Legal Scholars Question 9/11

This summary mainly comes from information provided at

Many highly-qualified legal scholars believe that the horrible attacks of September 1, 2001, may intentionally have been allowed to happen or even been actively aided and abetted by elements within the United States government. This is important, since attorneys are good at assessing the strength of competing pieces of evidence, and since lawyers are the ones who will ultimately file any 9/11 prosecutions.

A partial list of such scholars includes:

John Loftus (Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer; currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services). See

Francis Boyle, PhD, LLD (Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; Boyle was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; Boyle served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University). See

Richard Falk (Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 Falk served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo). See

Burns H. Weston (Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law). See

C. Peter Erlinder, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, has signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. See and

Mark Conrad (Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career). See

Horst Ehmke, PhD (Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice (West Germany)). See

William G. Weaver, JD, PhD (Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory). See

Gerry Spence (famed trial attorney). See

So how do we get all of these gentlemen

at the same place at the same time ??!!
There are other lists, and other 9/11 activists spread all over the world, but how do we get them all to compile their resources so that we can prepare the case for the Hague; at least ?
How do we ge the celebrities, and the ex FBI agents, the ex CIA agents, the airtraffic controllers, the witnesses, the firefighters, the NYPD, the survivors and the families, EVERY one who has either information, cause, motivation, insight, evidence............
How can we get Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen , Ed Asner, Charles Goyette, Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann all in the same place to start pumping on this ????

Remember; Nixon never thought he'd be caught either !

9/11=PNAC Plot

Maher and Olbermann?

They're not down with 9/11 truth!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Show "HUH ??!!" by Rev MVG

bill maher on 9/11 truth...

olberman doesn't mention it. why? MSNBC is obvioulsy influenced by Microsoft who holds 18% of the company but it was founded by none other than the corporate welfare sucking G.E. (who is deeply invested in the Israeli occupation). GE Universal is run by Edgar Bronfman, Jr the son of Edgar Bronfman president of the World Jewish Congress.

my audio is out--what does Brother Cornel have to say about 9/11


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force




Maher: Everywhere I go people say to me, "Why don't you cover on your show what really happened on 9/11? Why don't you talk about the fact that a missile is what brought down flight 93 and that the World Trade Center was a planned explosion?" Do you believe any of those conspiracy theories? Do you think it's even possible?

West: No, I don't, I don't believe it but I know the world is a mysterious place. I'm open to coordinated activity in secret places but I don't believe in conspiracy. [Laughter and applause]

Maher: Wow. You could be a republican.

Legend: I think the government is dishonest and they try to keep secrets from us but they're not that good of keeping secrets, apparently, because they keep coming out. They keep leaking them. I don't believe they could coordinate that that well and pull it off without us finding out.

Maher: Yeah, it seems like if they couldn't get a helicopter into the Superdome, they probably couldn't get some of this stuff going.

Clarke: All these conspiracy theories have two basic problems. One, they believe the government is competent. [Laughter and applause] And, two, they believe the government can keep a secret

that's some weak shit

yea it is, but remember, Maher is a comedian with

attitude, and he, Williams, Colbert, Stewart, that I can recall off the top of my head are the few TV guys that have shows or public clout, who have given any lip service to the subject, WHO may be swayed to spill a few MORE beans.
All we can work with is what we've got, and what we can make out of what we've got.
With these guys together putting it out there the stampede would be roused.
Okay, how about Alex Jones, and Charles Goyette have a BBQ with Charlie Sheen, Steven Colbert, John Stewart, Rosie O'Donnell and Oprah................? ( whew)

Come on help me here...........
work with it.........
Throw in Kusinich, Bartlett, Jones, Rodriguez, Ryan et. al.

They could call it,
" We Are the Hurled "

Remember; Nixon never thought he'd be caught either !

9/11=PNAC Plot

Well said.

Well said.

yuk yuk yuk

Keep applauding, Bill Maher audience. Keep laughing as the world goes down the shitter.

My response to Richard Clarke and his "two basic problems":

(1) The government is competent enough to be the most powerful empire in the history of the world, with over 700 military bases spanning the globe. It's competent enough to lie its way into two wars, commit war crimes without being prosecuted, steal trillions from the public purse, conduct illegal domestic surveillance, steal two elections, and piss on the constitution.

(2) I will allow Daniel Ellsberg to address Clarke's second point:

"It is commonplace that 'you can't keep secrets in Washington' or 'in a democracy,' that 'no matter how sensitive the secret, you're likely to read it the next day in The New York Times.' These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn't in a fully totalitarian society…. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public…. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."


What is imcompetence? It depends on what the job is and if you misunderstand what the job is, you might see nothing but imcompetence and that would truly be imcompetence.

Not Bill Maher

I've watched Bill Maher's HBO Friday night show for the past 3 years and Maher is definitely NOT a believer in any non-governmental 9-11 theory. The most Maher has ever down was to bash Bush for 'incompetence (April 6, 2001 PDB, sitting at elementary school etc.) and stupidity'. Maher is far too egocentric to actually listen to anyone ELSE explain anything about 9/11 Truth to him. Maher is still fighting the DEMS GOOD vs. REPUB BAD fight. He's an MSM tool/fool.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" -- Edward R. Murrow

he mentioned controlled demoltion

... in a very condescending and mocking tone.

"There are actually people who believe...blah blah blah" eye rolls, wink wink

There was a period where he was mentioning 911 truth almost every week - just to put it down.

After my appearance on Fox I called his producer to see if i could use that appearance to leverage an appearance on his show - but, to no avail. she listened to what i had to say - but, i'm not holding my breath.

How about; that was then and this is Now?

This may be true, but WE can't afford to not try?
There's got to be a good way into the mainstream.
What about Oprah ??!!
My God, the wifes of victims,
the wifes and mothers of soldiers lost in Iraq,
as many of the womens groups as can stand to get on to the bandwagon;
if the women can't get to her then nobody can.
If they can; we win.
Can WE make a postulate that if you re-open 9/11 you will win our vote ?!
How would that go down.
How about Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'onnell have a beer
( sixpack ) with Bill Maher and Stephen " Truthiness " Colbert ??!!? while Olbermann takes notes.......
With some spontaneous TV talk,
who's got juice to juice the juice ??

Do I have to start a petition for this or is there a way to get the " Truthies " into ONE junta ?/
Like the Unity '08 idea for 9/11 Truth ?

Remember; Nixon never thought he'd be caught either !

9/11=PNAC Plot

Then why did he ask the

Then why did he ask the question? He brought the topic up,isn't that most important?
I love when tv hosts bring this topic up so you can just listen to the audience and get an idea what people are thinking...
He could be a self appointed 9/11 Truth undercover agent, but I honestly cannot say for certain.

doesn't matter how much

doesn't matter how much olbermann and maher come down on Bush, neither of them are open to 9/11 truth.

They would if it became Fashionable ..........

Thazall it'd take.

Remember; Nixon never thought he'd be caught either !

9/11=PNAC Plot

"So how do we get all of these gentlemen

in the same place at the same time"

Bingo. That was my first thought on reading that impressive list. That's quite the collection of legal minds! Get a group like that to frame a New York Citizens' Grand Jury in preparation for the eventual real one, with teeth, and we'd have something rolling...? Something the movement could get behind, and employ, as a repository for all available evidence and as a conduit, through which the sworn testimony of wistleblowers could be recieved...!!!

Some formal, and at the very least, quasi-legal proceeding, and body, needs to be established, with the hope of recieving tips and information from insider informants who would really like to see this case break wide open, to overturn the dark shadow government and facilitate a re-constitution and recovery process (no matter how painful that may be).

The way I see it - we need a trial run proceeding, which would act like a rolling snowball, so that as the tide of public awareness increases, and a new Justice Department head comes in with the next administration, there might be a hope in hell that at SOME stage, we'd see a special prosecutor step up to the plate, with the authority to subpeona, and indict. And what would precipitate that action, would be new information and new revelations from a group of insiders, who, by coming forth together, could protect themselves and their families from "repercussions"..

I vote for a Citizens' Grand Jury in New York City, enveloped by a cadre of legal minds like those listed. They would understand all the minutia of witness protection, sworn affidavits and the like, chains of custody with evidence, the whole gambit needed for an eventual wholly independant 9/11 investigation, to set the historical record straight over this whole affair.

Then, at some point, Cheney get's the knock at the door...!

There are surely insiders who would come forth or who would cave under pressure, and in return for immunity from prosecution, who could connect the dots regarding what really happened on that day, and they might very well do so, if they were to come to believe that the entire weight of modern history, and public opinion, was on their side.

IMHO, our movement, at this stage, is to pave the way for this kind of thing, and to create the climate for it to become a possibility, then a probability, and finally, an actuality.



“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth”
~ George W. Bush

Oh MAN !!

NOW there are TWO of us !
Drop me an e willya,
I'd likem to talkem pow wow.

Remember; Nixon never thought he'd be caught either !

9/11=PNAC Plot

What do you mean?

You mean my idea is the same as what you've thought?

I can't find your email, so feel free to email moi @

robertrice2 at (without spaces and with the @ sign obviously)


“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth”
~ George W. Bush

Same Place, Same Time?

We never want all of our most powerful, eloquent supporters in the same place at the same time. A situation like that is inviting disaster. All it would take is "one lone nut" and the truth movement would be irreparably harmed.

I understand what you are trying to say in getting them together, its just that its not the best idea right now. It would be too tempting for the more malicious of our enemies.

Frequent smaller conferences, put on by local groups, scattered throughout the country where some of the "top brass" show up are great but anything too big is inviting trouble in one way or another, at least at this point.

Show "In your argument, you state" by countrysurf4

"the government" is a nonsense

Individuals within the government apparatus DO include murderers. And not just the US government, buddy--9/11 was not entirely domestically engineered. As far as leaking information... if a tree is chopped down in the forest and screams bloody murder but no one reports on that fact to the world at large, you might think it never happened, but it did.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Thank you

I think that the "inside job" idea is taken too far, to suggest that if it was not Al Qaeda, then it was the government as a whole. Osama or Bush. This obscures a lot of possibilities, one of which is that the government is not covering up that the government did 9/11t, but the government is covering up that someone other than Al Qaeda did it, because blaming Al Qaeda is more useful. This someone other than Al Qaeda must include people with military and government ties and resources, but does not have to have been commanded by Bush, Cheney, or Myers.

Japanese Red Army?

Japanese Red Army?

Wow, that is a fucking joke

Yeah,dude. Sekigun. Banzai. Bakayaro. Ahotare.


The "10,000 sworn to secrecy conspiracy theory"...

Are you paying attention?


"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness

If you are really

If you are really interested, you could read through the comments on this thread:

What did you say?

I couldn't read that... it didn't stay up long enough.


"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness


There's only ONE way that NORAD would stand down for as long as they did; CHENEY had in an UNPRECEDENTED move, had himself placed in control of ALL NORAD responses.
In another UNPRECEDENTED move he had also had himself placed in charge of the FIVE wargames going at the same time.
The " WAR GAMES " were the ATTACK !!
Of course they did it !!

READ my opening statement
on this page.

9/11=PNAC Plot

Of course 9/11 was

an inside job. But sometimes I tone down my language to reach a more naive audience. ONCE THEY GET DRAWN IN to 9/11 truth, then we can hit them with inside job.

One approach, anyway.

good for you

to decide who is "naive." My charitable view of you is that you are naive.

Show "They did not stand down" by Ningen

"there were no planes for them to intercept."

Right-- for the record:

You do not believe there were ANY aircraft involved in the attacks of 9/11, is that correct, Ningen?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Secrets can be kept...and secrets will be revealed.

In this type of situation, disclosing intimate knowledge of the crimes (e.g., having been involved in them) would mean risking one's life and/or family; so, keeping the secret is going to be near "mandatory" in the life of a 9/11criminal.

And yes, the leaking of information of this crime of the ages is going to occur. It is a certainty and simply a matter of time. History will yield its truths as it always does.

Justice waits for the murderers...and judgment day is coming to them.

Oh you got THAT right !

In fact, the military men, of whom there were many, are sworn to secrecy by virtue of being enlisted and the prize for spilling the beans is Treason, court martial and these days likely death with the new laws around terrorism.
There are however plenty of the retired oficers and such who are vocal enough to have impact and DO.
Rodriguez and Minetta are sticking out like sore thumbs but we don't see them meeting unsavoury ends.
So you know that all of our i.p. addresses are already on a cd somewhere don't you ?! Our names and faces and files along with Google video of us are all being compiled as we speak, ( FY FBIatch ) and most likely our emails too.
So are we ALL going to fill up those secret internment camps ?? Don't think they have enough of them for that.
And those petitons you sign?
Who has those email lists. WE need them.
How about a petition to join all the petitions into ONE ?!
In any case, Depositions at a lawyers office are all protected by law.
Evidence submitted to a lawyer is protected by law,
and given the lists as they are, there must already be a thousand or two high profile individuals on the bandwagon.
Once that junta is established the pull will be even greater.
As I implied at first and RR said in actual text , the preparation of the case , the accumulation of the material, the taking of depositions, evidence, etc. is basically what we've been doing in an informal way.
The RICO suit that Rodriguez filed is basically what we're talking about; a formal, legal action/demand for settlement in a court of the land.

Remember; Nixon never thought he'd be caught either !

9/11=PNAC Plot

Keeping secrets

By it's very definition a certain "Stonecutters" group is "Not a secret society but a society with secrets." And this is only one of the more overt secretive societies that the general public are aware of. How many of these societies exist and how many of their members can we assume are influential in places of power?
I am not suggesting that any particular group is directly responsible, just pointing out that it is not only possible, but very likely.

are you Sherlock Holmes?? HAHAH

that sounded like it came from the mouth of Sherlock Holmes... he would have know 911 was a false flag within seconds of hearing the news...

Are you referring to

Are you referring to Freemasons as individuals or as a group? As a group, harmless. Certain masons, dangerous.
Now groups with real power and influence?

The CFR/Skull & Bones and the Bilderberg Group.

More on keeping secrets.

What about the military, is there a better system for silencing dissent and maintaining silence? Or the CIA? Does anyone actually know anything for sure about the CIA? How secret is that? Or how about the Catholic church and the pedophile priests? How long was this covered up officially? I'm sure I'm just scraping the tip of the iceberg here but it just supports my argument that, yes secrets can and always have been kept conspiratorily.
BTW I appreciate the Sherlock Holmes compliment.

yea yea

"Stating this requires you to assume that the United States government would be capable of murdering its own citizens"

Theres no need to assume anything here. Ever heard of the Tuskegee syphilis study? Waco? Chemical Valley? JFK? This is an obvious fact. The US government/military-industrial-banking-complex shows almost as much sympathy for US citizens as they do the people of the rest of the world. To believe that the US government WOULDNT murder its own people is almost
laughable. no wait, it is laughable. while you're googling tuskeegee, check out Northwoods too.

" well as being able to keep such a massive secret to themselves, without any leak of information to the presses."

4 words: Stealth Bomber. Manhattan Project.

"the chance of someone leaking information is great due to the amount of persons involved"

Ever heard of David Shippers? 'Nuff said.

Looks like yet another category for patriotsquestion...

What is this, the fourth or fifth major grouping under that collection?

Totally missed this one...

Review of DRG's book:

"This book is as full of research and authoritative notes as a field full of springtime daisies. The author raises frightening questions, and the questions beg for answers. One thing we can conclude for certain. The events surrounding 9-11, both before and after, cannot be simply swept under the rug of conventional wisdom unless we allow it. This book gives us a foundation to discover the truth, one that we may not wish to hear. " — Gerry Spence

I corresponded with Mr. Spence back on 02, but at the time he was talking about spending more time with the kids... it's great to find out that he HAS actually weighed in on this after all. Very cool.


Review of DRG's book:

Which book, the new one?

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"


Trying to find the video which was a representation of a legal argument for 911.


Can not search site
Together in Truth!

That's a great one...

Would someone please help locate, link and/or repost.

"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness

Here you go

The video you're thinking of is "Improbable Collapse" by Mike Burger of 9/11 truth dot org.

The segment is towards the end..

Hope that helps. :-)
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth”
~ George W. Bush

Which clip? Edit: Response to JJJames

Do you mean the one from "Improbable Collapse" with that prosecutor in the courtroom giving a mock closing arguement?

I think so...

I've seen it as a stand alone video...

Whether or not it was part of IC, not sure.


"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness

Someone posted it here

It was a stand alone video... probably 10 minutes long
Together in Truth!

On It!!
Together in Truth!

That's the one...

Thanks, JJJames.

William F Pepper

I’m surprised William F Pepper isn’t included in PatriotsQuestion911. Is this just an oversight or is there some other reason?

Keynote Address from the "9/11: Revealing the Truth / Reclaiming Our Future" conference, held in Chicago, June 2006

Carl Person

9/11 Truth Breakthrough Rally, NY, 09.10.06 (31 minutes in)

With So Many On There, Why Mix In the Hoax Promoters?

>>I’m surprised William F Pepper isn’t included in PatriotsQuestion911. Is this just an oversight or is there some other reason?

Perhaps he knows it's better not to join.

I really think it is a set-up for this site to include all the serious people and then also sprinkle in the hoax-promoting people (Wood, Reynolds, Fetzer and Shayler).

I realize that some think this site is great and it could do a service, but then why does the webmaster refuse to remove the known hoax promoters? Why muck it up with those when there are SO MANY already? It makes no sense unless the goal is to undermine something that appears to be a good thing.

I know of at least one professor who was requested to allow his name on the site but protested the inclusion of Reynolds et al on there and then was not included.

The outcome of mixing the extreme hoax promoters with the serious people is that newbies think the hoax promoters are for real, and then have to go through the same negative experience that we all did when they discovered that, for example, a supposed former government official actually thinks real planes didn't hit the WTC. Newbies then may write off the whole movement, or decide that there are too many bizarre potholes in the road to bother with this, etc. It's called DISCREDITING BY ASSOCIATION. It's a fairly simple concept and it's worked in history very well.

Worse, if someone important references this site on a MSM venue, the detractors can simply chuckle and remark, "Well sure, and so-and-so is in good company with people who think a ray beam from space destroyed the WTC (Wood), or that a real plane didn't hit the WTC(Reynolds), or that a missile wrapped in a hologram hit the WTC (Shayler) . . . he he he." Immediately, everyone else on that site is smeared also as a lunatic also by the average American.

While some say "we can't control how they smear us," we certainly don't need to hand it to them on a silver platter! Putting known hoax promoters front and center helps no one.

Why won't the webmaster remove them? You can't say that Morgan Reynolds MUST be on there to have a Bush Admin person on there, since there are others. You can't say that Shayler has to be on there because we need an ex-intelligence person, since there are others. There really is no reason to keep those people on there except to undermine us -- be this unintentionally, negligently, or anything else.

For those who are unaware, each of these people has either rejected science almost completely or are simply openly making statements to mainstream media, as Shayler has, that he thinks real planes didn't hit the WTC. This is highly highly irresponsible for anyone in a "leadership" position in a movement to do. It is a reckless position to take and they should not be embraced by anyone in the movement as a leader or a prominent figure.

I urge people to contact the webmaster and ask him to remove Wood, Reynolds, Fetzer and Shayler. And if he won't, please ask him why.

I hope that a legal group can break away from this site on it's own . . .

Send it to them.

Victronix, you say, "I urge people to contact the webmaster and ask him to remove Wood, Reynolds, Fetzer and Shayler. And if he won't, please ask him why."

I will contact the webmaster. Have you? If you did, did you get a response? Info about this will help to guide how we compose our messages.

Your post is good. It should move them to act. Don't you suppose? Please send it to them, if you have not already.

I did email him and never

I did email him and never got a response. I would be interested to see what his reasoning is when I know that multiple people now have made the request to remove these names.

Alan Miller is probably a nice person with sincere intentions and his answers, I would guess, will be along the lines of how he can't go through each person with a fine tooth comb, we need to all work together, let's not focus on differences, etc., etc. Big Tent.

Lots of reasonable people feel this way but don't realize what the actual outcome of their actions can be until the damage is already done.

The "any news is good news" is not really going to break the truth open amongst people that do read the news and care about what it says, and those are the people who can really do something from the top down.

So when Shayler says that a missile wrapped in a hologram hit the WTC, it helps only the Webfairy and Gerard Holmgren, not the truth movement.

Some references -

David Shayler -

The Sunday Times September 10, 2006
Rebel MI5 agent says 9/11 planes were holograms
David Shayler, the former MI5 officer turned whistleblower, has joined the 9/11 deniers. "We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn't true," he tells the New Statesman. "The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire. They were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane." Not that he thinks planes hit the towers. "I believe no planes were involved in 9/11. The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes." Hard to believe, isn't it? Come to think of it, are we sure this isn't an MI5 agent posing as Shayler in an attempt to discredit him? Is there indeed such a person as Shayler, or was he — as some now think — invented by the CIA?,,2088-2350584,00.html

Morgan Reynolds -

At WTC two Boeing 767s allegedly sliced into dense steel walls, steel-concrete floors and a dense steel core without a sound or deceleration and shredded themselves into nothing with virtually all the “crumbs” retained within the skyscrapers. Despite 767s three-fourths as long and wide as each tower side, both of the planes disappeared without breaking off a tail section, fuselage or wing tips upon impact. These are physically impossible crashes. Airplanes do not exhibit completely different physical behaviors within .05 seconds at a given place. They cannot be invincible and then shatter and crumble without slowing down.

Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds
"Reynolds & Wood Try to Help Steven E. Jones"
"We gasp at Jones’ “analysis” of tower oscillation. Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded?"

No Planes Theory: R.I.P.
12 September 2006, georgewashington.blogspot

Refutations of the Woods' Star Wars Beam Weapon theory -

Journal papers -

This paper critiques the work and thesis of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds suggesting that a "Star Wars" beam weapon was used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers (referred to herein as the “WR thesis” or “WR paper”). The WR thesis is presented in a web-based paper entitled “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”, which can be found here. The central claim of the WR thesis is that the phenomena observed during the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 are only consistent with the use of some type of directed energy weapon, either originating from outer space or reflected from outer space (thus, it is referred to herein as a “space beam weapon”). The main arguments in the WR thesis are examined in this paper and a case is made that the WR thesis and its supporting paper contain several scientific flaws, including, the use of corrupted data, ignoring data that contradicts its claims, not considering more reasonable explanations for observed effects, and, in the case of the Kingdome demolition, incorrectly comparing data.

That's probably the best

premise to operate from;
" he can't go through each person with a fine tooth comb, we need to all work together, let's not focus on differences, etc., etc. Big Tent."

and I might add,
" the time for fancy ideas comes after the basic
ones are well in place"

There's an unfortunate bruh haha going on in the Truth movement that needs to be quelled before some jackass like O'Reilly gets hold of it.
Any one who QUESTIONS anything about 9/11 should be included here until we get down to the trial; when the eye witnesses and experts step up to the plate to make their appearances on the stand.

Remember; Nixon never thought he'd be caught either !

9/11=PNAC Plot

Show "The hoax" by Ningen


...there is absolutely nothing wrong with the plane "melting" into the building.

I remember watching a balistics video many years ago, and the experimenters on the show fired a candle (speaking of melting) at high speed into a 3/4" sheet of plywood. Your instincts would tell you that the candle would simply flatten out and "splash" away in all directions, but what actually happened was that the candle cut a fairly neat hole thru the plywood, and suffered relatively little deformation whilst doing so. Maybe someone can dig up this video somewhere...I have been unsuccessful at finding anything on the Internets.

And why the hell would you even want to push your "no planes" theory. What possible purpose could it serve in the grand scheme of things?

That's really cool, Mel

Maybe someone could dig that video up. I don't know the physics of a candle into plywood. I have seen some freaky pictures of boards stuck in palm trees.

What I do know is that the two people who have made an attempt to prove the plane theory using physics, Steven Jones and Eric Salter, agree with me that the loss of kinetic energy should be reflected in the videos. Based on incomplete data, they say that the videos comport with physical reality. I have asked Steven Jones to respond to the data I used, but he has chosen not to respond.

Where is Steven Jones on this? I have emailed him and asked him to respond. This is his method I am using. Why does he not prove me wrong? Please, shut me up before I blog again.

Plane melting into the building?

A physics teacher (who also thinks the WTC buildings were CD's) told me that the plane went into the South Tower pretty much as expected, considering the speed at which it hit the building.

Show "Blah, blah - are you serious?" by Ningen

"Of course you are not

"Of course you are not serious. But you may be sincere."

And what on earth is that supposed to mean?

I just emailed him. I've also read an article that concluded the same. Alas, I didn't link it at the time, so if anyone has the link, please give it.

One paper dealing with plane impact

Oh, and in the documentary 9/11 Mysteries, one survivor describes how he looked out of a window and saw the plane coming towards his tower. But of course, there is a vast number of eyewitness reports of the plane hitting the tower.

I can't believe I have to be discussing if a plane actually hit the South Tower.

Show "That's it?" by Ningen

I looked at the first two links

Inordinate attention paid to a single person's recollection that is embellished in subsequent accounts. That is typical of humans describing their experiences, especially ones connected with such life-changing events as 9/11.

As I said, there are hundreds of eyewitness descriptions of some kind of a plane hitting the South Tower.

Besides, parts of the plane can be seen being ejected from the other side of the tower right after impact.

Inordinate attention?

You are the one that cited Praimnath's story, not me. You have no reply to my response that the story you cited is false.

"Hundreds." Prove it. And each testimony stands, or does not stand, on its own.

Parts of plane being ejected from other side in video -- do you seriously consider that a response to a claim that the videos are faked?

At least some of the debris was planted, because the physics show it could not have gotten there as a result of the crash:

I have no reason to think

I have no reason to think Praimnath's story is false, just more or less embellished.

The physics teacher -- who helped me to create this page, by the way --

-- wrote that there is no reason to debate the issue. The damage to the exterior columns was as expected, considering the plane's speed and characteristics. On the other hand, parts of the plane also went into the towers from between the exterior columns.

Thank you for the link

That's a great blog. I am not questioning the damage to the external columns. I am questioning the lack of damage to the video plane and lack of deceleration as it went through the columns and through the floors.

Do you think it is odd

that United Airlines was not acknowledging that Flight 175 hit the South Tower, even late in the afternoon of 9/11?

I know there are several possible explanations for this, but I find it strange, particularly in light of the crash physics that show that Flight 175 could not disappear inside the South Tower.

The FAA, Boston I think, thought Flight 11 was headed toward DC after the time it allegedly hit the North Tower. Another oddity, documented in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Show "Good" by Ningen

I would prefer that your physics teacher

respond here, or at my blog. And since you are making the claims, you should be able to back them yourself, all of you who called for Morgan Reynolds to be ostracized for stating the obvious.

Show "Now, Mel, let me answer your other questions" by Ningen

Mel can be irritating--I

Mel can be irritating--I have the links to prove it--but you're not any better with your "there were no planes involved" schtick.

But we can agree on one thing, can't we? That the bastards should be arrested and forcibly removed from office? Oh, wait we can't--you think that would be advocating violence.

We know the score...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Jenny, you are violating the policy

of carrying arguments across blogs.

I don't care about what Mel has said elsewhere. He politely made his point here and I am responding.

Please respond to what I said here, with substance please, or don't respond at all. Thank you.

Please tone it down Ningen,

Please tone it down Ningen, there is no need for this type of aggressiveness over personal opinion - take it elsewhere please.

I will tone it down

because I was rude to Mel and Vesa, and because you told me to. I thought my interpretation of your policy was correct, though. Colonel Jenny Sparks and I had a disagreement on another blog and she interjected that into this debate.

That all sounds lovey...

...if you didn't have a history. Letting others know what the score is will help them identify trouble.

I wasn't planning on continuing the "argument" here(technically that wasn't an argument--that was YOU harrassing people for no good reason)--you just need to know we have not forgotten the score. You've never acknowledged you were a pain. You don't seem to think you have a problem--and it appears the problem is continuing. So, no matter how reasonable you may sound, you are likely to do so again.

As for responding to what you said, I did several comments past and you've chosen to ignore it. But I did refererence it, re: your belief no planes were involved.

So there you go, sunshine: here's Jenny responding to something you said--

For the record, do you believe no aircraft were used in the 9/11 attacks?

FYI--I was inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt--BEFORE your "violence" comments. No one but yourself to blame on that one. :(

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Okay--I'll truce the matter, until further notice...

...or whenever you check the comments on you blog.

But you can go ahead and answer the aircraft question.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I have made my position on the planes clear

I don't think the claims of planes hitting the WTC towers and the Pentagon have been proved. I think that a video of "Flight 175" hitting the South Towers is clearly faked. I think it is odd that some of the flights were not in the database, I think it is odd that United Airlines did not acknowledge right away that Flight 175 crashed in New York, I think it is odd that Boston ATC thought Flight 11 was headed DC after it supposedly hit, and I find it odd that FAA and NORAD did not respond in a plausible manner to any of these flights. I think the latter is more likely because the flights were not real, and look at the war games and stand down evidence in this context.

I read your comment, Jenny, and I'll ask you here. What basis do you have for questioning my motivation? Your policing seems to be based mainly on my substantive position. If I was joining the "no planes = disinfo" refrain, you would have no problem with me.

You should get over my comment about your advocating violence against Nico Haupt. It was not just your comment - it was several people together, and yours was the mildest. No, none of them were serious threats, and if I was heard to be accusing you and the others of making serious threats, I was wrong. I found the comments objectionable and said so. I should not have gotten involved at all, but I did. Please get over it, and quit following me around and harassing me. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

Yes, I am a native speaker of English. That doesn't mean that I didn't misinterpret what you said. Misunderstandings happen on the Internet. How about we move on?

"You should get over my

"You should get over my comment about your advocating violence against Nico Haupt."

Fuck you very much too.

That was the WRONG thing to say to ANYONE who offered you an olive branch on your own damn blog, wanker. Now I'm begining to wonder whether you have Asbergers, but thanks to your demeanor, I don't bloody care.

You NEVER tell someone to "get over" a "misunderstanding" that a) YOU caused and b) YOU have never taken responsibility for--until now. Sort of. In a very passive agressive way.

You didn't think I was sincere, did you? Well, your bleeding loss, sunshine.

"following me around and harassing me. "

WTF? You want something to get over? GET OVER YOURSELF. I have no idea what you're talking about. I read 911Blogger weekly. If you post weekly, I'll probably read something you wrote and I might respond to it. LIKE ANYONE ELSE.

You did yourself in mate. All bets are off. That -1 that appeared? That's me. Am I mad? Ya think? You LIE about what I said and say I should "get over it"? AFTER I call a truce AND leave an olive branch on your blog?

You ungrateful bastard. I will never give you the benefit of the doubt again. You're on your own, "chum". >:-(

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


If you are trying to get along and REALLY want to move on, you DO NOT tell someone to "get over" something YOU started.

The fact you did it to two other people DOES NOT make lying about people's intentions anymore acceptable-- it points to a problem YOU have.

Repeatedly telling someone to "get over it" is how an arrogant asshole speaks to people they hold in contempt--it is really just another way of saying "fuck you and what you think".

You'll want to be bringing these points up to your therapist--that is someone who cares--because Jenny doesn't any more.

Congradulations--I no longer think you're a registered disrupter--instead I KNOW you're an arrogant idiot. I will no longer acknowledge your presence after this. Except, perhaps, to cheer on someone giving you a kicking.

Pretty much agree, but...

Two things:

1. I personally am agnostic about a lot of these theories, so I'm not ready to jettison people over which side of the fence they're on. Others who have spent more time than I have making careful analyses of these theories will have stronger views, and I respect that, but it doesn't make up my mind.

2. Even if they aren't included in full as "honored" 9/11 truthers, the mere fact that these particular people are taking these positions is quite remarkable. (Question for 9/11 OCT believers: what possible reason could they have for this behavior?)

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

9/11 "Mineta Stone" has been

9/11 "Mineta Stone" has been removed at that address.

Thanks; I fixed it. Want to

Thanks; I fixed it.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

You have made some claims, Victronix,

and I think you should back up your claims.

School books & bin Laden

School books state that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11.

According to Muckraker Report, Rex Tomb, the FBI's Head of Investigative Publicity, stated last year that

"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

And this is from Wired News from September 29, 2001:

"Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.

'There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged,' said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI's chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list. 'To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court.' "

So it seems nothing has changed. Bin Laden is still officially a suspect.

Now, in an attempt to challenge publishers of school books, can this be regarded as the FBI's official stance as regards the guilt of bin Laden? Any advise would be appreciated.

* * * * *,2100,47109,00.html

Thanks for posting this, GW

I’m wondering if there are any good websites out there with specific legal materials which may contain bombshells, not unlike the BBC video recently discovered by 911veritas. Any law students or legal experts willing to research this?

For example, there’s a mountain of evidence from the Moussaoui trial:
One thing that shocked me were the Stipulations of Fact that the defense agreed to—basically accepting EVERY DETAIL of the official story as true, without requiring any proof or foundation! What kind of defense lawyers would sign off on a document like that??? (Parts A & B, 5MB) (580K)

There’s also the civil litigation in NY, overseen by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein:

It's a massive project. Has anyone looked into this? Should we start a blog on it?

It's hard to second guess the defense lawyers

without knowing what they were up against. It's not clear that the court would have allowed a vigorous questioning of the official story, though you are of course right that basic legal principles should require that none of it be assumed. After the Fourth Circuit allowed the witness statements in, the defense may have made the best stipulations it could, using the parts of KLM's "testimony" that downplayed Moussaoui's role in order to save him from the death penalty.

Another case of interest is the insurance claims case, which apparently left the official story of WTC "collapse" unquestioned:

Lawyers on BOTH sides should be grilled.

Hmm. Let's see... Prosecution offers KSM's testimony, which conveniently absolves Moussaoui of being the 20th hijacker (contrary to Moussaoui's claim) in order to give his defense team leverage to avoid the death penalty. Defense accepts (making KSM a defense witness), and so precludes cross-examination or even further questioning. (Not that KSM would've been available.)

BTW, I wonder what form his testimony took. Was it written or videotaped? Translated by FBI language experts? Was he under oath? And was this before or after the waterboarding?

Good for a few laughs

Here's an example of what Moussaoui's lawyers allowed him to agree to:

GX00001 Signed copy of Zacarias Moussaoui's Statement of Facts (4/22/05)


If this case were to go to trial, the Government would prove the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .

9. Moussaoui knew of al Qaeda's plan to fly airplanes into prominent buildings in the United States and he agreed to travel to the United States to participate in the plan. Bin Laden personally selected Moussaoui to participate in the operation to fly planes into prominent buildings and approved Moussaoui attacking the White House. Bin Laden told Moussaoui: "Sahrawi, remember your dream. "

13. While in Oklahoma, Moussaoui joined a gym and bought knives. Moussaoui selected certain knives because they had blades short enough to get past airport security.

16. . . . After his arrest, Moussaoui lied to federal agents to allow his al Qaeda "brothers" to go forward with the operation to fly planes into American buildings. Specifically, Moussaoui falsely denied being a member of a terrorist organization and falsely denied that he was taking pilot training to kill Americans. Instead, Moussaoui told federal agents that he was training as a pilot purely for his personal enjoyment and that, after completion of his training, he intended to visit New York City and Washington, D.C., as a tourist.

17, 18, 20, 21. On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda operatives used force and violence to hijack [American Airlines Flight 11... United Airlines Flight 175... American Airlines Flight 77... United Airlines Flight 93... etc. etc."

And people thought Moussaoui was crazy to want to act as his own attorney.

There was some debate here about

Moussaoui and Mossadueq in Germany

I agree that justice has not been done in these cases. I'm just saying that the public defenders were operating within a system that did not want to know the truth.

Cross-examination was actually precluded by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals allowing the KSM statement without cross-examination, and the Supreme Court refusing to review this decision.

You are correct that this evidence is highly suspect. Our court system allowed it, which makes me sick as a citizen and a lawyer.

Thanks, Ningen

Although I can't follow you down the no-plane hole, I do appreciate your expertise & comments on the Moussaoui case. I hadn't seen blog5509 before... good stuff. Obviously you put a lot of time into it. I wish I'd read it before posting here!

Michael Morrissey suggests the project I had in mind, and you agreed it would be valuable: collate all the evidence in the various cases (civil as well as criminal) and mine it for gold. But it would require dz's organizational genius and thousands of UNbillable hours.

There are certainly individual lawyers with their own blogs & websites on 9/11, but maybe what we need is a central blog like this one.


I know I'm a broken record

on no planes, but when I see people attacking a position I think is well substantiated and very important, I respond and ask for that attack to be substantiated. I'm not asking you to follow me on this, and appreciate you agreeing to disagree on this.

I do think it would be valuable to look at all the evidence under two general and related themes: (1) what aspects of the story were assumed, and is it strange that these aspects were assumed? Would one expect an insurance defense attorney or a criminal defense attorney to agree, for example, that the buildings collapsed as a result of planes hitting them?

(2) how was evidence authenticated, and was authenticity questioned as vigorously as one might expect in a normal case?

Let's roll

I wish I could say “fair enough” on no planes. My argument against it (besides the inconvenience of hundreds of eyewitnesses, dozens of cameras, and the problem of proving a negative) is that it falls under “speculation.” And anything—ANYTHING—with that label should be avoided like the plague! At least publicly (like here). We’ve still got a long way to go in the court of public opinion. Why risk losing the credibility we’ve built up over the past couple of years? I believe the best strategy is to keep attacking the official story, consistently, with one voice, until no one in Congress or the media can say “9/11” with a straight face. We’re not there yet. If we let ourselves get distracted with a lot of “what ifs…” we’ll only invite controversy, fragmentation, public ridicule, and eventually self-destruction.

Then there's the "disinfo" slur...

On evidence, I like your idea. Let’s do it! How do we start? Maybe get a list of all the cases available online, then ask for volunteer lawyers or law students to sift through the documents, looking for assumptions that should have been challenged, proper foundations, etc. You’ve already done a lot of the work on the Moussaoui case. So have others, I’m sure. We shouldn’t be duplicating our efforts.

Can we start a separate blog on this? A good trial lawyer could offer guidance. Know anybody? ☺

If you can't say "fair enough"

on the planes, then it would be hard for me work with you. I utterly reject the idea that no planes is inherently not credible, and will continue to respond to baseless attacks on people like Morgan Reynolds. Which was done in public, and responded to in public.

I know this sounds harsh, but I don't mean it against you personally. It's just how I think on this issue.

I have considered the "hundreds of eyewitnesses" and the supposedly ubiquitous cameras, and stand by my conclusion that a video or photograph that depicts a physically impossible event is faked or shows planted evidence. Which raises two questions -- why were videos faked, and where is the debris that should have been left outside the impact side of the building, not hundreds of feet beyond the other side of the building.

I have no problem with disagreement, and would love to be proved wrong. But I have a huge problem with thought policing by self-appointed representatives of a movement. You are not doing that, but you are making the same arguments.

Here is someone you should worry about:

I don't see Ed Schultz inviting Morgan Reynolds onto his show.

As for a trial lawyer recommendation, I would love to see Mike Papantonio take this on. Last I heard, he brought a qui tam lawsuit against voting machine companies.

Any serious lawsuit would require a plaintiff's firm with substantial resources like his firm.

OK, “fair enough.”

And I don’t take it personally, but thanks for saying that. The only thing I can do is follow my own advice and not discuss publicly anything I feel weakens or divides the movement, unless there's solid evidence for it. Call it self-policing.

I’ll also look into ways to get this project off the ground. I don’t know Mike Papantonio. Is he on board with 9/11 truth? How about William Veale (he did that excellent mock summation to the jury in “Improbable Collapse”).
Bio here:

Stay tuned.

"fair enough" :-)

Thanks for understanding - even with the disclaimer it was harsh.

I don't know Mike Papantonio, but heard him speak on Ring of Fire about going after voting machine companies and liked him. He's taken on Big Tobacco and is one of the big boys, it seems. I have no idea if he is on board with 9/11 truth and would be surprised if he was, unless he has considered it carefully, in which case I would be surprised if he was not.

Thanks very much for the link to Mike Veale -- he seems like a great guy - smart and brave enough to speak out about 9/11 - and a fine lawyer with loads of trial experience. He's a public defender , and would likely have great insights on the Moussaoui trial.

Look what he would ask Mineta, even within the context of the official story:

Mike Papantonio

is shown speaking on his radio show in a documentary called "Jesus Camp." I highly recommend this documentary, which shows indoctrination of children into the "Army of God" at a bible camp in North Dakota. Papantonio, a professed Christian, is highly critical of the political activities of the religious right.

Order involving Silverstein and WTC 7

Opinion and Order Granting Third-Party Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (21 MC 101, 04 CV 7272)

March 9, 2007


Did you read the decision? The judge accepts the assumption that Building 7 collapsed from fire (p. 3-4):

"As a result, Salomon (and Citigroup, its successor) and the OEM maintained large stocks of diesel fuel in the lower floors of the building which, allegedly, 'intensified the fires that engulfed building number seven and made them impossible to extinguish.' IRI, 387 F. Supp. 2d at 302. The collapse of 7WTC caused substantial loss to Silverstein. Industrial Risk Insurers (“IRI”) paid his claim, became subrogated to his rights, and sued Citigroup, among others, for causing the loss, alleging that Citigroup was negligent for maintaining large stocks of diesel fuel in 7WTC. I granted Citigroup’s motion to dismiss, holding that, pursuant to the lease agreement between Silverstein and Citigroup, Silverstein had assumed the risks posed by Citigroup’s backup generator system and related fuel tanks, barring IRI’s suit."

Lucky Larry! He dodged a bullet.

Imagine his embarrassment if the NIST Report concludes that it was a controlled demolition.

All court cases seem to assume the official story

It appears that none of the parties have an interest in questioning the official story.

Don't Worry

They will all get theirs sooner or later.

Insurance companies always float to the top.

Whenever there is a disaster..... they just make us pay for it over time.

These insurance companies are all getting very nice policies right now. We have alot of tanks.... and they are very high risk. I wonder how much the White House policy costs.... we have several monuments which need coverage..... how do you put a replacement cost on Mount Rushmore?
Together in Truth!