Favorable coverage from Washington Times' "Inside the Beltway"

It's not often that this mainstream an outlet does anything other than a hit piece, but here is one of those rare occasions. Washington Times welcomes comments so let's spread some truth.

Incidentally, this blog entry and comments should be used as a compendium for press coverage. If you do a Google News search on "9/11 truth" you'll find that this global push for truth which occurred on 2/19 is getting picked up on by quite a few outlets, some favorably, some not. I would have thought that the right wing Washington Times would be the last place on earth for a favorable piece. Maybe times are achangin'...



A lingering technical question about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks still haunts some, and it has political implications: How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.

"In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially, exploded outwards," says Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Mr. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, managed to persuade more than 1,000 of his peers to sign a new petition requesting a formal inquiry.

"The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers' destruction. We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials," Mr. Gage adds.

The technical issues surrounding the collapse of the towers has prompted years of debate, rebuttal and ridicule.

He is particularly disturbed by Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, which was not hit by an aircraft, yet came down in "pure free-fall acceleration." He also says that more than 100 first-responders reported explosions and flashes as the towers were falling and cited evidence of "multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft. at 60 mph" and the "mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking."

There is also evidence of "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material found in the World Trade Center dust," Mr. Gage says. The group's petition at www. ae911truth.org is already on its way to members of Congress.

"Government officials will be notified that 'Misprision of Treason,' U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382), is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act," Mr. Gage says. "The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial."

Direct link to article


Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thanks, Adam

Great post, glad to see more cracks in the proverbial dam...

Let's flood 'em!!!

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

Leverage this!

This article by the Washington Times can be used to leverage a follow-up 'Press Release' regarding the call for a Grand Jury... "1,000 Architects and Engineers calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials." Could be sent along with Media requests-- and alongside the letter of introduction.

Consider: We have a mainstream source... It mentions the milestone... It mentions the coming bombshell of the Grand Jury... and it puts the KSM trial in context, saying "the implications are enormous and may have a profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial." Brilliant!

What about Appendix C?

AFAIK, the only publicly acknowledged forensic examination of materials from WTC 7 is found in APPENDIX C : Limited Metallurgical Examination . That looks like a smoking gun to me.

"Man muß die Dinge so einfach wie möglich machen. Aber nicht einfacher" -- Albert Einstein

Washington Times?

"How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? " That's as strong a lead as I have seen.

What's up with the Washington Times? Here is from Wikipedia on recent shakeups there. Weird. I hope this is not a set up of some kind.

"On November 9, 2009, the Times' chairman and CEO, Dong Moon (Douglas) Joo; its president, Tom McDevitt; and its chief financial officer, Keith Cooperrider—all members of the Unification Church—were abruptly fired and Jonathan Slevin, a Times vice president, was appointed Acting Publisher. Thereafter, Solomon resigned as executive editor.[57] Richard Miniter, editorial page editor and vice president of opinion at the Times, was also fired during the shakeup. After his termination, he filed a discrimination complaint against the paper, saying he was coerced into attending a Unification Church religious ceremony that culminated in a mass wedding conducted by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. [58][59]

"On November 30, 2009 the New York Times reported that the Washington Times would no longer be receiving funds from the Unification Church [$1.7B over the years!] and might have to cease publication or go to online publication only.[38] In December 2009 the Times announced it would lay off 40% of its 370 employees and stop subscription service, instead distributing the paper free in some areas of Washington including branches of the government. It said that it would focus on its "core strengths," which it identified as "exclusive reporting and in-depth national political coverage, enterprise and investigative reporting, geo-strategic and national security news and cultural coverage based on traditional values." [60] Later that month the Times announced that it would cease publication of its Sunday edition, along with other changes partly in order to end its reliance on subsidies from the Unification Church ownership.[61] On December 31, 2009 it announced that it would end its coverage of sports.[62][63] In January 2010 the Times announced that it would move out of its headquarters in Washington and probably move to Maryland or Virginia.[64] On January 29, 2010 the Times announced the hiring of Sam Dealey as editor. He is a media fellow at the Hoover Institution and had previously worked for the U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times, CNN, and other news outlets.[65]"

- omniadeo

Wahington Times New Editor Sam Dealey "libertarian-conservative"


"Dealey describes himself as a "libertarian-conservative." He goes off on Fox News and GWB.

This is sounding interesting

- omniadeo

Washington Times

'I hope this is not a set up of some kind.'

A set up? Not that such suspicions should be dismissed out of hand: If I'm not mistaken, they were the ones who published Morgan Reynolds 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?' piece back in 2005, enabling this Bush administration insider to gain a reputation as a friend of the 9/11 truth movement, when he turend out to be anything but.

Here, though, it's a report about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth--quite different.

Besides, rather than a set up, I tend to see this more likely as an instance of the Unification Church's sending a message to the political establishment in Washington--a kind of 'shot across the bow,' sort of a way of saying, 'We could blow the lid of this, you know. How interested are you in seeing that we keep this story off our pages?'

It wouldn't be the first time. Back in the GHW Bush administration, about 1989, it was none other than the Washington Times that ran stories about pedophile rings that allegedly implicated White House personnel (this reporting ties in with the material presented by John DeCamp in his book 'The Franklin Cover-Up'). It may have been no accident that later, in his retirement years, the elder Bush was seen speaking in praise of the Unification Church at various events.

I would agree on the caution

I would agree on the caution -- there is a history here of promoting stuff that will ultimately harm the efforts (Reynolds). Perhaps it was a mistake on their part, but I doubt it.

My take on this article is that the Misprision of Treason issue is being promoted heavily since it concludes with that. Why?

Recently someone said this:

"The Supreme Court, long ago (in like 1822), limited the scope of the misprision of felony law to people who take active steps to conceal a felony."

So misprision of treason might not even apply to members of Congress since they are not actively trying to conceal anything, just ignoring it.

Has anyone looked into this?

Is this issue potentially a mine-field, if people don't really know what they're doing on the issue but are going around talking about it like they do? I don't know. Have real lawyers looked at this (not the same lawyers that created the petition in NYC that called for the State of NY to rewrite it's Charter for the sake of their ballot initiative)?

This may just be good media coverage, but it would be a good idea to look closely at the legality of accusing people of Misprision of Treason if it does not apply, among other potential pit-falls.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court does not have the final say on law.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

South Korea


the firings are for show; play acting. Something is going on here. What it is, I don't precisely know, but the Washington Times is still a Unification Church entity.

Maybe the Unification Church is getting nervous with all the American troops stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan? With our troops stationed all over the world, South Korea's position vis-à-vis North Korea is significantly weakened.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

My favorite is the very last line...

"Stay tuned for more in this space. " Let's hold 'em to it!



I notice realist_123's comment offers the same 'explanation' I attributed to artist (and one time WTC architect?) Paul Laffoley here on 911B a few days ago....

realist_123: "I see this as something else. Having spent time in another life working on worst case contingency plans, this feels more like a WCCP. Such as, in metropolitan areas where government agencies are held, buildings over X height must include built in demolition explosives to minimize collateral city damage in case of terrorist attack. Although this would be both prudent and justified on many levels, if the knowledge got out that buildings had such a fail safe, it would be quite hard to get normal bureaucrats in them to go to work. Not to mention, knowing that you are sitting on HE tends to distract from work. I could be (and probably am) way off base here - but that would make me feel safer... as long as I didn't have to work there ;)"

Laffoley here:

I can't find a reference to a 'worst case contingency plan' (WCCP) on Google.

realist_123 seems to acknowledge his/her cognitive dissonance, and Laffoley thinks 'out of the box', but it was interesting to me.

edit: Out of 21 comments so far (2nd most viewed), the four negative comments are an arrogant one liner, the one mentioned above, one who suspects the 'same guy from the grassy knol', and the classic 'loony' shouting 'LOONY LOONY!' like he needs sedation.

edit: I just found out someone called 'WarWheel' posted a similar theory on the Truth Action Ottawa forum a few days ago:

"The most reasonable explanation for the presence of explosives in the buildings, along with the infrastructure to orchestrate their firing in a controlled manner is that they were placed there by the city, and for a benign purpose, some time after the 1993 bombings."

To be clear - I am not any of these people and this doesn't sound very plausible to me. WarWheel's justification for this theory is that is less 'complex'. I'm not so sure of that either. It certainly sounds more benevolent .. but wouldn't most people be concerned that their office was rigged?


It looks like the deliberate spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt.

beware the Sunstein mission ...

we should warn about Sunstein's mission against "crippled epistemology" and the use of cognitive infiltration in order to discredit and silence anyone who asks questions about 9/11. Sunstein has advocated 'secret' payments to experts outside the government, to shape opinion .. we should be on guard for indications of cognitive infiltration, especially in the comment sections of mainstream media sites.


Its interesting that mikezimmer got voted up for (correctly) calling FUD, but since his comment appeared I've been voted down! Don't shoot the messenger folks .. the way to stop the Sunsteins is, as johnscriv points out, to be on guard - and that means being aware. The 911 truth movement does not have a 'crippled epistemology', and so Sunstein's methods will fail as long as we stay rational.

edit: A couple of other things .. another stated aim of the Sunstein paper was to cultivate paranoia (for purposes of alienating new members etc.). I don't think we have much to fear at this point from theories like the one above and we should be careful not to attack people like 'WarWheel' for simply proposing it. And it's worth bearing in mind that, to some degree, the declassified Sunstein paper is what certain people want us to think they are thinking.

Also it is curious how assuming any particular piece of disinformation comes from the top can (kind of) seem to prop up 'incompetence' theories, such as they are - if the best stuff the super wealthy secret services can come up with is easily disprovable theories of the above sort. But, I suppose, what options do they have..?

I LOVE it!

On the comments section at the Washington Times:

This 'debunker' called panama_expat said:

http://www.debunking911.com/ Nuff said.

And then the truther Phaquor said:

Note the contrast, that the single mystery author behind the debunking911 site thinks it irrelevant to disclose his or her identity, while 1000 architecture and engineering professionals have all have put their reputation and jobs on the line by signing their full names to this petition asking for a first real investigation of 9/11. Talk about nuff said!

Explosives required

Adam, I appreciated your comment:

"I love the irony of how the people who deny the demolition of the three WTC buildings based on how huge a job rigging the building would be with tons of explosives, too big a job to go unnoticed...... are the same people who insist that the buildings' total demolishing was somehow possible with no explosives at all."

It's like they are constantly arguing against themselves.. what's that all about?! Its also strange that this contradiction is rarely pointed out by people in debates. Is your reasoning faulty somehow? The situation seems quite bizarre.

another example

of "official conspiracy" theorists arguing against themselves is their argument that if the govt was part of the conspiracy, it would have to involve "thousands and thousands", but otherwise, the conspiracy need only involve 20 or so Arab "terrorists"... go figure

Technical Assessment

influence device,

Van Romero, the expert on the effects of explosives on buildings, said on September 12, 2001, "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points." -- http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

Now the above particular quote has nothing to do with Romero's half-hearted retraction two weeks later that explosives were not in the towers. The quote above stands alone as a technical assessment of the quantity of explosives needed to do the job, not that explosives brought down the towers.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

This article, Explosive News ...

represents a significant milestone in mainstream reporting about 9/11. It is a notable departure from the hackneyed ad hominem attacks and derisive scorn that typically masquerade as journalism when the subject of 9/11 is occasionally addressed in the corporate media. This article is exceptional simply because it reports the pertinent facts accurately, without interpretation or opinion... this is what journalism is all about. Amazing to see the Washington Times leading the way toward professional journalistic treatment of 9/11 by the mainstream media.

Media Updates


Letter to Editor in Aspen Times

Raritan Twp. man involved in group calling for new investigation of World Trade Center destruction

^The anti-truthers are dominating the comments in that last one.

Incidentally, does anyone find it odd that in some comments sections, like the Washington Times, our side dominates resoundingly, yet on other sites, the anti-truthers dominate?

Here's a guy worth blitzing...

He writes a hit piece in which he slams Jennifer Harper and accuses the movement of trying to "aid terrorists" and then he "removes" a comment while still letting us see what the comment was. You can't make this stuff up folks, here is a screenshot (and when he says "the kook who wrote the article" he's referring to the Washington Times' Jennifer Harper).


'I also do not have a clue what this means: false flag attacks'

That says it all.

Keene Sentinel

From the Keene Sentinel:

I realize the 9/11 Truth Movement isn’t going away, and that many scientists and politicians voraciously challenge the accuracy of the 9/11 Commission Report. The truth movement is especially active in the Keene area, as even former mayor Michael E.J. Blastos says he questions the commission’s conclusions.

The movement’s basic tenet, that the collapse of the World Trade Towers was an inside job through controlled demolitions, is terrifying if it’s true. I’ve seen some of the conspiracy-theory films that break down the tower collapses second by second, I’ve seen productions that debunk those assertions and I’ve seen live truth movement presentations. And I’ve tried to be objective.

But when you sweep away all the layers — the murky mix of truth and theory — you uncover the bare premise of the truth movement: that our government, at the very least, was an accomplice to the killing of more than 3,000 of its own citizens.

That’s the foundation on which the mountain of information is built.

I just don’t see it.

Look, we know there’s some really cruel governments and regimes around the world that murder their own people. And I staggered out of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington last fall, better able to grasp what humans are capable of doing to each other and more mortified than ever.

But to believe we killed our own people — be it to start the war in Iraq or other intentions — is just too much for me. I don’t know how, or if, you can sugarcoat that allegory, but it’s what I always come back to. ...

No registration required to comment.

Keene Sentinel Comment

"But to believe we killed our own people — be it to start the war in Iraq or other intentions — is just too much for me."

-Take a deep breath, have a drink, ... deal with it, because you got it!

Thanks for posting this Adam.

Thanks for posting this Adam, and thanks for all you do and all you endure to stand up for the truth.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.