Arguably the best 15-minute introduction to 9/11 Truth on the web. Ed Asner and AE911Truth founder Richard Gage host a quick overview of some of the best evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11. Family members of some of the 9/11 victims voice their support for a new 9/11 investigation. Some interesting television news clips complete the package.
A visually impressive video focusing on the collapse of WTC-1, the North Tower. High school physics teacher David Chandler adds commentary to a continuously looping video of the collapse, pointing out facts that are not consistent with the U.S. government’s explanation for the collapse. By the time the video is over, the viewer will likely recognize explosive aspects of the building’s destruction that were previously not known to them.
Coverage of WTC-7, Building 7, free fall, arguably the most compelling evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11. In this part 3 of a 3-part video, narrator David Chandler focuses on the ramifications of the admission of Building 7 free fall by NIST, the U.S. National Institute of Standards & Technology.
Coverage of thermite, an incendiary whose fingerprint has been found throughout the WTC crime scene. Engineer Jonathan Cole responds to 9/11 Truth debunkers who claim thermite was incapable of destroying the WTC buildings on 9/11. Through trial and error experiments using store-bought materials, Cole disproves these claims by building an effective thermate device that produces demolition-quality cuts of representative steel beams (thermate is thermite plus sulfur).
If you instead prefer to get your 9/11 Truth from a single mouse click, watch the following single hour-long video.
If you’ve got about an hour and want what many consider the 9/11 Truth Movement’s “top gun” evidence (rather than a smorgasbord of information), Building 7 free fall is a great place to start. The following links cover the free-fall evidence, as well as the U.S. government’s response to this evidence.
All of the parts of David Chandler’s 3-part video brought together into a single package. Part 1 begins with the initial cover up and denial of Building 7 free fall by NIST, the U.S. government investigating agency. This is followed by the eventual NIST acceptance of free fall in their final report. Part 2 exposes the questionable manner in which NIST measured the building collapse time. Part 3, repeating from above, covers the ramifications of NIST’s admission of 2.25 seconds of free fall.
A summary of NIST’s account of the collapse of Building 7 taken from their final report. NIST claims that their “Probable Collapse Sequence” was produced by a computer model of the building, its structural damage, and fires. Of particular note is the “Initiating Event,” where a group of thermally expanding beams are claimed to push a girder off its seat on column 79 of the building.
Attorney William Pepper’s letter to the U.S. Commerce Department demanding correction of errors identified in the NIST final report. The supporting technical segment details NIST’s inadequate response to some of the errors pointed out by independent engineers who reviewed the report. This includes NIST’s unjustified adjustment of the beam thermal expansion, from 5.5 inches to 6.25 inches, in response to a corrected column seat width from 11 to 12 inches. It also covers NIST’s admission that its model omits “flange stiffener plates” identified in the building’s structural drawings by independent engineers. NIST’s claim that these unmodeled structural elements would not resist NIST’s failure mode is shown to be contradicted by structural analysis.
Video coverage of the topic of NIST’s failure to model the flange stiffener plates. The video does a good job of helping the viewer to visualize NIST’s claimed failure mode and the role that the stiffener plates would play in resisting this failure.
The Probable Collapse Sequence and its Initiating Event are behaviors that NIST “claims” occurred in the real Building 7 on 9/11, based on their computer modeling of the building collapse. The behaviors will remain “claimed behaviors” as long as they cannot be properly certified by independent building professionals. NIST refuses to release their modeling data so that it can be independently evaluated for accuracy; therefore, we have no way of knowing whether the NIST model is accurate. NIST has also failed to report any experimental validation of the key, first-of-a-kind behavior said to be produced by their model. This is not the way that engineering teams in the real world treat unexpected and unprecedented behavior produced by computer models. Fundamental mistakes at the very heart of the Initiating Event have been identified by independent engineers — correcting these mistakes would invalidate the NIST collapse scenario. Since this area of the model should have been one of the most thoroughly reviewed by NIST engineers, there is no reason to trust any conclusions of NIST that are not independently checked by outside experts.
This peer-reviewed IEEE paper documents the ethical failures committed by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) in their investigation of the Twin Towers destruction. The paper demonstrates that NIST failed to follow the scientific method and committed “research misconduct” in drawing its conclusions. Specific areas of concern are: a. Failure to Study the Destructions and their Aftermaths. b. Failure to follow NFPA Guidelines. c. Failure to Consider Consequences to Public Health. d. Failure to Show Collapse Visualizations. e. Misrepresentations by NIST. f. Failure to Provide the Most Essential Theory. g. Failure to Seek Independent Review.
This paper is accurately summarized by its introduction: “Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself — including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross — should be investigated.”
The latest documentary from AE911Truth (2012). The video features testimony from technical professionals explaining why the official 9/11 story cannot be true and a new investigation is needed. The presented evidence covers the WTC Twin Towers, Building 7, and the ground zero dust and debris piles. Problems with the official investigations of the WTC building collapses are covered. Testimony from professionals in psychology explain some peoples’ resistance to exploring the 9/11 evidence. Family members of 9/11 victims explain why they want a new investigation.
A fresh take on 9/11 truth from filmmaker David Hooper. The video documents Hooper’s personal journey into awareness seeded by a single seemingly-innocuous question about that day. The selection of material and its order of presentation are excellent. The film introduces some of the highly-credible people who question the official 9/11 story, followed by victim family members who share the same concerns. The history of skyscraper fires is covered as a prelude to an examination of Building 7. The film covers much of the evidence behind all three skyscraper collapses familiar from AE911Truth videos, with an especially good treatment of the explosions observed on 9/11. Through it all, Hooper presents his reactions to these discovered truths in an empathetic way that serves as a blueprint for future newcomers to the 9/11 evidence.
A tour de force from Massimo Mazzucco. This documentary begins by making the comparison between the attacks of 9/11 and those on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The video covers a large range of evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11, including the air defense failures on 9/11, the identity of the hijackers and the airplanes, the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes, and the Twin Tower and Building 7 collapses. The sections on the Twin Towers and Building 7 use material from AE911Truth, and are endorsed by AE911Truth.
Coverage of 9/11 from the point of view of family members of the 9/11 victims. It follows Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg, the “Jersey Girls,” as they fight the U.S. government over their initial refusal to investigate 9/11. It concludes with their disappointment over the failure of the 9/11 Commission to answer the vast majority of their researched questions. The video also contains commentary from Paul Thompson and his Complete 9/11 Timeline.
Original 2008 documentary from AE911Truth. AE911Truth founder Richard Gage presents evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11. The coverage is slightly broader in some areas than the later Experts Speak Out documentary, but predates recent developments in Building 7 free fall and nano-thermite in the dust.
The above documentaries are available for free by contacting us.
This meetup group is non-partisan. We hope members of all political persuasions will join. The below press release is just an example of what can happen when a large body of individuals become informed.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE :
Colorado State Democratic PartyCalls for Grand Jury Investigation of 9/11
The 2010 Colorado Democratic Party Platform, approved by the 146 member platform committee states: “Whereas many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future.” This controversial plank was added to the State Democratic Party Platform after evidence supporting the critical need for a new investigation was presented at several caucuses in 2004, 2008, and 2010.
The citizens who presented arguments for a new investigation at their precinct caucuses are signatories to the Architect and Engineers for 9/11 Truth organization (ae911Truth.org) which calls for a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.
The quality of evidence contradicting the official 9/11 story is substantiated in part by the 2010 Platform Committee Chairman Hal Bidlack’s statement: “ ….this platform represents the consensus of the 2010 Platform Committee, guided by the results of county assemblies across our state. The folks who worked tirelessly on the Committee can rightly be proud of their efforts, and deserve our special thanks.” (Bidlack’s statement can be found on page one of the 2010 platform)