911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news, posts in the blogs section are the responsibility of the poster, readers are encouraged to check the facts and form their own conclusions.
Chuck Baldwin ran for US President in 2008 as a third-party candidate endorsed by Ron Paul, opposing both Barack Obama and John McCain. Yesterday, he wrote regarding 9/11 as follows:
"As the date of this column is so close to the infamous date of 9/11, I was going to write about the spiral into a police state that the would-be tyrants in Washington, D.C., are plunging us into. Of course, 9/11 is the excuse for every big-government abridgment of liberty that has taken place over the last 12 years. 9/11 was the justification for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan; it was the justification for passing the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA. 9/11 justifies the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, and USNORTHCOM. 9/11 is the excuse given for launching deadly drone attacks against all kinds of people in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, etc. And now, 9/11 is the excuse for a brand new military action against Syria.
Two weeks ago, I spoke on a radio show regarding 9/11 – providing evidence that strongly challenges the official 9/11 narrative. Perhaps a quick outline of topics discussed/prepared for will be helpful – note that I spoke about much more than the WTC demolitions. I think this is important. (Summary of main points; not necessarily in the order followed on the radio show.)
0. Define the official narrative: A – There is no cover-up of 9/11 facts by gov't”; B-”the evil of that day was ONLY by Al Qaeda; there were no explosives in WTC towers or WTC7.” The radio interviewer and his studio guest Martin Tanner declared their support of the official story at the beginning.
1. Gov't cover-up/lies about the WTC dust danger: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- At the White House's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency gave New Yorkers misleading assurances that there was no health risk from the debris-laden air after the World Trade Center collapse, according to an internal inquiry.
As I have watched the Boston Marathon tragedy unfold, my heart goes out to the victims and their families. I had similar feelings on 9/11/2001 and continue to pray for comfort for victims and due-process punishment of perpetrators in both tragedies.
Yes, there are similarities -- but there are also significant differences, particularly as we see how the investigation of the Boston crime scene unfolds. Boston: investigators seek to preserve every scrap of metal from the explosive device, each nail and steel ball bearing. They look for clues in how it was constructed, where materials were obtained, what were the goals, who ALL was involved. Very little jumping to conclusions as to WHO all was involved and WHY. Investigators and the public are determined to leave no stone unturned as criminal investigators welcome public input and seek to capture and bring to justice ALL perpetrators.
A 6 Feb 2013 report in the Santa Barbara Review discusses the slaying of a 9/11 author Philip Marshal and his two children Alex and Macaila in their home in the "gated community of Forest Meadows", California, east of Sacramento. I have been through this area several times as my Brother-in-Law lived in nearby Pollock Pines.
Philip was just completing his book, “The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror.”
I wonder if the 9/11 Truth Community can help this brave man's family -- do any of us know him? We can also encourage a thorough investigation and fair reporting of the man's death. He was an outspoken member of our world-wide truth-seeking community. The photo in the article shows two beautiful youth with their father Philip.
[quote] Phillip Marshall Wrote About a Conspiracy; Was He the Victim of One?
By Editor on February 6, 2013 in News
A Santa Barbara View Exclusive Report
In October of this year, I gave two talks in Missouri discussing 9/11, challenging the official narrative. Certainly I talked about the fall of the Towers and WTC7, but there is more to it than that. May I emphasize areas that are evidence-based and that I find also important in our discussions of 9/11:
1. How the government lied about factual dangers of the WTC dust, how thousands of people were in fact hurt by the WTC dust (see below);
2. The whistleblower testimony of Sec'y of Transportation Norman Mineta (50 miles out, 30 miles out, etc., reported to Dick Cheney);
3. The lack of air defenses that day, including at the Pentagon (2 and 3 are generally all I say about the Pentagon);
4. The whistleblower testimony of Sec'y of Treasury Paul O'Neill (he noted -from day one it was about getting us into Iraq; his opposing pre-emptive war, and how he was canned by Dick Cheney);
5. The whistleblower testimonies of Kevin Ryan, April Gallop, Susan Lindauer and Sibel Edmonds;
6. The attempts to discredit/marginalize whistleblowers (including myself) that also speaks of conspiracy to cover-up facts regarding 9/11;
7. Historical use of false-flag events by Germany, USA, and others to further political agendas; the Big Lie principle and why many people hesitate to question "official narratives";
8. The strange coincidence that emergency gear and hundreds of personnel were assembled in Manhattan on 9/10/01 (the day BEFORE the tragedy);
9. The destruction of evidence, that over 99.5% of the steel from the Towers and WTC7 was shipped to Asia for melting, contrary to the protests of scientists and engineers;
10. The remarkable growth and efforts of AE911Truth.org -- with over 1,700 architects and engineers and over 16,000 supporters now calling for an investigation. When questions arise about Judy Wood's book on DEW, I often refer to the FAQ at AE911Truth on this subject: http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-whats-your-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapo... .
11. Public polls show that large numbers of the public question the "official 9/11 story." We are making progress despite the opposition.
In general, I would say there are two ways to find out whether the “official story of 9/11” is true and complete, or not: 1) by looking at hard evidence and doing experiments to test hypotheses based on that evidence; and 2) analyzing historical and eye-witness testimony.
In my talks, I have emphasized method 1, using the scientific method. But I also emphasize method 2, pointing (for example) to the whistle-blower testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta regarding the lack of air defenses that day. And the important evidence regarding the purchase of put options on American and United Airlines during the week prior to 9/11/2001. There are many examples of both types of evidence that point to the conclusion that the official story of 9/11 is misleading and false.
Regarding the possibility that mini-nukes were used in the WTC Towers to bring them down, I wrote a paper in 2006 which was peer-reviewed and then published in January 2007. I sincerely wish more people would read the peer-reviewed papers I and colleagues have published, as a way of sorting out that which is based on hard evidence and that which is not. Here is the mini-nukes paper:
My tenacious colleague Dr. Grabbe has succeeded in getting a paper successfully through peer-review with editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. His paper confronts Bazant who previously published a paper supportive of the "official 9/11 narrative" in the same journal.
Sincere congratulations to Crockett for another significant peer-reviewed paper; it was accepted for publication in October 2012 in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Dr. Crockett Grabbe is a physicist who received his PhD from CalTech in 1978. He received a Bachelors of Science with Highest Honors from the University of Texas in 1972.
Dr. Grabbe has also published a notable book providing his scientific analyses of the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC7. Loaded with photographs, this is his fourth book written for the general public.
"National Swindle on the World Trade Center" challenges the official story of 9/11 with scientific data and analysis. Initial pages are available free here:
The following letter (with minor edits) has been sent to a scientist who recently contacted me regarding his intention to perform a study of the WTC dust, particularly the red/gray chips that we found in WTC dust samples. Included are some comments on a report by James R. Millette on red material which he found in WTC dust, sent to me by this scientist as a PDF file.
Dear [Interested Scientist],
Yes, I would encourage you to do a follow-up study on the World Trade Center dust, after you have carefully read our “Active Thermitic Materials...” paper. [Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.]
Among the most salient observations in that paper are these:
1. the observation of elemental-iron-rich spheres in the ash following ignition of the red/gray chips in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC),
2. the sharp peaking of the heat-traces in each case for the ignition of red/gray chips in the DSC (Figure 19).
Yesterday, I went to a town hall meeting with an aid to US Senator Mike Lee (UT) and expressed my concerns regarding NIST's report on WTC 7. The Senator's aid was open minded and well aware that some felt strongly that events of 9/11 were allowed by the US government or even “orchestrated” (his term).
It seems to me that a new investigation by Congress would be most unlikely at this stage. Instead, I requested that NIST's computer model for the WTC7 failure and fall be released to us so that independent testing can proceed (my letter below). The aid to Senator Lee assured me that he would pass this request along to the Senator and include my concerns in his report to Senator Lee.
Do you think this approach has merit? Could we successfully apply pressure to NIST to release their WTC 7 computer model, via Senators, Congresspersons, polls, etc? Is this a worthwhile goal for the 9/11 Truth Community? Could AE911Truth engineers run the model if it were released?
To: Senator Mike Lee (Utah)
Dr. Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics, Ret.
1. The key to good science is independent verification.
A friend and fellow 9/11 researcher recently wrote to me that he has cancer. I wrote to him regarding alternative treatments, with summaries of articles by Dr. Mercola, MD, an advocate of alternative health approaches. As my friend replied, "Once having seen the truth about 9/11 it becomes easier to see that other authorities may be concealing important truth. I have been suspicious of "big pharma"... for some time. "
In December 2006, Dr Mercola sympathetically addressed the 9/11 Truth issue. He wrote:
[quote]"According to a poll conducted by Scripps News Service, a full one-third of Americans think that the U.S. government either carried out the 9/11 attacks themselves, or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East.
The government's pattern of deception on such issues as weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, and illegal wiretapping has allowed alternate theories about 9/11 to flourish....
...it's a fact that one-third of Americans believe in some variation of the 9/11 Truth Movement...
Mike McAuliff collected a sample of the WTC dust on 9/11/2001, and a few weeks ago sent it to a lab for analysis.
He writes: "very fine fragments of photographs, fingernails, bones, hair, and tissue." What Mike does not ask is: What agent reduced human bone, fingernails, and tissue to very fine fragments (as he notes from lab reports)? Will pancaking floors have this effect -- if so how? It seems to me that pancaking floors would tend to trap bones, not fragment them as explosives would do. Centimeter-long human bone fragments were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building, about 200 meters (or yards) away from the WTC complex. What force splintered human bone and hurled it hundreds of yards? Are not these observations evidence for the use of explosives? I hesitate to speak in scientific terms of of such a sensitive matter, but victims' relatives (including Bob McIlvaine) have asked that I, as a Professor of Physics, speak out on these issues.
A long article regarding 9/11 and challenges to the official narrative appears today in the Brazilian “Ultimo Segundo.” I was interviewed by the author, Marsilea Gombata. A Google translation appears below.
Link to the article in Portuguese: http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/11desetembro/perguntas+sem+respostas+ainda+rondam+o+11+de+setembro/n1597197211446.html
SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 11 - TEN YEARS
“Unanswered questions still surround the September 11
Ten years later, scientists urge new investigation into the attacks that left nearly 3,000 dead in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania”
Marsilea Gombata, iG NY | 09/07/2011 08:00
Ten years later, on Sept. 11 is still shrouded in mystery, explanations that do not suit everyone and many questions unanswered. In the midst of several theories that raise the possibility the attacks were masterminded a plan by American authorities - because of coordinated actions by terrorists have been released without much technical knowledge and President George W. Bush (2001-2009) had a hurry to invade Afghanistan less than a month later -, academics and experts based on scientific evidence for a new investigation of the terrorist attacks.
During my career as a physicist, I have done research on muon-catalyzed fusion and metal-catalyzed fusion (both of which are examples of cold fusion and are published in the journal NATURE), on the dust generated on 9/11, on solar energy and non-conventional alternate energy; and on earthquakes. I have and will speak publicly on all of these research areas, except that I decline to say much at all publicly on earthquake research. Recently I was asked why this is the case.
When confronted with an interesting claim, I generally ask – What is the physical evidence and what experiments have been done? And -- Has the claim reached the level of a peer-reviewed publication? Not that such a publication is a necessity prior to discussion, but if there is a refereed publication, I would start with that.
Responses to questions regarding thermite, nanothermite and conventional explosives used in the WTC destruction.
Here I field questions that come to me fairly often, to help get the facts out and to counter misrepresentations and misunderstandings. I expect to make edits for a while and welcome comments.
1. Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?
The definition of “explosive” can lead to endless debates. Is a flash of light required? Is a loud sound required? How loud? What rate of energy generation is required for a material to be called an explosive? Where is the line between low explosives and high explosives?
Rather than getting mired into ad nauseum debates, I will use the term “explosive” in conjunction with superthermites/nanothermites IF the national defense laboratories which developed these materials use the term. Here we go.
I heard April Gallop speak a few years ago and had the opportunity to talk with her, when we both participated in a conference in Irvine, California. April was in the Pentagon with her infant son on Sept. 11, 2001, when the devastation occurred. There was no warning. We know from Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony that Dick Cheney et al. were following the progress of the jet as it came in towards the Pentagon, "50 miles out", 30 miles out, etc. Yet there was no warning to April Gallop or her co-workers in the Pentagon, and the jet was not intercepted. (See articles in the Journalof911Studies.com ) Over 100 died in the Pentagon disaster. April suffered physical injury from the blast and has filed a lawsuit charging Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and others.
She deserves to be heard. But her case has been dismissed by Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court for Southern District of New York and is now in appeal status before the Circuit Court in Connecticut. Can we do SOMETHING to help April Gallop in her quest for justice and a fair hearing?