HERE'S MORE on the science of 9/11 from the learned and articulate Danish chemistry professor, Dr. Niels Harrit. "You do not go out and look for 9/11," he says. "9/11 finds you. And accidentally 9/11 found me as a scientist. So I had to do what I had to do and that was bring my competence and my understanding to a wider audience."

  NOTICE: ... The men in black suits hovering in the background ... The scripted description (seconds 39-43) of how the towers fell by witness and FOX employee Mark Walsh ... Walsh's use of the term "ground zero" (second 53) just hours after the towers fell --  when no one had yet used that term. Learn more at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Christopher Bollyn's site.

“STRIVING for and supporting 9/11 truth and justice is nothing less than the moral imperative of our time. Some might ask, why? Some will say we have lived quite alright since 9/11. Why is it our moral imperative to support 9/11 truth and justice?

There are two basic reasons why it is. Firstly, because 9/11 is a global deception that was used to impose upon us a false narrative to transform our nation and society and take us into an open-ended and criminal war of aggression known as the War on Terror. After 15 years of waging this criminal war agenda we have killed over 1 million innocent people and destroyed the lives of millions more. By accepting the false narrative of 9/11 foisted on us by the terrorist masterminds themselves we have accepted a false reality, imposed on us through deception.

Secondly, by not investigating and prosecuting the real criminals behind 9/11 we have let them get away with the atrocity of mass murder of 3,000 people on 9/11. By accepting their false narrative we have empowered and enriched the very terrorist masterminds behind this outrageous crime. As Socrates said, criminals who go unpunished become only worse. So, by failing to prosecute the real criminals behind 9/11 we subject ourselves, our children, and our nations to their agenda of war and terrorism — which can only get worse and more violent.

This is why it is our moral imperative to support 9/11 truth and justice. Nothing could be more important to our survival and the welfare of our nation(s). We have a very real moral obligation to be active in our support of 9/11 truth and justice.”

— Christopher Bollyn, author and investigative journalist (more…)

  TEN YEARS ago, Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson said the official version of 9/11 is a lie. Why aren't more Catholic priests speaking up? Wherever objective truth is under attack, "man is trying to take the place of God." This is an excellent sermon. Bishop Williamson links the denial of the physical realities of the World Trade Center attacks to the general denial of truth by modernists in the Church and in the world at large.

SEE statements at Patriots Question 9/11 by military officers who have publicly spoken out against the official version of 9/11, including Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, who said in 2007: "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government.  It is now time to take our country back. The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned.  There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break.  It is also impossible to report the building’s collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned.  Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confessionin which he states "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse." [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government…

IF ignorance was not considered a virtue and thinking was not obsolete, this would be a highly revealing post to many Americans.

    JOHN LEAR is a veteran pilot and the son of Bill Lear, inventor of the Lear jet. He is one of numerous pilots who have come forward and said the official version of 9/11 cannot be true. In his lengthy affidavit from 2008, he maintained that passenger planes did not hit the Twin Towers. Other pilots analyzed the reported events in the above video.

  RETIRED MAJOR GEN. Albert Stubblebine, who died earlier this year, describes his gradual disillusionment with the official story of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 in this powerful video. He is one of many retired and active military members to challenge the story and the highest ranking military member to say publicly that the official story is not true.  Despite all his military experience, it was his wife who initially got him to see that something was not right. Stubblebine was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984. He graduated from the United States Military Academy and received a master's degree in chemical engineering from Columbia University. He received the Bronze Star, a Distinguished Service Medal, two Legion of Merit medals and two Air medals. Beware of Internet disinformation suggesting Stubblebine is a kook. He didn't put all the pieces together but his knowledge was unfolding. The last few minutes of the video are moving as Stubblebine speaks of his intense patriotism. [Note: I am not familiar with other statements Stubblebine may have made about 9/11. This is not an endorsement of all he may have said. Nor is it an endorsement of the simplistic idea that "the government did it."]

STEVE E. writes from Virginia:

I am a long-time appreciative reader of your blog. I am wondering if you can recommend one or more serious web sites that are dedicated to pursuing truth about 9-11.
(more…)

JAMES PERLOFF shares his latest theories of what happened on 9/11. He writes: This post is not intended to be taken dogmatically; I do not insist that its conclusions are correct; they are just presented for consideration. In this post, though they have already been much discussed and debated within alternative media, I’ll address three major components of the 9/11 controversy: (1) what brought down the Twin Towers; (2) what initially struck the Towers; and (3) what happened to the original planes and passengers. Read more here.

  CHRISTOPHER Bollyn writes at his website: The "mainstream media" – a complete misnomer if ever there was one – would have us believe that 9/11 truth is the domain of radical and wacky "conspiracy theorists". These labels, however, are simply more misnomers used by the controlled media to try and marginalize the growing number of people who understand that we have been lied to about what really happened on 9/11. The 9/11 truth movement is anything but radical. The real radicals are, in fact, the controlled politicians and media who have pushed the lies about 9/11 and the War on Terror for the past fifteen years and counting. Radical is defined as "in favor of thorough and complete political or social change." Conservative, on the other hand, is defined as "opposed to great or sudden social change."  As the recent article by Thanassis Cambanis in the Boston Globe points out, "America's transformation" with truly radical social changes came in the aftermath of 9/11 as a result of the government accepting and acting on an utterly unproven narrative about what happened on 9/11. The radicals are the ones who took the U.S. military into Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Global War on Terror without ever presenting any proof to justify going to war.  The fifteen-year-old War on Terror campaign has robbed the U.S. of trillions of dollars, killed and wounded millions of people, and radically changed the way of life in America. [cont.]

  THOUGH Donald Trump now fully supports the official version of 9/11, he was probably the first major figure to question it publicly. On that very day, he said the buildings could not have been brought down by plane collisions alone. Trump employed the engineers who built the Towers and was a real estate developer whose business was skyscrapers. He was highly familiar with the structure of the Twin Towers and insisted the closely-aligned steel beams could have withstood planes. Yet many, including civil engineers and architects, who have said the exact same thing during the past 15 years have been mocked and derided as "conspiracy theorists" and have been ignored by the mainstream media. This is still timely. The foundation of the ongoing War on Terror, as Trump himself recently said, is 9/11.

PETER MICHAEL KETCHAM, an employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for 14 years, has publicly criticized the government agency for ignoring the scientific errors found in its report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) after the September 11, 2001 attacks. He spoke on the issue earlier this month. Ketcham studied the collapse of the building after his departure from the agency. "I quickly became furious," he says. "First I was furious with myself. How could I have worked at NIST all those years and not have noticed this before? Second, I was furious at NIST. The NIST I knew was intellectually open ...  and enthusiastic about exposing the details of its research. The more I investigated, the more I concluded that NIST had reached a pre-determined conclusion." He calls NIST one of the "crown jewels" of the federal government, making its lapses hard to understand.

SHORTLY after 9/11, Donald Trump, who was knowledgeable about high rise construction and specifically the design of the Twin Towers, said it was unlikely the buildings were brought down by planes: It just seemed to me that to do that kind of destruction is even more than a big plane, because you’re talking about taking out steel, the heaviest caliber steel that was used on the building. Well, these buildings were rock-solid, and you know it’s just an amazing, amazing thing. Linh Dinh at The Unz Review looks at his about-face since then.

  ALFRED SCHAEFER, in 2013,  had a conversation about the 9/11 attacks with the famous linguistics professor and public intellectual, Noam Chomsky, a person whom Schaefer had greatly admired. Schaefer made this video after their exchange, which caused his complete disillusionment with the cunning, dismissive and evasive Chomsky, who defends the lies of 9/11 despite his years of critiquing mass manipulation by the media. Chomsky is finished. Barring his complete turnabout, he has destroyed his credibility forever. This is an excellent presentation. As Schaefer makes clear, people who are cognitively and emotionally capable of examining the evidence against the official version of 9/11 with an open mind, and yet refuse to do so, are complicit in the cover-up of these crimes. Posterity will judge them harshly. Even though they may have social acceptance now, future generations will know the truth and will condemn them. They will be the outcasts in the minds of posterity that 9/11 truthers are today. For those who cannot handle an extended reflection on this topic, here is a five-minute exposé:    

MARK VOROBEJ, an associate professor at McMaster University in Canada, taught third- and fourth-year undergraduate philosophy students a course in argumentation theory, in which they evaluated arguments put forth by the author David Lee Griffin against the official account of 9/11. Most of the students were initially unaware of any controversy. Vorobej showed them the movie "9/11 Mysteries" first (if you haven't seen this movie, I highly recommend it) and they then read Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor. The students, whom had all completed at least one course in logic, had many thoughtful responses. By the end, all rejected the official story. See Vorobej's essay, "Obstacles to Persuasion: Lessons from the Classroom" here.

  JUST another crazy, insane conspiracy theorist. (Note: This is not an endorsement of InfoWars or Times Square.)