LA Times: 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y.

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y.

The scattered movement has mainly gained steam on the Internet, but before the anniversary of the attacks, activists make their voices heard.

NEW YORK — Striding into Washington Square Park with a fistful of photocopied circulars and an earnest expression, Eric Williams could have been an environmental canvasser or a hip missionary. In fact, he is a pastry chef — or was until last week, when he quit his job to devote himself full time to proving that the World Trade Center attack was ordered not by terrorists but by officials in the U.S. government.

Continued... Thanks, cinnamon!

OT: Request of Pilots and Others for Clarification

Off-topic request for help:

There is an oft-mentioned fact about NORAD/FAA issues that focused on the famous Payne Stewart incident. Others note the formal NTSB report that says that the intercepting aircraft took off at a certain point in time in the Eastern time zone and arrived in the vicinity of the Stewart plane some time later, at a point over the next time zone. This time is isually quoted ast 78 minutes, factoring in the time zone change.

However, it seems to my tired brain that when a plane takes off and arrives some time later, the transit time, the time it took to get there, should have nothing to do with time zones. Time zones are relative.. an abstract that refers to on-ground perception, not the real time reflectesd in the old formula D = RxT.

Am I correct? The intercepting flight still took 18 minutes relative time or real time.

Or do I need to go back to school for more math?


Also, while I have a window open, let me add the following:

The article by Catherine Austin Fitts is now downloadable as a pdf:

The events behind the article (almost 150 differtent links), is here:

Get a cup of coffee and have at it.


no it took 78 plus minutes to intercept Paine Steward, and his transponder was on

pilot use z time, but when you see the report you must take the time zone and do the math

I have to tell my students all the time, they will use the math

on topic, think this chef will have a better chance at acting like Charlie Sheen instead of CT activiities, unless this takes off like witch hunting or the communist hunting of the 50s

Then you need to hit it hard and make your name while you can


I would like to see something to counter the idea that air defenses were not prepared to handle an internal threat and that the Stewart flight was the only domestic intercept since the Cold War. I know people cite that Washington Post article that lists 67 intercepts in the year before 9/11, but one of the counterarguments is that all those intercepts were along the coasts. Is this true? This is where we need Bowman to speak out with specific information.


Yep all the intercepts are on flight coming into the country, you know wrong radio freq, bad transponders, off course, all intercepted in the ADIZ, or the no fly WARNING zones all around the country.

Remember the founding fathers wanted the military not to interfere with our normal day to day life. So usually they do not want the air force flying operations to interfere with commercial flights, plus there have never been any enemy activity in our airspace so we never practiced intercepting airliners over the united states nor suspected that they would be weapons, did you?

Now on a normal day how do you pick out the correct target; now if you did find a suspect plane the pilot could look in the cockpit and see the terrorist and then shoot them down! but shooting from a distance on a normal day could result in shooting down an innocent plane! What do you think? On 9/11 the passengers of flight 93 were the first to shoot down a plane by taking it back, so now we now how long it takes to figure out what to do when someone does a surprise attack, and I think flight 93 may have been shot down near Washington DC if the passengers had not done the job. So when we knew the rules we were 100 percent effective in stopping the terrorists, ie flight 93. And the terrorist, who knew the rules, were only 75 percent effective. Now unless flight 77 was aiming for the White House or Congress then they were only 50 percent, cause the White House and Congress were only about 2 miles straight in front of the crash path of flight 77, making the terrorist 50 percent effective, a very poor showing.

That can explain Flight 11

That can explain Flight 11 reaching it's target, but not the other two planes. As soon as the first building was hit, every fighter on the Eastern seaboard would have been deployed - particularly in Washington. Furthermore, NYC is considered 'restricted airspace' like you mentioned, meaning any unidentified/transponderless- plane would likely be intercepted regardless of the direction in was approaching from. Incompetence could have explained things going like they did in Wyoming, perhaps, but certainly not the East coast.



New paper in the Journal of 911 Studies

Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)

Very cool, but they look

Very cool, but they look like the last people who would be doing that. In fact, they look like undercover agents. Too priviledged looking I guess, I dunno LOL. (sorry if that offended anyone)

Thruth coming out in The Netherlands

The programm Zembla, wich is the most prominent investigative journalism television programm in the Netherlands, did a show on 911 based on claims made by Loose Change.
Most explosive conclusions were:

-our best demolition-expert concluded that building 7 was a demolition-job for sure.
-there was insider-trading going on in relation to september 11 and that it was linked to secret services in a number of countries.

This was aired on national television at 22:40 right before the airing of Loose Change 2nd ed. at 23.40

One of the 2 free newspapers "Metro" has an artikel for tomorrow that wil go even further.
Tomorrow will be a very exiting day for Dutch truthers, our politicians will be forced to react to this
under the public pressure created by this contribution of Zembla.

CBS show titled "9/11"

This is mostly footage from the Naudet brothers. Their was at least five different scenes of the firemen mulling in the lobby on Tower 1 with huge explosions poping off above them.I've never scene this footage before and it would be great to have on record.

This show to my surprise also showed WTC7 collapse. They didn't mention too much about it but it was still strange to see it on mainstream tv.


The MSNBC Poll shows that 58% are waking up to the truth of 9/11.

WTC Insider: "It's time to lay down the law!"

Every reply-comment that I have made, (and I have received about 10,k e'mails since 2002,) was done from memory. I don't care what Steven Jones, or Hillary Clinton has to say. When we build a 'superstructure,' as this property inherently was, it changes all of the rules of the game. And every licensed architect knows this.

While I feel comfortable with my various personal attempts to tell the world about the 'planning-phase' of the WTC Controlled Demolition, perhaps fewer than 5% of all 9/11 researchers have actually delved into the -construction documentation, and specific 'builder' -issues pertaining to this crime.

One they do, the wall of secrecy will crumble!

In the development process an entirely different set of variables exist, none of which remain solely the purvey of a tightly-held 'group' point of view. The material selections alone were subject to numerous articles, including industry-to-industry discussion and materials integrity- peer review.

As it really all comes down to a case of "who-done-it," very few pundits are basing their theories on the hundreds of published accounts about how Other controlled demolitions were done. How many man hours it requires, per floor, etc. With this information in hand we can begin to scale the process to encompass the enormity of this property. Lastly, many, many 'unusual' things were required for this particular job, because unlike 'traditional' demolitions, no one in the buildings were to know that all of this work was being done.

I make a point of reminding folks that to the City of New York, in every case, "Public Safety" would logically have permeated the paper-trail as priority #1.

Everything that requires a lot of money, (and/or an 'expert' solution,) as this obviously required is "put out to bid" even though in many cases that job itself may have already been privately 'won.'

What's missing here is that very documentation concerning 'construction-bids' that were never 'won.'

* I have recently changed the official 'date' of my observations of the "FBI take-over in Tower #1" It occurred in 1987, not 1989. I had been going by an arbitrary comment from an investor-board that falsely attributed the 'stock-crash' to 1988. I had erroneously used this figure to calculate the date I may have received this job. {Obviously, I could not have done this job if I were not living in NYC at the time.} After a reader alerted me to this point, I realized that I was actually living in Woodstock, NY, with the Parker Brothers, at that specific point in time.

Look very closely at ALL the NYC Fire & Safety filings covering 'SUB-CONTRACTS' THAT OCCURRED IN THE WTC, -after 1987!!

My site is down for no good reason, but here's the URL to my "Affidavit":

Finally, I am excited that the momentum is growing. Good luck to all who believe this war can be won!

What you have written here is interesting.....

But could expound further by describing your point in one or two simple, clear sentences?

Thanks and good luck with this work.


I remember hearing from you, T.S., a while back. I read your affidavit and I was very intrigued with what you had to say.

Anyone else spent any time reading Gordon's documentation?

“No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.” ~Edmund Burke

Video of 9/11 Truth Event

See the video here