By Associated Press - Wednesday, December 4

NEW YORK — Negligence was not the cause of the collapse of a third World Trade Center tower several hours after the twin towers were destroyed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a federal appeals court said Wednesday, absolving a developer and others of responsibility in the destruction of the 47-story building.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said it was “simply incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that defendants were required to design and construct a building that would survive the events of September 11, 2001.”

The 2-to-1 decision upheld the rulings regarding World Trade Center 7 by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who had written that the claims by the Consolidated Edison Co. of New York and its insurance companies were “too farfetched and tenuous” to survive. Con Ed and the insurance companies had claimed that a company owned by developer Larry Silverstein and other defendants could be held liable. Hellerstein had dismissed various defendants in a series of rulings.

The building fell at 5:21 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, nearly seven hours after the other buildings collapsed. A Con Edison power station beneath Tower 7 was crushed when the building fell.

Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote in the majority decision that Con Ed’s interpretation of liability would mean that those who designed and constructed the building would presumably be liable if it “collapsed as a result of a fire triggered by a nuclear attack on lower Manhattan.”

The judge wrote that while concepts that would allow an entity to pursue a liability claim “must, by their nature, be fluid, at the end of the day they must engage with reality.”

In a dissent, Judge Richard Wesley said a trial should have been conducted to at least establish from expert testimony why Tower 7 collapsed.

Why We All Should Be Whistleblowers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn5JRgz3W0o

A town with a mortality rate 80 times higher than elsewhere—and the willful blindness of the locals, except for one person.
The truth about whistle-blowers—and why they do what they do. Turns out they’re not crazy; the rest of us are.
A video talk on taking our freedom and doing something with it.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/11/30/why-we-all-should-be-whistleblowers-2/
http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_the_dangers_of_willful_blindness.html?embed=true

In response to a question at the University of Florida recently, Noam Chomsky claimed that there were only “a miniscule number of architects and engineers” who felt that the official account of WTC Building 7 should be treated with skepticism.  Chomsky followed-up by saying, “a tiny number—a couple of them—are perfectly serious.”

If signing your name and credentials to a public petition on the subject means being serious, then Noam Chomsky’s tiny number begins at 2,100, not counting scientists and other professionals. Why would Chomsky make such an obvious exaggeration when he has been presented with contradictory facts many times?

I’ve personally had over thirty email exchanges with Chomsky. In those exchanges, he has agreed that it is “conceivable” that explosives might have been used at the WTC. But, he wrote, if that were the case it would have had to be Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden who had made it so.

Of course, it doesn’t matter how many professionals or intellectuals are willing to admit it. The facts remain that the U.S. government’s account for the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 is purely false.  There is no science behind the government’s explanation for WTC7 or for the Twin Towers and everyone, including the government, admits that WTC Building 7 experienced free fall on 9/11. There is no explanation for that other than the use of explosives.

Incendiary explosions in the lobby and in the basement levels accompanied the destruction of the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC). The evidence for these incendiary explosions is significant and includes numerous eyewitness testimonies and photographic evidence. The official, government investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did not address these phenomena in any meaningful way and offered only a weak suggestion that is demonstrably false.

NIST admitted to the presence of an incendiary explosion at the concourse level and to the deaths and injuries caused by it, stating, a “fireball killed or injured several occupants in the Concourse Level lobby (NIST NCSTAR 1-7, p 73).” However, a scientific explanation was never provided. Instead, an untested hypothesis was given as fact.

“There are numerous media reports of building occupants being burned in the ground-floor lobby of WTC 1 following the aircraft impact. Numerous eyewitness accounts describe a large flash fire on the concourse floor lobby at the time of aircraft impact, that came from one or more of the elevator shafts that ran from the concourse floor of the tower past the floors where the aircraft impact took place. This observation suggests that sufficient burning liquid aviation fuel entered at least one of these elevator shafts to continue burning, while it fell roughly 1,175 feet. Even after falling this distance, sufficient unburned fuel was available to create the overpressure that opened the elevator shaft at the concourse level and forced additional unburned fuel into the lobby area, creating the extensive flash fire observed.” NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, p 80

It would have been easy to test this “jet fuel bolus” hypothesis but, as with the other features of the official account, no testing was done. That’s probably because the scientists at NIST knew that this hypothesis was very improbable to begin with.

Dear New York Times,

The ReThink911 campaign has erected a billboard across the street from your headquarters to call your attention to the evidence, cited by over 2,000 architects and engineers, that proves World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11. We urge you to look at the evidence—starting with the video footage of the collapse—and publish an editorial stating your position on the challenges being made to the government’s explanation of Building 7’s destruction. The question of what happened to Building 7 is simply too important for the New York Times not to examine in a careful and balanced way.

To that end, we urge that your editorial include, but not be limited to, the following information and facts:

• A link to this 30-second video showing the destruction of Building 7 from four different angles: http://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU. We ask you to provide your readers with the necessary context by embedding this video in the online version of your editorial, or providing the above link. According to the YouGov poll commissioned and released by the ReThink911 campaign in September 2013, 46% of Americans still do not know that a third tower fell on 9/11, and yet 46% of those who see this video footage suspect it was a controlled demolition, compared to only 28% who suspect it was caused by ordinary office fires.
• Building 7 underwent absolute free-fall during the first 2.25 seconds of its descent, as admitted, finally, by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in its final report on Building 7. However, NIST’s computer simulation of Building 7’s destruction does not include a period of free-fall. Architects, engineers and scientists who challenge the NIST report state that free-fall could have only been achieved by removing all of the building’s columns simultaneously with explosives.
• NIST acknowledged that Building 7’s collapse was the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The New York Times reported in November 2001 that engineers and other experts were stunned by the collapse. FEMA’s report, published in May of 2002, stated that the cause of Building 7’s collapse still remained unknown, and that “the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurrence.” And yet, the NYC Office of Emergency Management and others on the scene knew with certainty early in the day that Building 7 would eventually come down.

Thank you for your re-consideration of this most important issue.

Sincerely,

The ReThink911 Campaign
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

November Campaign: New York Times Billboard

New ReThink911 Billboard coming November 1, 2013, across the street from the New York Times.

Together we raised $24,000 in just three days to make our “New York Times Billboard” a reality — thank you! Stay tuned for further information about how you can get involved this November.

The Details

This 29-foot by 13-foot billboard directly across from the New York Times and Port Authority at 40th Street and 8th Avenue will be ours for the full month of November. During that time the billboard will be seen by 100,000 pedestrians each day.

Join Us on November 2

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton offered a rousing endorsement of “longtime family friend” Terry McAuliffe in his second run for Governor of Virginia. McAuliffe certainly has been a good friend to the Clintons, having once made them a $1.35 million gift which, after becoming a scandal, turned into a loan. But the most interesting parts of McAuliffe’s history often go unnoticed, including his links to the security upgrades at the World Trade Center (WTC) in the late 1990s.

One of the primary companies involved in the security upgrades for the WTC was Ensec International, founded by Charles Finkel. Ensec’s Florida subsidiary had an office on the 33rd floor of the North Tower. At the same time, Finkel was an export sales executive for a company called Engesa, a manufacturer of tanks and other military vehicles for Operation Desert Storm. Engesa was a Saudi-approved supplier.

Ensec’s responsibility at the WTC involved setting up a new system for securing the basement levels, particularly in the parking garages. It was reported that the access control system used was manufactured and installed by Ensec. The system included proprietary software, proximity card readers and vehicle identification tags for all registered vehicles. The system also included cameras, located “in critical locations within the complex, such as machine rooms, computer areas, visitor areas and other sensitive locations.”

Lockheed Martin subcontracted the PANYNJ work to Ensec in November of 1996.This was the same time that Carlyle Group employee and Iran-Contra suspect Barry McDaniel was hired to run operations for the highly suspicious WTC security contractor Stratesec. And just as Ensec obtained the contract to work alongside McDaniel and Stratesec, it added Terry McAullife as a director.

Earlier this month, National Security Agency (NSA) head Keith Alexander admitted that he had lied to the U.S. Congress and the American people in an attempt to justify the NSA’s growing surveillance of U.S. citizens.[1] In June, while attempting to defend the secret NSA programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, Alexander claimed that over 50 terrorist plots had been thwarted though collection of the phone and internet records of American citizens. Alexander said that his agency had provided Congress with 54 specific cases in which the programs helped disrupt terror plots in the U.S. and around the world.[2]

Just a few weeks before the “54 plots” claim, Alexander had testified to the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee that NSA spying on American citizens had played a critical role in thwarting “dozens” of terrorist attacks.[3] Alexander spent the next three months declaring that the NSA’s spying on Americans was preventing terrorism and another 9/11.

None of that was true as we found out a few weeks ago. Of the 54 alleged plots, only one or two were identified as a result of bulk phone record collection, according to Alexander’s most recent comments. That number has since been whittled down to just one incident that wasn’t a terrorist plot at all but was a case of a cab driver sending cash to an alleged terrorist organization.[4] Bottom line ― the NSA spying on Americans has not stopped any terrorist plots, let alone dozens or 54.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/group-behind-9-11-bus-ad-responds-to-criticism-1.1703868

This ad for ReThink911.org appears on an OC Transpo bus. (Photo submitted by Andres Acero )

The group behind an ad campaign questioning the official explanation of 9/11, which is running on OC Transpo buses, says its message should be protected as free speech.

The group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have launched a global ad campaign called "ReThink911," which is running in other cities including New York and Toronto.

The campaign takes aim at the U.S. government's explanation that World Trade Centre 7 — the "third tower" — fell as the result of fire.

The theory is part of the group's larger beliefs that the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001, was not the result of a terrorist attack but part of a vast conspiracy and cover-up within the U.S. government.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/09/11/group-of-engineers-believe-controlled-detonations-took-down-world-trade-center/

By Paul Kurtz
September 11, 2013

BLACKWOOD, N.J. (CBS) - There’s been a growing movement led by some architects and engineers to take a second look at the collapse of the New York City skyscrapers in the attacks on September 11th 2001.

“Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth” focuses primarily on Building 7 of the World Trade Center. Not many people know that a third building fell on 9-11. Tony Szambotti is a mechanical engineer from Blackwood, New Jersey. He says the 47 story skyscraper was not hit by a plane…yet collapsed into its own footprint at 5:20 in the afternoon.

“It’s in absolute freefall. There’s no resistance to it for the first 2.25 seconds and then it slows down a little bit,” Szambotti said. “The actual measurements are somewhere around 6.6 to 7 seconds for that 610 foot building to collapse completely to the ground.”

Szambotti and some 2,000 other of his colleagues contend that it was not scientifically possible for an office fire to be hot enough to melt steel girders and columns. Which brings these highly educated, white-collar professionals to a disturbing conclusion.

http://youtu.be/EwyAFTAguNk

Abby Martin speaks with Bob Mcilvaine, father of a 9/11 victim about the unanswered questioned that linger twelve years after the event, highlighting the glaring omissions in the 9/11 Commission report.