(Larger Image)- http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/e/7/7/9/highres_451199257.jpeg
(15 Minute Video Link)
Facebook Theatre - https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/videos/vb.59185411268/10153493868176269/?type=2&theater
Ae911Truth Campaigns Newsletter Archive (link which will activate the video) - http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=fd75bb3369&e=[UNIQID]
Ae911truth – Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/
AE911Truth (@AE911Truth) | Twitter https://twitter.com/AE911Truth
Ae911Truth.org – http://www.ae911truth.org/
Ae911Truth.org Older Version Website Evidence - http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html
Market Watch - June 14, 2016
...with link to Gallup Poll
...As Gallup’s Jim Norman explains: “Americans clearly lack confidence in the institutions that affect their daily lives: the schools responsible for educating the nation’s children; the houses of worship that are expected to provide spiritual guidance; the banks that are supposed to protect Americans’ earnings; the U.S. Congress elected to represent the nation’s interests; and the news media that claims it exists to keep them informed.”...
...Congress actually earned the “ignominious” distinction of being the only institution sparking little or no confidence in a majority of Americans in the poll....
Excerpts from a couple speeches that George W. Bush gave in the two months following 9/11, juxtaposed with some of what we've since heard about the 28 pages from former Senator Bob Graham, 9/11 victims' family members and a number of Congressmen.
Presumption of a Cover-Up …
Judges and lawyers know that – if someone intentionally destroys evidence – he’s probably trying to hide his crime. American law has long recognized that destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guilt for the person who destroyed the evidence.
So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?
Judge and Prosecutor Destroy Evidence
For example, it was revealed last week that the judge overseeing the trial of surviving 9/11 suspects conspired with the prosecution to destroy evidence relevant to a key suspect’s defense. And see this.
(The Defense Department has also farmed out most of the work of both prosecuting and defending the surviving 9/11 suspects to the same private company. And the heads of the military tribunal prosecuting the 9/11 suspects said that the trials must be rigged so that there are no acquittals.)
Destruction of Videotapes
The CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.
9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:
Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
Sen. Bob Graham + CIA Robert Baer: 9/11 Saudi Connection
September 2015 "Judge Drops Saudi Arabia from 9/11 Suit Due To Lack of Evidence".
"The United States’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is complex and opaque. Suspicions persist that powerful Saudis funded Al Qaeda and some of the hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Senator Bob Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee, and cochair of the Joint Congressional inquiry into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, visits to shed light on the 28 pages of the 9/11 report that remain classified. Joining him is former CIA veteran Robert Baer, who was portrayed by George Clooney in the movie Syriana."
Bob Graham interview with hard questions about the role of intelligence agencies: https://soundcloud.com/newacademic/graham-interview
The strongest evidence linking the alleged hijackers to 9/11 was a video said to be from the closed circuit TV (CCTV) system at Dulles International Airport in Washington DC. The video was not made available until the day before the 9/11 Commission Report was released, in 2004, and it helped to pave the way for widespread acceptance of the official account. Since the other evidence against the accused hijackers was dubious and suspiciously convenient for the FBI, which provided it, the Dulles video should be examined closely.
Doing so has led some independent 9/11 investigators to conclude that the Dulles video contains “no information to link its images to AA 77.” Reasons include that:
- None of the Dulles airport staff remembered seeing the alleged hijackers at the airport
- Dulles had over 300 cameras but no footage was released except for portions of this one video (and no video was available from the other airports)
- The alleged Dulles video contains no date, time stamp, or camera identification
- The video was shot at a rate of 30 frames per second (fps), which the investigators said is not typical of CCTV videos
- The video appears to be an edited composite of shots taken from different angles
Additionally, it has been noticed that the airport screeners in the Dulles video did not perform their duties according to airport requirements. An attorney representing 9/11 victims’ families stated that security agents in the video screened the suspects in ways that were not like those required in Dulles training videos.
Could the video be fraudulent?
Interview with Tony Szamboti
Transcript published 23 May 2016
For this important interview we welcome Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer and 9/11 researcher, who joins us for a detailed discussion on crucial evidence that, in the words of his research group, "clearly demonstrate(s) 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."
With the group's white paper as our focus, "Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports" which lists 25 Points seriously challenging NIST's work in this area, we discuss striking new evidence demonstrating that NIST intentionally omitted significant structural components from its analysis of Building 7, and explore the almost inescapable conclusion that this was done in order to avoid the explanation of controlled demolition. We also discuss the potential these findings might have for legal action.