Victronix's blog

Silverstein: Why New WTC Buildings Much More Costly

06/14/2011 10:35 PM
9/11 A Decade Later: Larry Silverstein Optimistic About Pace Of WTC Development
By: Bobby Cuza

After years of bickering and stalled plans at the World Trade Center site, leaseholder Larry Silverstein said Tuesday he is optimistic about the progress happening there and what it means for the future of Downtown Manhattan. NY1's Bobby Cuza filed the following report.

The power struggle is over, it seems, and now there is tangible progress at the World Trade Center site -- particularly on One World Trade Center, now 68 stories tall.

However, leaseholder Larry Silverstein of Silverstein Properties told a real estate conference Tuesday he still takes issue with the building’s name.

“They call it Tower 1, but for those of us who were here from the beginning, it’s the Freedom Tower. Always will be the Freedom Tower,” he said.

1,500 Architects & Engineers Disprove Official 9/11 Account of WTC Destruction

London, UK (PRWEB UK) 10 June 2011

Richard Gage, AIA, architect for more than 23 years, uses only scientific and forensic principles to argue that the the three World Trade Center skyscrapers could not have collapsed on September 11th 2001, by plane impacts and jet fuel alone.

He will explain how the official FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technologies) reports provide incomplete and contradictory accounts of the towers’ destruction. Attention will be given to World Trade Center 7, a 47-storey building which was not hit by an aircraft, yet also collapsed that day at near free-fall acceleration.(1) Never before or since has any sort of collapse happened to a skyscraper due solely to fire.

Neither have fires in buildings ever turned solid steel girders into “Swiss cheese”; shocking two Materials Science professors who expected to see distortion and bending but not holes.(2)

The New York Times called these findings “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation …. the steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” (3)

Mr. Gage, from San Francisco, is a member of the American Institute of Architects. In 2006 he founded Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), with a membership of over 1,500 licensed engineers and architects.

New! ERROR: 'The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over It'

Given the recent promotions of the latest version of the flyover theory, 911Review has added another ERROR page to it's collection of Pentagon errors:

ERROR: 'The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over It'

In contrast to the the "no-plane" or small plane theories that deny the crash of a jetliner into the Pentagon on 9/11, a theory circulated since 2003 maintains that a jetliner with American Airlines livery did indeed approach the Pentagon, as reported by scores of eyewitnesses but fooled the same witnesses into thinking that it crashed there in a spectacular "magic show" in which the plane flew through the explosion and over the vast office building, slipping away unnoticed.

NIST to Release Report on B7 via Public Webcast - Thurs, Aug 21st

It seems odd to be using a webcast format for this, but I guess they're expecting all the "internet conspiracy theorists" to tune in.

Aug. 18, 2008 CONTACT:
Ben Stein
(301) 975-3097
NIST to Release Report and Recommendations from Investigation of World
Trade Center Building 7

*** Agency Will Hold Public Webcast on August 21 ***

Gaithersburg, Md. -- The Commerce Department's National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) will hold a media briefing and live
public webcast on Aug. 21, 2008, in Gaithersburg, Md., on the findings
and recommendations from its building and fire safety investigation of
the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). WTC 7 was a
47-story building that fell nearly seven hours after the World Trade
Center (WTC) towers collapsed following the terrorist attacks of Sept.
11, 2001.

The NIST WTC 7 report will present the probable collapse sequence for
the building and will provide recommendations for improving building
and fire safety in other buildings similar to WTC 7. The draft WTC 7

Comments on Mukasey's ‘Not Every Wrong, Or . . . Every Violation of the Law, is a Crime’

The story itself is so predictable it's hardly worth reading, but the comments are very satisfying. Realize too, this is the Wall Street Journal Law Blog . . . enjoy.

August 12, 2008, 1:09 pm
|Mukasey: ‘Not Every Wrong, Or . . . Every Violation of the Law, is a Crime’]]

Posted by Ashby Jones
Mukasey said today that neither Monica Goodling nor Kyle Sampson (nor anyone else, it seems), will face prosecution for considering improper political considerations in their hiring of judges and lawyers. (Click here and here for earlier posts on the topic.) “Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,” he said. “In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws.”

Report offensive comments to

So the so-called most powerful attorney in the US Government is telling people that “not every violation of law is a crime.”

NYC Ballot Initative Commissioner In The News

This speaks for itself.

But just imagine these headlines in the NY Post the day after the signatures are in. This story made international news, but somehow no one here noticed.

And what did this radio interview coincide with? The release of a new X-Files movie. Turns out Mitchell has been an X-Files consultant.

This is why discussions such as these take place.

Blogger Wm Mott writes:

What Will the "Anthrax Commission" Produce?

There is now a stated interest in conducting an 'investigation' into the anthrax debacle, but what will it produce? And how will it get there? How can we use it to draw comparisons to the 9/11 Omission Commission? Notice that currently everyone just refers to the 9/11 Commission as a model to follow -- if so, it will be a whitewash. But I don't think that will necessarily happen.

I find this situation fascinating because the potential exists for a relatively meaningful investigation along the lines of what should have happened on 9/11/01 -- the climate of fear is past, the power of the criminal Bush Administration is waning, the official anthrax story is absurd and transparent enough that even US Congress members can figure it out, and the propaganda labels and attacks on "anyone who dares question" our freedoms, (or anything else) is not yet arrived.

Burying the Evidence on Anthrax

911 Plotters Bury the Evidence
by Michael Green
Aug. 3, 2008


What strikes me most is that this (probably genuine) suicide is designed to put a lid upon the conspiratorial facts. The August 1, 2008 Wall Street Journal reported and opined:

"The Justice Department hasn't yet decided whether to close the investigation, officials said, meaning it's still not certain whether Dr. Ivins acted alone or had help. One official close to the case said that decision was expected within days. If the case is closed soon, one official said, that will indicate that Dr. Ivins was the lone suspect."

I assure you that the Journal is the ghost of our fascist future talking, with Dr. Ivins playing the role of lone nut so certified by both his social worker therapist and his psychiatrist. But the facts say otherwise.


Edited by Ann Fagan Ginger
Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute (MCLI), Berkeley, California

The day after the November elections, MCLI will be ready to give to every Congress Member and Senator a handy booklet listing and describing every law that must be amended or repealed in order to get back to a constitutional, democratic federal government.

We are going to include every statute passed by Congress, every Executive Order and signing statement by Pres. Bush, every regulation by a federal agency, every other document, including international agreements.

“How are you possibly going to make a complete list?”

By letting everyone know of the project and asking for their help.

McKinney and 9/11 In the News - The Information War to Intimidate Us Into Silence

Cynthia McKinney is in the news!

And this will only increase as we approach November. She's being covered everywhere right now, C-SPAN, Time, Democracy Now, etc.

I note that some creative journalists are inserting the fictional claim that she lost elections -- any election will do -- because of her statements that the Bush Administration covered up information about the 9/11 attacks. There is zero evidence for these claims, but it's likely they're trying to shut her up now by creating this obvious falsehood, a message. The hardcore left gatekeepers like Huffington Post will unite with the far right on the issue of taking down anyone who speaks out on 9/11.

I've included an interesting sign the campaign has made. Here is the list of current campaign materials.

Jane Mayer: New Book on Torture, the CIA and 9/11

Our local radio station KPFA just covered the torture hearings with Feith that took place in Congress today and investigative journalist Jane Mayer's new book exposing torture info is now out at the same time. I was looking up what she's said about 9/11 and what the book might say and came across the descriptions below.

She mentioned how members of the Administration who spoke to her were so intimidated by Cheney that they had to speak in code to each other because they assumed that Cheney was tapping their phones. I expect she probably rejects "inside job" -- afterall, she was formerly a Wall Street Journal writer, is a Yale grad, etc -- but it could be an opportunity to provide her with more info, if possible.

What was the outcome with Naomi Klein? I'd be interested to hear any ideas of what did or didn't work for interacting with her and getting info across.

Jane Mayer discusses
"The Dark Side: How The War on Terror Became a War on American Ideals"


The Barry Jennings "Bodies" Claim -- False, Now that the BBC Interviews Him . . .

Barry Jennings seems to have just exposed himself on the BBC, so this looks like it was a set-up to make us look "confused" or misrepresenting our sources. Perhaps Jennings had some other reason that just ended up making us look bad. It sounds like it was intentional since it's unlikely someone would be unclear about such a powerful detail. Some on here were pointing out what a huge issue it would be if there were bodies -- it looks like that helped everyone to accept Jennings, despite his drama and the confusing aspects of his claims.

But regardless, after he does something like this, no one should promote any of his claims.

Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7

"The writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery, told The Conspiracy Files: "The amount of detail that Barry gave us in this interview was unreal. He says he was stepping over dead bodies in the lobby."

Barry Jennings himself disagrees with their interpretation of his words. Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I didn't like the way you know I was portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies. I never saw dead bodies"

The Two Sides of Vincent Bugliosi

I post this now because I noticed that Bugliosi was recently featured on Democracy Now and also is going to be on a radio show with Kucinich soon. His 2007 book was 'Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy', and his 2008 book is 'The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.'

This is another case where *anyone* who utters the phrase "prosecute Bush" is given a free pass. Being on Democracy Now then opens the door to every single left media and blogger to accept him unquestioningly. But as Michael Green states, "The purpose of Bugliosi’s 'Reclaiming History' is to defend the integrity of the USG National Security State by grossly distorting its nature and function."

Could such distortions, and the taking down of the JFK truths one year earlier, have been a necessary ingredient of becoming a central figure in the supposed prosecution of Bush? Only time will tell.

The essay is detailed but thorough and well done.


9-11 Research Guest Essay:

Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again

The Lynn Margulis wikipedia page -- all 9/11 references continually deleted

Just putting a call out to people to help get even a single reference to Lynn Margulis' views on 9/11 onto her wikipedia page. The same guy - Arthur Rubin -- that deletes everything meaningful about challenges to the official story, continually deletes any mention of her views on 9/11 off of her page. He also continually deleted all 9/11 info off of Jesse Ventura's page -- claiming that the news stories were not real! -- but eventually he lost out. Persistance can pay off if the sources exist. Jesse Ventura continued to do interviews in numerous venues and so soon it became undeniable.

If you post anything by Alex Jones, wikipedia generally considers that source to be not reliable and numerous admins will delete it, so you have to post news stories from mainstream sources. One person posted a college newspaper story on Margulis' views, but it referenced the Alex Jones interview so wikipedia admins like Rubin say that that isn't enough and delete it.

It's important to get 9/11 info onto the pages of real scientists, so please help out by getting her info onto there.

Common Dreams Posts the Rovics Hit-piece Too

Rovics cites Popular Mechanics. He tries to discredit. He says the truth is "already known." I'd like to see him tell all this to a family member or survivor. It would be great if one of them could write something up and try to get them to post it there. We've tried, and they've refused. We were told that they remove 9/11Research urls.

Here is one of the comments which I appreciated:

JavaRunner April 7th, 2008 12:03 pm

Dave, you show me a single movement ever in the history of our species that cannot come under the kind of criticism you just pronounced against those who don’t buy the official fiction about 9/11. I dare ya ;)