Followup Letter to NC Physics Professors about the Collapse of the WTC Buildings.

As told in my earlier blog (, I had sent emails to 37 NC State Physics professors asking for help in trying to understand the contradictions of the 9/11 collapse of the WTC. I recieved no help at all after almost three months.

Here is a followup letter that I have just sent to each professor individually, and I have corrected the website for Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. I'm looking forward to some kind of response. I'll let you know.

While I am happy to have suggestions and corrections to my efforts, I think I must remind all of you that I am no expert, researcher, or physicist. There may be a lot of finer points I could make. But I am a layman, asking experts for some basic understanding. I think honest letters from laymen to the experts at universities is the best strategy to try to get academia thinking about 9/11 truth and even supporting it.
I think that getting no, or very little, response to simple questions from an average citizen like me is very telling.
We'll see what the lasted request brings.

But instead of only constructive criticism, I'd like to see others begin a similar campaign of letter writing to our academic institutions, for explanations and asking where they stand. They are public servants, all of them, and have some responsibility to our country. Let's begin a campaign to contact every person of expertise that should have a real understanding of the impossibilities of the official story. This is something we can all do, and you don't even need to get on a plane and take off time from work to do this.

Here is the followup letter:


I was very disappointed that I received no help from your physics department concerning the questions I raised in my email to you (which follows) about the contradictions in the official theory of how the WTC buildings collapsed. I know all of you are busy, but I felt that because of the importance of this issue, and what seems to me a blatant disregard of the evidence in the official story, I would have received some reply.

Actually, two NC professors replied, both saying that their areas of expertise are in different fields. That was surprising, as the contradictions seem to involved fairly basic physics that could be understood by most college and even high school physics students.

I simply would like to know if you:

1. Agree with the official story of collapse, and have some explanation of the nanothermite found in the dust samples at the WTC, the molten metal found flowing for days, the freefall collapse, the explosions, the pyroclastic dust, etc etc. The collapses seem to have all of the 14 characteristics of collapse via controlled demolition, as presented by Richard Gage at his website Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth (, .....I gave the wrong website in my letter) and not collapse by fire. I'd like to know how you accommodate these characteristics with the official story.

2. Do not agree with the official story, and feel that the buildings collapsed via controlled demolition, according to the evidence and eyewitness reports. I think quickly reviewing the information at will give all of the necessary details to help evaluate the controversy.

If you do feel that there are inconsistencies in the official story that contradict science, I would recommend that you sign your name to the list at Architects and Engineers as over 800 scientists have, indicating that you feel there should be a new, independent investigation of 9/11.

More information may be found at

Please let me know if you can help me understand, from an expert's viewpoint, the seeming impossibilities of the official story of the collapse of all three WTC buildings.


(my name)

The original letter to you follows:

----- Original Message -----
From: "
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:17:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: I need your help

Dear Dr. (name of professor.....each of 37 professors got individual emails),

I need your help.

I am a sixty year old dentist and father, and I am very troubled with what I have learned recently about the attacks of 9/11, specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center. I have come across information and evidence that seems to prove that the buildings did not collapse because of fire and plane crashes, but instead collapsed because of controlled demolition. I am a skeptical person, but I have a fundamental knowledge of physics, and the explanations seem to make sense.

But I am not an expert in physics. I may be wrong. I hope so. If the official story is wrong, it is of huge importance, and very unsettling. I need people with expertise to tell me that what I have learned is wrong, or right. Please take a few minutes to let me know what you think.

One of the most troubling bits of information is that several scientists have found nanothermite, an explosive, in the dust samples take from the WTC collapse area. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan and seven other scientists have presented this information in a paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal] . " Nanothermite, I have learned, is not produced commercially, and could only come from research centers with some connection with the government and military. I cannot think of any way this material could have been found throughout the area unless it had been placed before the attacks. It seems to show complicity by at least some people linked to an official agency.

Also, it has been shown that the Towers, and Building 7, collapsed at nearly free fall speed. Apparently, only a building brought down via controlled demolition could collapse at that speed and acceleration. NIST, which presented the public with the pancake theory of collapse, has not shown how this free fall could be possible with their explanation of the collapse. A building collapsing onto itself would be far slower, as each floor crashing onto the next would decrease in acceleration as it hit against the next floor down, much of the energy of falling being absorbed in each impact. Why no good explanation of this by the government? Why do we hear nothing from our universities and academic think tanks?

And there are other problems with the official story. There are many eyewitness reports of molten metal in the rubble after collapse, some of it days and weeks after collapse. Hydrocarbon fires cannot melt steel. The "meteorites" that were found after cooling were iron, and had traces of nanothermite in them. And there were many reports of explosions, some of them sequential. There was a massive amount of "pyroclastic dust" throughout the city. In fact, the collapses seem to exhibit all of the fourteen characteristics of controlled demolition, as presented on the website, This website is supported by the signatures of over 700 architects and engineers, all of whom feel the official story is inadequate. They are calling for a new, independent investigation.

The United States is extraordinarily blessed with experts in physics and other related sciences, in our educational institutions and in industry. When I feel certain that these contradictions to the official story are real and disturbing, I wonder why we are not hearing from these scientists. I begin to think I must be wrong about all of it. But the conflicts between science and the official story seem real. And that is why I am so troubled. If the official story is wrong, if there was government complicity, and coverup, the implications are huge. I feel it is important for the scientific community to express their ideas in this important issue.

I am a good American, and not a troublemaker. I spent 36 years in the Navy and National Guard. But I worry about the future if we have been told a lie about 9/11. I only want the truth, because I think the truth will bring a better future for my kids and grandkids. I would deeply appreciate your time in responding to this letter.

Thank you.

(My name, address, phone number and email address was given here.)

I sent this email and didn't receive any replies either

Subject: Please read this important piece by Richard Gage, AIA in World Architecture News

Dear Mr. Structural Engineer,

Please read the short article by Richard Gage, AIA here:

The questions raised in the article are now being asked by 841 architects and engineers, a number which is steadily growing. However, the media only ever claims that those who question the building collapses in New York have dubious political motives or are paranoid.

Being a curious person, I have become entirely fed up with this. So I am contacting structural engineers like yourself to ask, "How could the Law of Conservation of Momentum have taken a vacation three separate times in the space of a few hours on 911?" And, "Why isn't this of supreme interest to structural engineers and building professionals of all types?"

Also, recently, a scientific, peer-reviewed paper appeared in The Bentham Science Publishers' Open Chemical Physics Journal:

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

One would expect that the media would be quick to report such a finding. Unfortunately, this paper has already made it into ProjectCensored's list of 25 most censored news stories for 2009-10. It's all very suspicious and disheartening.

Architect Richard Gage has done a very convincing presentation for building professionals called "911: Blueprint For Truth" which may be viewed for free at:

Please take a look and let me know what you think of all of this. If the media won't ask structural engineers about it I guess I'll have to ask them myself.

Thank you


Are emails effective at all in getting the word out? Or it just the standard 1-2% return rate that salespeople hope for in their junk mail solicitations?

I figure that people like Structural Engineers have already placed certain keywords relating to 911 on spam filters.

Yes, it is sad.

I once thought that intellectual integrity was a powerful force in the universities in the United States. Here were places where it was safe to tell the truth, no matter what the consequences. And on many issues, that is the case.

But the truth of 9/11 is so dangerous to so many people in power that new and bigger rules and repression are being used.

So many in America are captives of this system of repression of the truth.

The media is a captive, our universities and other academic institutions are captive, our law enforcement agencies are captive, and certainly our political leaders who are supposed to be representatives of the people and not industry are captives.

Is it hopeless? Hard to say now. We may one day be celebrating a final breakthrough in which a great awakening takes place and even Fox news is explaining the contradictions in the official story.

But those defending and supporting the official story sure do seem to have all the trump cards.

Religious Leaders Are Also Captive

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

A few years back I sent out close to 1000 letters to the clergy of most of the churches in the SE Wisconsin area and sent them a speech by David Ray Griffin. I recieved one response from all those letters. The clergy in this country, for the most part, are captive to this system of repression of truth. I'm glad we now have a Religious Leaders For 9/11 Truth that trying to get some clergy on-board.
Take Care Matt

And, in fact, that is how this whole NC thing started..........

I had told a deacon (unpaid priest) at our church who is a retired FBI agent, that I had deep suspicions that 9/11 was an inside job. He was nice, but told me in no uncertain terms that he thought it was ridiculous (how could so many people be silenced, etc etc).
I told him some of the points about the collapse and nanothermite, but his mind wasn't willing to pick up the information and treat it with respect.
He was very nice about it, though, and had a great idea...............why not get in touch with some of the people with expertise, like physics professors at NC State, and see what they have to say.

So, that is what I did. As you can see, it was not productive.................but then again, it has been telling.

My church is part of a Christian tradition that is very liberal and open, but I have not found anyone there who is open to the ideas of 9/11 truth.
I'm sure the opportunities for good 9/11 discussions are even less fruitful in more conservative churches.

thought it was ridiculous (how could so many people be silenced

The question and the right answer as one. Say it is ridiculous to think about it will defend people thinking about it and silence many.

What you need to remind people

who express scepticism is that such an operation could be kept under wraps is that:

• They are assuming the numbers of those involved in planning such a black op has to be large --if they have any idea of how many people would be needed to organize such an operation to begin with.

• Compartmentalization limits knowledge of those involved to the area of their expertise without knowing scope.

• The Manhattan project was kept secret with great success and hundreds of thousand were involved in that project.

• Loose lips sink ships. Knowing the consequential severity of leaking information would be an adequate deterrent.


If they have most people following the lead, nobody is going to stick their neck out only to have it shot off.
I think this is what happens with the media.
A few placed threats and pressures or bribes, and the rest go along because if they don't, the rest will crucify them.

How could so many people be silenced

...that's because they weren't. Everybody talked. For heavens sake people, they talked. Before and after.

Admire your efforts, pfg

I was just contemplating sending similar information to all of the physics faculty here at East Carolina. I suspect the same type of non-response. This is very suspicious. If our claims are bunk why can no one seem to refute them!

There is a retired chemistry professor here who endorsed the nanothermite paper and is convinced on C.D. But of course, he is retired and doesn't need to worry about his job. Still he has a doctorate in Chemistry and taught engineers for many years.

I suppose we could ask some bone simple questions like:

1) In a building collapse, concrete:
a. breaks into pieces
b. explodes into powder in midair

2) A collapsing building takes the path of:
a: most resistance
b. least resistance

3) 47 steel core columns provide:
a. no resistance
b. some resistance

4) Objects can break through steel and concrete:
a. at near free-fall speed
b. not at free-fall speed.

5) 1-hour kerosine fires:
a. can melt steel
b. cannot melt steel

6) A pancake building collapse:
a. leaves no pancaked floors
b. leaves pancaked floors

7) 118 first responders at Ground Zero are:
a. lying about explosions
b. telling the truth about explosions

8) 890 Architects and Engineers are:
a. all incompetents and liars
b. accurately exposing explosive demoltion

Think they could answer these?


That is classic!

Very good

but please, please refer to freefall acceleration instead of freefall speed. Speed is distance divided by time, acceleration is the delta of velocity over time.

If you insist on the term freefall "speed", somebody somewhere will divide the fall distance by the fall time and claim freefall did not occur. In the case of WTC 7, in fact freefall did occur, but during a period of approximately 2.5 seconds.

This is not to say less than freefall acceleration is normal, not at all, but the key is acceleration and not speed. This should be apparent from watching Chandler's videos, Chandler's correspondence with Frank Greening and Tony Szamboti's excellent "Missing Jolt" paper.

Remember, F = m * a, not F = m * v

BTW: WTC 1 & 2 fell at a constant rate of 60 to 70% of freefall acceleration during most of their descent. Read Szamboti's paper and watch Chandlers 'Downward acceleration of the North Tower" for more information on why this is abnormal.

ETA: note how Chandler refers to "Downward acceleration of the North Tower", and not "Downward speed of the North Tower".

We really, really need to stop referring to "freefall speed".

Great stuff. East Carolina University! I'm not far from there.

I thought I was alone in Eastern NC as a 9/11 truther.
This area I live in, set between Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point Marine bases, and in the middle of Republican and Christian fundamentalism mentality, is not a hotbed of 9/11 truth activity.
If you aren't too far from me, we should meet.
I'm listed on the as the chairman of the area's 9/11 group in Morehead City, with the problem being I'm the only member!
email me if you think we can get together sometime.
Do you have a group you meet with?

Great questions, but one thing

"1-hour kerosine fires"

The kerosine burned out in a couple of minutes, so why not just say "1-hour office fires".


In just a few hours, I got a reply from one of the professors. He/She is obviously a polite and probably very nice person, but is completely noncommittal, as expected.
I don't feel I should give out his/her name, but I'd like you all to see the reply to me:


Dear Paul,

Although it is true that basic physics is involved, there also many very
specific, very technical aspects to your points, on which I certainly
do not feel competent to comment, and on which I feel it would take an
expert on a controlled demolition and chemistry comment. For
example, I do not know what "nanothermite" is, I do not know when a
build will collapse straight downward, under freefall and when it
won't, I don't know the 14 characteristics of collapse via controlled
demolition, and I'm not familiar with the particulars of architecture.
I also feel this quite likely the case for most if not all of us in the
physics department.

It is not that I am not sympathetic, but if you want a professionally
competetent opinion, I feel you are going to need to discuss this with
someone who actually knows about building demolition.

I'm not saying this is not important, I just don't know how to judge the
truth of the matter.


(his/her name)

Yes pfgetty

Absolutely do that. And refer to Kevin Ryan's "A New Standard For Deception"[1][2]. Thanks Adam.


Oh, I almost forgot. Also refer to the Jounal Of Nine-Eleven Studies (You've already referenced AE911Truth, so..) not to mention the RJ Lee reports.

I'll definitely have to reference Kevin Ryans piece.

Everything he does is excellent, and the best is that he is getting a good list of people at NIST and other research centers connected with the research and manufacture of nanothermite, along with other names of people who could be implicated in the controlled demolition of 9/11.


Note that RJ Lee's independent position and stature precludes any neutral observer to dismiss its work as "conspiratorial rambling". It's reports provide proof for extremely high temperatures occurring during the collapse. (This phrase is literally in one of the reports)

RJ Lee really covers the base of analytical chemistry, and I've referenced it many times in debates because the RJ Lee Group simply cannot be dismissed as "biased 9/11 truthers".

Neither can the USGS data, showing molten molybdenum as disclosed by FOIA request.

Anyways, thanks for your admirable efforts, pfgetty.

Molten molybdenum

Some people have said that this could have been caused by welding or cutting the steel columns after the collapse.

Some have even argued that small amounts of steel could have melted as a result of friction caused by plane impacts and collapse.

Factors involved

  1. The distance from Ground Zero where the sampling took place [1]
  2. The date and the manner of the sampling (To determine the possibility of contamination from clean-up operations involving torches and thermic lances) [2]
  3. The amount of oxygen in the sample. (Might indicate use of oxyacetelyne torch) [3]

Some of the WTC steel contained molybdenum as alloy (Sorry, no source, but I know this from the top of my head). Molybdenum is also used in (nano-)thermite variations [4][5][6]. Molybdenum ranks 7th in nature's highest melting points [7], with a melting point of 2617 ºC (4742.6 ºF). The theoretical maximum of office/hydrocarbon fires in is around 1000 ºC (1832 ºF) [8]. NIST tests showed no steel heated up beyond 600 ºC [9].

For friction, the amount of heat generated by impact needs to exceed the melting point of molybdenum and the shape of the particle should correlate to the event that created it. While large amounts of kinetic energy where released in the impact of the airplanes [10], the majority of that energy is used in the deformation of the WTC and the plane. The maximum temperature attainable in the jet fuel fireball is already explained above. Basically the friction argument is a nonsense argument for the sole reason that such a heat release on impact is implausible/impossible and not documented by anybody.

I hope this was useful. Comments by experts would be appreciated.


For iron-rich microspheres, Jones et. al. note:

"The RJ Lee report also provides a micrograph and XEDS data for iron-rich spheres observed in the WTC dust; for example, their figure 21 (below, left) shows an “SEM image and EDS of spherical iron particle [1].” We likewise observe high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres (e.g., below right and Fig. 4), which we find are unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch."

For the molybdenum sphere data obtained by FOIA, oxygen is present. However the USGS provides no explanation. Afaik, the place, date and manner in which the sample containing the moybdenum spherule was retrieved, are unknown. While more information is required to determine if the molybdenum sphere was created in clean-up operations, we already know that most iron-rich microspheres were not created in the clean-up operations.



Thank you for sharing this

Thank you for sharing this reply.

I've been contacting academics too. From the above, I now think it's worthwhile including some hints along the lines of "clearly, a collapse at near-freefall speed can only occur if the intact structure offers minimal resistance".

I like the 'citizen seeking help' approach.

[Re. Dearth, 11:09] FWIW, I prefer to send packages, not e-mails; at least the contents will be seen and they're easier to take to the staff refectory or back home.

Mailable printables:

Thanks. And I applaud your efforts.

While I like the idea of marching at ground zero, and confronting Congressmen at the Capitol, these things are not practical for me to do.
But I guess anybody can, as an honest citizen wanting answers, can write to our experts in our academic institutions.
Professors at universities do have some tradition of integrity and going the way of truth against the flow, and so I feel there is some possibilities of breakthroughs.
I feel that writing to Congressmen, while sometimes helpful, in this issue it is a waste of time. They don't even CONSIDER giving 9/11 truth a chance..........Look what happened to Cynthia McKinney!

Send her "Bluprint for Truth" and "Nanothermite" DVDs

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?

Yeah, right...

"...on which I feel it would take an
expert on a controlled demolition and chemistry comment."

Let me guess what either of those would say, if they wished to avoid the topic...
Controlled demo expert: "Yeah, it sure looks like a CD, but it would take a physicist and a chemist to evaluate all aspects of it and determine the cause."
Chemist: "I am just a chemist, I have never dealt with CD. I think a physicist and a controlled demo expert would be better at evaluating this."

Using these standards, I think the only person qualified would be one who has a PhD on controlled demolition of WTC complex... Talk about lengths people go to cop out...

I wonder how many of those physicists believe in Earth revolving around the Sun?... I can just imagine them go: "Well, it takes an astronomer to comment on that... I am not so familiar with the mechanics of movement of heavenly bodies..." etc. Pathetic!

Good point. In a word, their copouts are BULL**IT!

and very frustrating.
The problem is that these people are nice people who are worried about their careers.
After family, and health, the most important for most people is their job and job security. It is understandable that they would do all they can to avoid problems.

But then again, in education and science especially, there should be something called integrity and honesty.

It is just hard to come at these guys with attacks that are too harsh. It is hard to see them as evil. Just scared.

I admire your efforts!! I too have sent out 100's of queries...

Way to go!! Any effort to direct attention to the subject of 9/11 is worthwhile. We must continue with efforts such as these. While there may be no immediate impacting results, there is absolutely no doubt that the culmination of efforts does have a long reaching effect.

I have sent out thousands of email or written queries, notices, and/or packets of information to Professors and professionals. On more than several occasions, I have even slipped 9/11 Truth DVD bundles with flyers under the office doors of hundreds of University faculty.

I have seen Physics' professors give me a "knowing" look. [Anyone can do the math on freefall acceleration for Building 7.] However, I understand the dilemma many professionals face...can you imagine the stigma and 'labels' attached by peers in a University or profession (which often relies upon government funds)??..and also the liability of career security?? <--These factors play a part in the equation of standing up for 9/11 Truth.

In my neck of the woods...Texas Tech recently hired Alberto Gonzales despite the protest of more than 100 faculty. Past CIA veteran of 26 years and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, headed the Texas A & M system for about 6 years. Not surprisingly, the A & M system has been flourishing with funds ever since. Universities and colleges are dramatically influenced by the government (example: Steven Jones was let go just prior to Cheney speaking at the BYU graduation).

The bottom line: We must continue to get the word out. Every action counts - actions are cumulative.

Suggestion: College instructors are overwhelmed with communications. Make a much shorter note next time, and focus on something very simple such as Building 7 and a question of how it can fall at near the same acceleration as an object dropped from the same height. Attach a link or two. Ask them to check your math. [You could even employ a ruse that you are trying to defend the official story, but make the official version look silly. ;) ]

Wouldn't it be great if every single professor of science,

everywhere in the US, was asked to explain what they feel happened during that collapse, getting them on record?
I know it is hard for many professors to stick their necks out and get their head shot off, when they can more easily ignore the issue.
I can't blame them, in a sense.

But think if a few here and there begin to sign up and own up to knowing that the official story of the collapse does not make scientific sense. As more of them begin to stand up and be counted, maybe even more will do so, and maybe there could be a groundswell of awareness and honesty in our ranks of academic experts.
Maybe it would even spill over to the journalists, the worst of the professions as far as how they handle the truth of 9/11.

And one day.......................headlines in the NYTIMES..........................

And then I wake up. It is fun to dream.

Here is what is IMPORTANT...

It is important to continue to put the subject of 9/11 Truth out to the public in as many ways as we can. It might take 20 or 30 exposures to the subject before a person starts to investigate the subject. Put the subject matter out there...that is what counts. William Pepper says it well.

That is very true. It happened to me.

I was ignorant that there was a lot of contradictions to the official story. I was, at least, aware of a propaganda campaign that was not evidence based about WMD, but when it came to 9/11 I didn't have any suspicions.
But I was on a website for dentists,, and on it there was a political board. One guy, Ed Kendrick, continued to ward off the insults and humiliations and kept presenting evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. At first I thought, well, he is a curious character, but not, of course worthy of a lot of time. Little by little, though, I kept seeing his information, and this is early, like 2003. Well, by 2004 Ed had me just skeptical enough of the official story that I read Ruppert Murdoch's Crossing the Rubicon, and that was it.................and ever since.

You never know when you will hit just the right moment with the right information to turn people toward the truth.

Ruppert Murdoch's

Michael C Ruppert

Huge, 180 degrees from what I meant.

Thanks for correcting.

Focus on Building 7 with Physicists

and conservation of momentum, etc. This is much less 'problematic' since it wasn't hit by a plane and there is no issue of jet fuel. If you send physicists the nanothermite paper, they will simply claim to not know what it is and refer you to chemists, etc. (assuming they even answer). I suspect that even chemists will tell you they don't know what nanothermite is. This is our problem in trying to present this evidence.


Hey pfgetty, I think this effort of yours is really good. It can only help. The best thing about it is your honest and respectful tone.

We never know what the effects will be, or when. Our job is to try.


I've been watching for years so many people do much in this movement, sacrificing time and reputation and job security and money to further the cause.
Finally I feel this kind of thing could, COULD, be helpful, and it is something I can do.

Back in April 09

I sent a total of 200 plus letters to various physics departments including: NYU, University of Boston, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, and UC Berkely. I sent the e-mail in groups of about 10, titled " Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" with an attachment of the dust paper. I was not asking for a responses and got 2, one positive and one negative.

Now I e-mail individual and personalized letters to targeted structural engineering firms.

This is the letter I use:

Dear Jonathan,

When structural engineers see the way this 47 story World Trade Center building collapses on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, they immediately know something is wrong.

KMPH Fox 26 News

Over 700 Architects and Engineers, Including 29 Structural & Civil Engineers, Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on September 11th, 2001.

Read entire article (pdf)

Wow! That is impressive.

I'm beginning to think that if a fairly large group of truthers did what you have done.........200!...........we could just about contact every science professor in the country. Maybe we could even correlate, eventually, their responses.
Put them on record. Either they ignored the questions, or they put their name on one side or the other.

I wonder how many more have done things similar to what you have done.
We should all report what we have done and what responses we have had.

I emailed my high school's physics teachers

I said: "I have a physics question I would like to ask you about." That's all I said. Neither of them answered. Fear is everywhere.

BUT brave men are everywhere too.

This quote is from the last paragraph of an article on, a very important financial website.

"The idiots in the room are central bankers. They hold invisible wrecking balls and vats of acid. They busily help to coordinate the newest initiatives from the group of many new USGovt czars, each with semi-dictatorial powers, answerable to almost nobody. The clueless American leaders and awestruck US corporate chieftains and victimized American citizens watch in horror as the US Politburo is assembled toward creation of a communist state. Liberties were shredded following a certain event of grand deception and subterfuge in september 2001. Let’s just call it a Coup d’Etat, with the identities kept under wraps, since their hit squads are quite proficient and roam freely. "

One Helluva Statement!

"The idiots in the room are central bankers. They hold invisible wrecking balls and vats of acid. They busily help to coordinate the newest initiatives from the group of many new USGovt czars, each with semi-dictatorial powers, answerable to almost nobody. The clueless American leaders and awestruck US corporate chieftains and victimized American citizens watch in horror as the US Politburo is assembled toward creation of a communist state. Liberties were shredded following a certain event of grand deception and subterfuge in september 2001. Let’s just call it a Coup d’Etat, with the identities kept under wraps, since their hit squads are quite proficient and roam freely. "

Pretty bold!

Every once in a while you come across something bold and honest.

What we need is for one professor, just one..........

To tell us definitively just how the pressure is put on them to avoid making statements about 9/11.

The same goes for journalists.
Are there NO journalists working for mainstream media, or alternative media like DemocracyNow or Alternet or others, that could tell us just what pressurs or threats have been placed on their group to ensure censorship of 9/11?

I wonder what happened to Barry Jennings

Just wondering is enough to chill one's blood.

The private investigator returned Dylan's money...

... and said that this matter belongs to the police. Has the police been contacted?

If at first they don't believe...............

Keep trying. Remember it's like planting seeds of truth. With time and additional exposures many people have been awaken.. You most likely remember thinking this can't be true but the seeds had been planted and eventually you sought out the truth for yourself. It's hard to imagine how we became so gullible for so long but the masters of the matrix have practiced their craft since at least the time of the pyramids. The internet has given us our chance to really communicate with each other. Those that say they believe the official story are either 1) ignorant of the overwhelming facts due to lack of research or 2) part of the cover-up.

Welcome to the club Doc, great work!


I just wish we could get the alternative media on to our big stories.
I am very disappointed, and shocked, at the alternative media.
Amy Goodman, Joshua Holland (Alternet) and others are real turncoats.
We need a NEW media...........
How could we do that?

Your most welcome.

I don't really believe we have an alternative media either. If anything we're it. Most people like Goodman and National Public Radio and colleges etc are financed by corporations via foundations with deep interest in the status quo. When I first discovered the truth about 911 I didn't understand why the democrats weren't making this a big deal etc. Now I see that these events are orchestrated on a global basis by unseen powers with control over world wide media etc. While so many credible and professional people not just in this country but around the world are involved in trying to get the truth out I am amazed at how difficult it really is. This unseen power has so many people really afraid including Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky and lots of other people I used to think highly of. The internet is our best weapon and I am sure that it's the one new angle that wasn't really covered in this operation. Getting the information to go viral on the net would result in adding a new dimension to this fight. I am sure that most of the professors in most institutions have never done the homework on 911 and are part of the sleeping masses. The political ramifications in every workplace limit the exchange and most of us do not like to rock the boat. However, people like yourself and many others will stand up for the truth once they know it and our numbers are growing everyday. The average person can not get their head around this issue without a lot of resistance I know I was one of them. Good Luck and take care.