to be a structural engineer said he was unhappy with us. ‘They already studied the collapses,’ he said, referring to NIST. He continued, ‘It was the planes [striking the Twin Towers] and the ensuing fires [that caused the collapses].’ I asked him about Building 7, pointing out that NIST won’t release its data and that the building was in free fall for 2.5 seconds of its 7-second collapse. When I pressed him to explain this, he dodged the question. I told him if he was interested in learning more about Building 7, he could go to our website.”

Read more

UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA
Pilots for 911 Truth

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) – Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this “texting” system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it’s location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of “Woody Box”, who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

These are the ‘text’ (ACARS) messages in question –

The format for these messages is pretty straight forward. To limit the technical details, we will explain the most important parts of the messages, however, for full Message Block Format Code standards, click here. The remote ground station (MDT in the message below) used to route the message to the aircraft, the time and date in which the message is sent (111259, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1259Z or 0859 Eastern), the flight number (UA175), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N612UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM
.SFOLMUA 111259/JER
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
– QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
I HEARD OF A REPORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALL
IS NORMAL….THX 777SAM
SFOLM JERRY TSEN

;09111259 108575 0543

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA 111303/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
– QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
– MESSAGE FROM CHIDD –
HOW IS THE RIDE. ANY THING DISPATCH CAN DO FOR YOU…
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111303 108575 0545

This message was also sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIYR CH158R
.CHIYRUA 111303/AD
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
– QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
– MESSAGE FROM CHIDD –
NY APROACH LOOKIN FOR YA ON 127.4
CHIDD AD ROGERS

;09111303 108575 0546

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1323Z (9:23AM Eastern, 20 minutes after the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the PIT remote ground station (Pittsburgh International Airport).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
– QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
– MESSAGE FROM CHIDD –
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS…
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574

Read more

April 24, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

The events on September 11, 2001, changed the world. It was the excuse for the US government to launch military attacks on seven Middle Eastern countries, causing civilian casualties in the millions and sending waves of Muslim refugees into the Western world. The US government wasted trillions of dollars destroying countries and murdering women and children, while public infrastructure in the US deteriorated, Americans’ homes were foreclosed, and American health needs went unattended. 9/11 was also the excuse for the destruction of the protection that the US Constitution provided to ensure the liberty of the American citizen. Today no American has the protection of the civil liberty that the Constitution guarantees.

On September 11, 2001, when a neighbor called and told me to turn on the TV, I stopped what I was doing and turned on the TV. What I saw was the two World Trade Center Towers blowing up. I had often enjoyed lunch in the rooftop restaurant in one of the towers across the street from my Wall Street Journal office.

A miniscule by comparison frail aluminum airliner hit one massive steel tower and then another aluminum airliner hit the other. There were some plumes of orange outside the buildings. Then approximately after one hour, less in one case, more in the other, the two towers exploded floor by floor as they fell into their own footprint.

This was precisely the way the news anchors described what I was seeing. “It looks exactly like a controlled demolition,” the news anchors reported. And indeed it did. As a Georgia Tech student I had witnessed a controlled demolition, and that is what I saw on television, just as that was what the news anchors saw.

Later that day Larry Silverstein who owned, or held the lease on, the World Trade Center, explained on TV that the free fall collapse in the late afternoon of the third WTC skyscraper, Building 7, into its own footprint was a conscious decision to “pull” the building. Pull is the term used by controlled demolition to describe a building wired with explosives to be destroyed. Building 7 had not been hit by an airliner, and suffered only minor and very limited office fires. Silverstein’s statement was afterwards corrected by authorities to mean that the firemen were pulled from the building. However, many videos show the firemen already out of the building with the fireman stating that the building was going to be brought down.

As there is no doubt whatsoever that Building 7 was wired for demolition, the question is why?

Because Americans are an insouciant and trusting people and confident of the inherent goodness of their country, years passed before even experts noticed that the official story stood in total contraction to known laws of physics, was in total contraction to how buildings collapse from asymmetrical damage, and could not have collapsed due to being hit by airliners as the buildings met all code requirements for withstanding airliner collusions. Many did not even know that the third skyscraper, Building 7, had collapsed.

Professor Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at BYU, was among the first to see that the official story was pure fantasy. His reward for speaking out was to have his tenure contract bought out by BYU, many believe under orders from the federal government backed up with the threat that all federal support of science at BYU would be terminated unless Stephen Jones was.

Cynthia McKinney, a black woman who represented a Georgia congressional district in the US House of Representatives was either much brighter or much braver than her white colleagues. She raised obvious questions about 9/11, questions begging to be asked, and lost her seat.

Approximately five years after 9/11, San Francisco architect Richard Gage noticed that the three WTC buildings did not fall down in any way consistent with the official explanation. He formed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, currently about 3,000 members. This group includes high rise architects and structural engineers who actually are experienced in the construction of skyscrapers. In other words, they are people who know what they are talking about.

These 3,000 experts have said that the official explanation of the collapse of three skyscrapers stands in contradiction to known laws of physics, architecture, and structural engineering

In other words, the official explanation is totally impossible. Only an uneducated and ignorant public can believe the official 9/11 story. The US population fits this description.

A&E for 9/11 Truth is gradually gaining assent from architects and engineers. It is very difficult for an architect or engineer to support the truth, because the American population, which includes patriotic construction companies, whose employees fly American flags on their trucks, don’t want to hire architects and engineers who are “enemies of America aligned with Arab terrorists.” In America, if you tell the truth, you are in great danger of losing your customers and even your life.

Think now about physicists. How many physics faculties do you know that are not dependent on federal grants, usually for military-related work? The same for chemistry. Any physics professor who challenged the official story of 9/11 with the obvious fact that the story contravenes known laws of physics would endanger not only his own career but the careers of his entire department.

Truth in America is extremely costly to express. It comes at a high cost that hardly any can afford.

Our masters know this, and thus they can dispense with truth at will. Moreover, any expert courageous enough to speak the truth is easily branded a “conspiracy theorist.”

Who comes to his defense? Not his colleagues. They want rid of him as quickly as possible. Truth is a threat to their careers. They can’t afford to be associated with truth. In America, truth is a career-killing word.

In America, truth is becoming a synonym for “Russian agent.” Only Russian Agents tell the truth, which must mean that truth is an enemy of America. Lists are being prepared of websites that speak truth to power and thus are seditious. In the United States today people can lie at will without consequence, but it is deadly to tell the truth.

Support A&E for 9/11 Truth. These are heroic people. 9/11 was the manufactured excuse for the neoconservatives’ 16 years of war crimes against millions of Muslims peoples, remnants of which now seek refuge in Europe.

Neoconservatives are a tiny number of people. No more than a dozen are of any consequence. Yet they have used America to murder millions. And now they are fomenting war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. The world would never survive such a war.

Are Americans so insouciant that they will stand aside while a dozen neoconservative Zionists destroy the world?

The 2017 WTC 7 Resolution

AIA-Resolution-Upcoming

For the third year in a row, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has rallied members of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to submit a resolution that calls upon the AIA to officially support a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001.

The resolution, which can be found on page 34 of the Delegate Information Booklet, will be debated and voted on by hundreds of delegates at the AIA’s annual business meeting — before the start of the Orlando convention — on Wednesday, April 26.
Why Support a New WTC 7 Investigation?

As the largest association of architects in the world — with some 90,000 members — the AIA is a respected voice on matters concerning the built environment and on larger issues such as social equity and human rights. The AIA routinely weighs in on the challenges facing our society, and the message it sends matters a great deal to our political leaders and to millions of Americans.

When it comes to understanding what happened on September 11, 2001 — a day that reshaped our world — architects are uniquely qualified to contribute to the ongoing debate.

At 5:20 PM, the 47-story WTC 7 fell completely and symmetrically into its own footprint in the manner of a textbook controlled demolition. Seven years later, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that the collapse was due to normal office fires (which had never before brought down a steel-frame high-rise). But today thousands of architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation.

For more on why the AIA should support a new investigation, we invite you to read lead sponsor Daniel Barnum’s letter to the AIA membership.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud