Pivotal 9/11 Petition Storms Canadian Parliament

Written by Wayne Coste
Feb 17th, 2012

Formal Appeal for Real WTC Investigation to be Accompanied by AE911Truth Tour of Canada

An unprecedented and potentially powerful Canadian initiative is entering a new phase that brings Canada one step closer to re-investigating the events at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

For the first time, the Canadian Parliament will respond, in at least some measure, to the calls for justice and accountability regarding the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7

First Steps Completed

On November 11, 2011, the petition for a parliamentary review of the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11 was submitted to the Government of Canada by members of the Canadian 9/11 truth movement. The petition will soon be formally read in Parliament.

It was signed by 1,405 Canadians, and under long standing protocols, a formal response is required within 45 days.

The petition includes specific points of evidence that must be evaluated and addressed in its response. It specifically asks several pointed questions about a range of evidence that has been assembled and validated by the 1,600 strong Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

“The forensic evidence includes, but is not limited to:

Total destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers with pulverization of concrete floors – proceeding symmetrically through the path of the greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall acceleration;
• Several tons of molten iron/steel found in the debris piles of all 3 high-rises and billions of previously molten iron microspheres in the WTC dust;
• Nano-thermite composite incendiaries discovered throughout the WTC dust;
• The DVD entitled: “9/11: Blueprint for Truth” by AE911Truth;
• The peer-reviewed paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, by Niels H. Harrit, et al. posted at the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal.”

One of the compelling reasons for bringing this petition to the Canadian Government is the death of 24 Canadian citizens on 9/11. While the deaths of the victims in the Twin Towers have been attributed to a fire-induced collapse, the evidence indicates that these buildings were actually destroyed by pre-planted highly energetic incendiaries and explosives.

The petition also explains that Canadian authorities must launch a new investigation because “Canada, now being a partner with the United States of America in the Global War of Terror, therefore has a responsibility to verify the findings of the United States of America 9/11 Commission Report before committing our military and other resources to the conflict.”

As with many other initiatives, the role of AE911Truth in the project is to be available for technical support and to attract publicity via an eight-city speaking tour of Canada – in accordance with our stated mission “to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice.”

Richard Gage, AIA, and AE911Truth will support the petition effort by giving presentations on the explosive 9/11 evidence in cities across Canada this spring

The Process

This petition project will be followed through the governmental review process using the Access To Information and Privacy (ATIP) system, which is Canada’s Equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This way, the public can find out if any violations of trust have occurred. If these tools are organized properly, this process could provide a unique and effective way to investigate the WTC catastrophe.

Next Steps

Our next steps include a variety of outreach activities, including screenings of the upcoming “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” and “9/11: Blueprint for Truth” (both English and French versions). Volunteers are currently being sought for these outreach activities, as well as the upcoming Canada tour. If you would like to help support these educational events, please visit www.911JusticeCanada.ca and volunteer or donate today!

http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/606-pivotal-911-petition-storms-canadian-parliament.html

Great for keeping the issue alive and on the public agenda...

...just as long as you don't actually think the Canadian Parliament is going to do anything about it.

From a little while back:: Libby Davies reads 9/11 Petition in Parliament, June 10, 2008:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=393_1213278314

Very honoured to have participated with this petition drive

Thank you David Long and Richard Gage for starting this very important initiative in Canada - Edmonton911truth in Western Canada joined forces with Ottawa and Toronto with a petition drive that began for us the night of February 22, 2011 ... The very night Dr Niels Harrit spoke in our fair city at a conference called " Edmonton Question 9/11." Neils Harrit and his wonderful wife and activist Parnille joined Joshua Blakeney, Professor Anthony J. Hall of Lethbridge University, Emily Vokes of Edmonton 911 Truth, R.b. Ham of Saskatoon We Are Change, Michelle Robinson of Calgary We Are Change and myself Doug Brinkman by signing the first signatures of the 900 collected in Edmonton. (Imagine if we did this in every city in Canada) The first video is testament to that night and the following videos are action reports I published over the year. More of Edmonton's petition drive can be found at http://www.ciactivist.org/

9/11 is Key, The Evidence is Clear, Edmonton Participates with Cross Canada Petition

NDP Candidate Lewis Cardinal on Afghanistan and Investigating 9-11

9-11 Civil-Info-Action "Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance" 真、善、忍

9/11 Truth Actions: Caribbean Carnival, Parade Edmonton Folk Festival

American People Better Wake Up

I have heard so many excuses for why "we can't deal with this". Getting to the truth matters dearly to each of us as citizens. If we are patriotic, and if we care about our country and how the "government" we are hiring runs our country, then we better wake up. If our values do not match up with what our leaders and our plethora of agencies (CIA,FBI, NIST, etc., etc....) are doing; and if they are lying to us and we don't call them on it and make them get to the bottom of it and get it corrected, then we are complicit to these crimes. We are then part of the problem. I urge everyone to fight for a new independent investigation that confirms the independent investigation already done by Richard Gage and the Architects and Engineers for 911 truth.Get involved. Attend the www.ae911truth.org meeting in Chicago on February 25th, 2012 at the Rosemont Convention Center 10:00 AM to 12:30 PM

A history of decision making can be filled with bad and good..

You said:

Attend the www.ae911truth.org meeting in Chicago on February 25th, 2012 at the Rosemont Convention Center 10:00 AM to 12:30 PM

For clarification, it is the Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont. I would highly recommend NOT going.

In fact, it is because of the decision to go to this event that I quit as a volunteer team leader after 2.5 years of working at ae911truth. I was not the only one to leave because of this either, however I will not say who else left - that is for themselves to say.

And why did you not say more about the event? You left it kind of vague, don't you think?

Allow me to start filling in.

Richard and team are not sure they want to publicize the fact that they are going to be speaking at a Nation of Islam event a day before Louis FarraCON and a day after the discussion: “BUSINESS WARFARE: SECRET RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BLACKS & JEWS”

http://www.noi.org/sd2012/schedule.shtml

Richard wants to think this is the event that will catapault the new investigation. I have not heard anything more ridiculous and contrary to the obvious, and yes I told him exactly that many times before leaving.

Who is FarraCON:

Those "Satanic Jews have taken over BET..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K75EPrtBz4

"Jews manage black... artists." Jews own media, blacks only succeed with Jew help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiQG23S2cZ4&feature=related

Whites "don't deserve any mercy....no sympathy!" "We and white people are mortal enemies"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSfZYqCOih8&feature=related

Remember it was NOI members that killed Malcolm X after Louis said Malcolm was "worthy of death":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=EfuZoJ7jopo&feature=endscreen

Louis FarraCON prasied the death of Malcolm X and defended the actions of NOI, "I'll kill ya":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HFwinVw4wQ

(Malcolms daughter later tried to have Louis killed for his direct involvment in her father's killing)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Oj0DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false

After watching too many films of this guy, I feel like I was just at a Hitler rally.

Sorry Richard and my former teammembers @ ae911truth.org - but this is so stupid and irresponsible of you.

Free speech is what America is all about, isn't it?

Just because AE speaks one day and Farrakahn the next does not mean the two are conflated.

I thought America was all about freedom of speech and opinion? (I am not American by the way but I looked up to America from afar because it upholds the right to speak and voice opinion).

I do not have a problem with the juxtaposition. This is not to say I approve of Farrakahn. I know precious little about him. I presume now that Obama signed the draconian National Defence Authorisation Act into being - basically a military-type law dressed in civilian clothing - Farrakhan would have been flung into prison already if he was that much of a danger and a hazard??

I think it's a pity for people to part company with AE over a free speech issue. If President Obama says something in a room and President Ahmdinejad says something in the same room the next day - we understand the two events are separated. There is no need to conflate them and make something sinister out of two parallel, but entirely different events, surely?

Dont blind yourself with imaginary lines.

Just because AE speaks one day and Farrakahn the next does not mean the two are conflated

C'mon!

FarraCON is the leader of NOI. Richard will be speaking at the NOI conference. FarraCON will be speaking too. The only way to not conflate is to not go. Anything else is conflated. There are no imaginary lines - except the ones you draw for yourself.

I went through that optimistic mysticism with too many people (ae volunteers) about this subject already.

I recommend you think about it for a couple of days. Especially after saying this:

This is not to say I approve of Farrakahn. I know precious little about him

So please, study.

And also, you are wrong here:

I think it's a pity for people to part company with AE over a free speech issue

I parted with AE because I will not be company to such an obviously blantant anti-semite as FarraCON, who also praises the death of Malcolm X. I dont want to get involved in the "JEW vs World" cults.

This is about responsibilty more than idealistic free speech.

Clear Enough

Thanks for your clarification as to your reasons for leaving ae911truth. Political smarts are also part of equation. Facts alone are not enough (to be successful), no matter how much we invest in them to win over others. We are political creatures as well. I support your reasoning here. Sometimes sound reasoning needs to be be questioned from all sides before delivery. I think you thought things through and made your choice. Too bad your efforts to persuade the leadership was not appreciated nor listened to.

Indeed

Thanks for that.

In the end, I wish watching Farrakhan for 30 minutes would have convinced Richard and many others at AE that going is bad idea. Unfortunately, it was not.

Not everyone was supportive of going after I sent in my research in dissent, thankfully.

But all I can do is stick up for my prinicpals. Thats why we are here, isn't it?

Rock On

Nor Cal Truth said...."But all I can do is stick up for my prinicpals."

Dedicated to you and anyone who has woke up to the "no plane at the pentagon" BS

Jim,

I enjoyed the video, and the spirit of the message.

Thank you for being patient enough and being open to the dialogue we have had.

NCT

Actually you are the one with patience - I've run low at this point along with my hopes of wining any Mr Congeniality awards. But I've listened to some of your shows on 95.1. Keep up the good work!

You are entitled to your opinion and decision

Nor Cal.

I bow to your greater knowledge.

Simple Truths

I really did not know a whole lot about Farrakhan until looking into him, after it was a potential engagement for AE.

I was so astounded after looking into him, it was obvious no one else at AE had spent 20 minutes looking into him objectively. I sent my research to everyone at AE to review, and it was...(The board was one vote shy of turning down the event after reading it.)

The decision was made to go ultimately....I put up as much of a fight as I could have.

Richard thinks it's a good idea, I completely disagree. It goes on....but I'll spare you the rant. ;)

Where is the best place now?

Nor Cal Truth, all groups make mistakes occasionally. AE has made remarkable progress even though Richard once supported CIT. Your scientific accumen is valuable to the 9/11 Truth movement. Could it be that the best place for you, and the movement, is still with AE?

Could it be that the best

Could it be that the best place for you, and the movement, is still with AE?

I really hope not Frank!

I am nothing more than a hard worker, I will probably be better without AE becuase Im tired of *(feeling like I am) babysitting Richard.

*edit added

**Also, it is on the table that if Richard does not go to the NOI conference I would entertain returning - however I know that wont happen, unfortunately.

Thank you for your comments,

Thank you for your comments, Nor Cal Truth.

I respect and appreciate you for speaking out in the best interest of the truth.

Cheers -

Here is to the "best interest of the truth!"

What's the worst that can happen?

.... if Gage talks to this particular audience? What are you afraid will happen?

I personally think Gage should talk to everyone. Let him talk to Islamists, Pagans, Fundamentalist Christians, Jewish people, Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Orthodox Greeks and Russians, Buddhists, Confucians, New Agers, Mammon Worshippers, the lot.

Even if they all smear each other, put each other down and claim the high ground. Even if some of them are grumpy, know-it-all, holier-than-thou or unpleasant.

Why shouldn't Gage be free to speak to them all? Free speech (to many audiences of different stripes) is needed to free up the democratic free flow of information - something America used to champion.

Do you have limits?

It has already cost Richard repsect and 2 very good employees.

It already is a loss, unless you consider presenting to people who celebrate the death of Malcolm X and call white people "mortal enemies' and Jews 'Satanic Jews" a good thing. FarraCON is a cult leader.

Richard has no limits about where he would present. He would go to a UFO conference if the board would let him, and he would go to a KKK rally too. I asked him, I'm not just talking shit.

He makes no distinction between responsibility and irresponsibilty. He thinks there should be no limits to his presenting.

That is the kind of leader that will drive a group into the ground. I'll link back to this one day, watch.

Now tell me, how do you see this bringing a new and impartial investigation?

@NCT: Prove Your Allegations

NCT: "Richard ... would go to a UFO conference if the board would let him, and he would go to a KKK rally too ... He makes no distinction between responsibility and irresponsibilty."

@ NCT: I've met Richard Gage, attended his events, participated in his conference calls and haven't noted any evidence of what you claim. His organization has been one of the best vehicles for 9/11 Truth thanks to its thus far sound positions and presentations.

If you expect your allegations to be believed you bear the burden of proof. Otherwise your cliams should find their way into one's personal Recycle Bin.

These comments remind one of the similar bashing of David Ray Griffin and are similar to those of other subjects who claim to have the best interests of the 9/11 accountability effort in mind while bashing its most successful voices with little evident cause.

He said he asked him

And I take his word over yours, if you don't mind.

If that was on the public mailing list, others will have seen it and there will be multiple sources.

If not, and it was one-on-one, I still believe Brian.

Richard Gage will speak at any event the board lets him speak. The KKK is unlikely, but that's clearly an illustrative example, and Gage and his current board of directors appear to lack the political acumen and foresight to recognize a damaging association (NOI) when they see one. AE911Truth is an organization reliant upon credibility and public perception. This is a shocking faux-pas.

It shows we won't have to expect critical discernment when selecting speaking venues.

And I don't regard the spreading of known, offensive, wedge-driving misinformation as productive, unless popularity trumps verisimilitude.

Does it?

The board

The board of AE lost a member due to this FarraCON BS.

The board won't allow Richard to speak @ UFO conferences anymore.

The board had 2 people vote against going to NOI and 3 for.

What Richard said to me was on our last discussion, when I was quitting and he tried to woo me.

No, I was not the only person on the phone and his dis-regard for where he speaks is a known fact to those who have worked side by side with Richard for a while.

Richard is a really nice guy, unfortunately, I think he is being terribly irresponsible.

And thankfully this kind of infomation did NOT go over a newsletter, otherwise they would have lost a few AE's.

Gee Aidan

Why don't you ask him yourself?

You joined as a volunteer a few months back and havn't done anything since (at AE).

And get used to the fact that some of us feel more responsible than DRG and RG.

The club is open to join when you are ready.

Aidan

Beyond asking Richard himself what his limits are to where he does presentations, is it not painfully obvious that I am accurate just by the fact that AE is going to speak @ FarraCONs NOI conference?

Did you follow my links about FarraCON yet?

Let me know.

yes, I have limits

I don't like people trying to set parameters on free speech. I don't like people smearing others in order to set parameters on free speech.

Mandela spoke to the racist Betsy Verwoerd, whose husband (architect of apartheid Hendrik Verwoerd) said black people were untermenschen who needed to live separately in bantustans and not sully white areas with their presence..

Mandela spoke to whites who said black people were 'mortal enemies'. He spoke to whites who spoke of "Evil Muslims" and 'Ugly Blacks" and "Satanic Jews". He spoke to blacks who said 'kill all white people' and spoke of "Evil Whites'.

I referred to Mandela earlier because he inspired me. He spoke quietly to all kinds of horrible, unreasonable people. He listened to what they had to say. In no way was his moral stature compromised. Indeed, many regarded him as an inspiration.

NCT: You ask "Now tell me, how do you see this bringing a new and impartial investigation?"

Frankly, I'm not that interested in 'investigations'.

There never was an 'impartial investigation' into the crime of apartheid, for example. Nevertheless, good South Africans (white and black) still managed to get rid of that ugly system WITHOUT the benefit of 'an impartial investigation'.

I'm interested in open democracy, free speech, open discourse, transparent debate and awareness-raising. I get concerned when people try to set limits (especially by means of character smear) and dictate to others who should speak to whom. There are a lot of ugly, disagreeable people on this planet. But you'll never get anywhere without open discussion and negotiation - even with people you despise - as Nelson Mandela proved.

What?

Frankly, I'm not that interested in 'investigations'.

Than why are you here?

I'm interested in open democracy, free speech, open discourse, transparent debate and awareness-raising

Oh, OK. I still recommend a little research on your behalf - I know, you aren't interested in investigating.....I guess I'm damned.

I get concerned when people try to set limits...

OK, Fair enough. But if you still havn't clicked on the links I provided above this is a terribly disappointing comment.

There are a lot of ugly, disagreeable people on this planet. But you'll never get anywhere without open discussion and negotiation

10 years after 9/11 and it seems that we have a disagreement on what is "get[ting] somewhere" for the movement.

Why am I here?

Answers to some questions put to me.

Q: If you are not that interested in investigations why are you here?

A: I am here because I am interested in the free flow of information. I am interested in press censorship and I notice 9/11 discussion is blanked out/censored by corporate-owned media. I come here because I find articles and information I don't find anywhere else. I lecture at a media college and I have directed many of my students to this site. The topics we cover are (a) identifying 'black holes' in corporate media (b) identifying 'taboo subjects' in corporate media (c) identifying partisan propaganda in corporate media and (d) paying attention to science journalism

Q: You still haven't clicked on the links I provided.

A: I have clicked on the links you provided. So have my students.

Q: This Mandela argument is weak/limp?

A: Perhaps it is weak to those on the American continent, who view Gage/AE from an Americo-centric perspective.
For the wider world, 9/11 is seen as a fraudulent event used to kick-start Americans wars of choice.
So a global audience is interested in (and observes) Gage/AE.

America might thank Gage's reasoned and reasonable approach when the time comes for America to stand on the global stage and explain its decade of lies and dissembling to the world.

Those who have to explain might welcome the presence of a calm, rational, articulate, open-minded, non-violent Mandela-type figure. I am not equating Gage to Mandela, far from it. I am saying Gage shares some characteristics with Mandela and these characteristics have value.

OK

I fought this so hard at AE, and I lost.

Thanks for the answers.

I think that you see this as a matter of free speech, still. I see this as a matter of irresponsibility, still.

I support both groups having their ways at social justice (NOI and AE), however I would add that peacefully and non-violently is the way right now. The history of NOI members killing Malcolm X is undisputable and Farrakhan's praise of it might conflict with those ideals. The words Farrakhan uses are his to choose, no doubt.

I just don't support these two groups working together.

NOI could easily have watched Blueprint for Truth online with a big screen.

if we give richard 911t venues to do

He will do them over non 911t venues as he would rather speak at our venues than tainted venues. but if we dont organise and if he is faced with a choice of sitting at home or talking to some other people ...i think we might be starting to understand RG just wants to get the word out to as many people as possible. the challenge is not to him. He already meets his challenges to the point of exhaustion. If anyone would like him to speak at less tainted venues then a bunch of people need to organise and keep him busy with that. RGs experience of slightly odd venues is that a lot of people approach him afterwards saying that of all the speakers he was the most credible as he talks mechanics engineering and architecture so could we say he may even be poaching people from less worthy causes and leading them to the truth.....¿?

Still no comparison

The Gage - Mandela/Nixon comparison is wrong. (Nixon comparison was made at Truth Action by Brian Good)

Mandela had already become an icon. Nixon (asshole or not) had been elected by the American people and thus had a mandate.

Both men had a mandate, and went to speak to a person/group who had polar opposite backgrounds and convictions, and the respective conversations were heavily tainted by these differences looming over them.

Both men emphatically didn't have to work as hard to convince more people to support them as A&E still has to. This is a clear distinction.

As eloquently explained by "rm" below, Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan aren't visiting NOI to specifically address the issues which make NOI so controversial: they are there to help shoehorn 9/11 Truth into their warped ideology, and will get speaker's fees for their efforts.

This isn't a free speech issue: Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan are free to say and do whatever they want.

And hard working A&E volunteers such as Brian are free to leave, and A'&E contributors are free to drop their membership, petition signers are free to withdraw, and "debunkers" and mass media hit job artists are free to exploit this blunder to maximum effect.

Me? I'm free to express my concerns over A&E's poor judgment. (I hope)

Freedom all around.

This thread is about a petition inside

Canada's Gov.

Let's hear more about this EFFORT.

OT

I'm sure you're really upset about this off-topic, rather than opportunistically using it to single me out, right?

Anyways, proceed. I'm utterly fascinated. Personally I expect the Canadian government to jump all over this petition and start an investigation immediately. I'm sure they'll be extra thrilled to go at it when they hear AE911Truth and some of its board members think Bin Laden is innocent and the hijackers are alive.

Maybe Gage can list Farrakhan as a reference. The Canadian parliament will be impressed. There's no point in hiding it, staff members will find out by visiting AE911Truth's website.

There is a good book coming out. I suggest you read it.

OK.. Who do informed people

think should be the leader of AE for 911 truth?

As a Canadian, and as a

As a Canadian, and as a person who cares about getting to the truth of 9/11, this petition to the Canadian parliament is embarrassing!

Trying to bring attention to unsubstanciated claims of super nano thermite, which lead directly towards fake hijakers, fake phone calls and so on and so forth.

And as usual, neglecting to mention any of the issues which there is real evidence for that exposes criminal activity.

I've heard two examples now

One involved Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong, yours involves Nelson Mandela and Betsy Verwoerd.

The difference between those occurrences and Richard Gage's presentation at the Nation of Islam is

(A) The scale, the relevance, the importance, the context
(B) Richard's talk is not a confrontation or a reconciliation but a union of minds.

Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan are invited because they will tell the NOI what they want to hear.

There were no muslim hijackers on 9/11, Bin Laden is innocent and the winner combination Northwoods/CD proves it.

That's what this is about, so these rather inappropriate comparisons, which involve political leaders engaged in diplomacy, have no bearing on an advocacy organization reliant on credibility, authority and public perception, speaking before an organization so controversial, without acknowledging philosophical differences if any, but hiding them, and catering to the host's beliefs.

This does not involve a sacrifice by Richard Gage, it involves payment.

The comparison is limp.

Nelson Mandela went to speak to white racists ...

... and members of his African National Congress party were shocked that he was going to go into the heartland of white supremacy in a racist enclave. They asked him not to. They decried him. But Mandela quietly insisted even though his followers thought he would be tainted by talking at a white racist venue in Oranje - seen to be fraternising and entertaining 'the evil enemy'.

Mandela was smeared by some, Yes, I'm sure someone asked (even rhetorically): Do we need to 'babysit Mandela'?

But Mandela went to Oranje. He stood up and spoke, even though white racists had spoken on racial purity there the day before.

Mandela sat down and had a cup of tea with the wife of the architect of apartheid, Verwoerd.

Mandela spoke with quiet, fact-based rationality to a bunch of white racists.

Perhaps his instincts led him to do this. Perhaps Mandela changed two or three hearts that day. Perhaps Mandela helped avoid the bloodbath everyone predicted for South Africa?

A lot of ugly Islamophobia and anti-Semitism has emerged from USA over the last decade. (Remembers Arabs are Semitic people so the word anti-semitic applies to the Muslim situation too).

Perhaps Gage has a deeper instinct to reach out in rationality and fact-based discussion to this NOI group?

Don't really see the analogy

That analogy might apply if someone like, say, the head of the Anti Defamation League or some other Jewish organization spoke at such a gathering of 'the enemy.' Or if, say, a Palestinian rights activist went to speak at an organization of Israeli settlement-builders. Is Gage--at the same time he makes the case for the destruction of the WTC on 9/11--also going to persuade the Nation of Islam to drop its anti-semitic (or, more precisely, Judeophobic) rhetoric? It would be nice if he could; but that's a tall order. And absent that, any success he has at the conference will likely have the effect of making AE911Truth's views appear as just another of those topics of interest to a fringe organization--the kind that people who don't consider themselves 'fringe' thus presume that they need not trouble themselves with.

The false dilemma strikes again

"Al Qaeda is innocent", and that's why Richard and Kevin are going. Their belief in controlled demolition has forced them into an exclusionary view of 9/11: since CD must have been the work of the US government, Al Qaeda must be innocent. Hence they will tell the Nation of Islam what they want to hear: that there is an opportunity out there for muslims to disclaim responsibility for 9/11 altogether. I disagree. Clearly, there were muslim fundamentalists involved. I also believe 9/11 would have been impossible without some inexplicable actions by the judeo-christian US government, rendering it criminally complicit. I suppose I'm the only one willing to be this specific about what I believe; after all, I am not among people who share that particular view, but I would likewise be branded a heretic in "debunker" circles for that same position.

9/11 has a lot to do with religion: especially with the three major monotheistic religions as well as zionism and the fundamentalist religion of "patriotism".

We are still fighting for Jerusalem, aren't we? Ask neo-conservatives (if you can get them to tell you what they really think) or watch the 9/11 hijacker video testaments. It's the elephant in the room.

Sorry to see you leave. I had you pegged as the most valuable contributor there. I understand your decision.

I agree very much with your comments..

SC,

I agree very much, with slight modifications. You said:

Their belief in controlled demolition has forced them into an exclusionary view of 9/11: since CD must have been the work of the US government, Al Qaeda must be innocent

I think more than their well founded belief in CD is a problem of tunnel vision: They are exclusively CD. Most ae volunteers are terribly under-researched regarding other aspects of 9/11. Many of them are even under-researched on CD! The best thing AE could do is slow down, become an internet-based information resource rather than world-tour wannabe rockstars. On top of that, AE could post Press for Truth square on the front page along with 2 links: 9/11 research and Journal of 9/11 Studies.

AE needs to educate their own volunteers along with their supporters about the 9/11 basics, in my opinion.

Hence they will tell the Nation of Islam what they want to hear: that there is an opportunity out there for muslims to disclaim responsibility for 9/11 altogether

Hopefully not. I tried to iterate many times that "we don't know" who did what. They might try to highlight that 9/11 truth could undermine the Islamiphobia-hype to some degree.

Clearly, there were muslim fundamentalists involved

Agreed.

I also believe 9/11 would have been impossible without some inexplicable actions by the judeo-christian US government, rendering it criminally complicit.

Agreed.

I suppose I'm the only one willing to be this specific about what I believe

You are not alone!

Sorry to see you leave. I had you pegged as the most valuable contributor there. I understand your decision.

What is funny is that I had you and 4 others @ Blogger pegged as the best contributers here (and elsewhere).

I was really hoping that I could get the group of you all to help with constructive criticism and volunteer some time @ AE!!! ;) (oh, optimism -ha ha)

media censorship

SC writes: "[A&E's] belief in controlled demolition has forced them into an exclusionary view of 9/11: since CD must have been the work of the US government, Al Qaeda must be innocent"

A couple of us have scoured AEs site, press releases, etc and nowhere do we find evidence of this.

In conversations over coffee with AE members in my country, their considered view is that ALQaeda patsies were involved and entrapped (similarly to the Christmas Tree/Underwear/Shampoo Bombers/) but that US insiders or outsourced outsiders were involved given the blatant evidence of complicity.

But these engineers (two of which lecture in our university faculty) say that at no point did they receive notification from AE telling them that "AlQaeda is innocent".

NCT writes: "[AE has] a problem of tunnel vision: They are exclusively CD".

I should hope they are 'exclusively CD'.

That is their knowledge area - the area where they can claim technical understanding.

When I consult my oncologist, I am glad to know he has laser focus and tunnel vision in his cancer expertise and is 'exclusively oncology' - it's what I am consulting him for.

NCT writes: "The best thing AE could do is slow down..."

Why? Is this the limit you would like to set for AE?

NCT writes: 'They should become an internet-based information resource"

They already are.

NCT writes: " rather than world-tour wannabe rockstars."

That sounds like a snarky put-down of people trying hard to get a message out in the face of

(a) a total corporate media BLACK-OUT, also known as 'censorship' .
(b) character assassination and disinformation.

Where is America's famous 'free and impartial Fourth Estate, watchdog for democracy'?

Dragging on now..

Here are the facts:

AE chose not to promote this event.
AE has not mentioned this in their newsletter or websites.
AE knows it is not a completely wise decision, this is evident by the lack of promotion.
You would not know about it had I not told you.

Tell you class what you want. I have not even told you the other half of the story.

Your 'media censorship' angle is not releveant here. This is a case of self-censorship by AE based on an already bad decision by AE.

Please take questions to Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan now.

Answering Simple Truths even more.....

SC writes: "[A&E's] belief in controlled demolition has forced them into an exclusionary view of 9/11: since CD must have been the work of the US government, Al Qaeda must be innocent"

A couple of us have scoured AEs site, press releases, etc and nowhere do we find evidence of this.

NCT writes: "[AE has] a problem of tunnel vision: They are exclusively CD".

I should hope they are 'exclusively CD'.

That is their knowledge area - the area where they can claim technical understanding.

Little to your knowledge, I was the one putting up the biggest fight at AE to have any and all permanent links to the Occupy movement taken down. In the end I won that battle. Why? Well, did AE support it's tea-party activists or it's Democrat activists or Rupublican activists with direct links and cross-support? NO. In fact they don't even write or carry an article about Bob Graham wanting a new investigation for one reason, yet they cry foul for members of our Government not investigating 9/11.

If what you say is true, why would AE act as investigators, detectives or judges enough to write the recent article with this headline:
Why is Senator Maria Cantwell Shielding NIST from Investigation?

It would not hurt AE or the 9/11 movement to support hard evidence and critical figures like Sibel, Graham, and others. It might even help! As I said, many volunteersat AE aren't even familiar with these stories and the facts behind them.

NCT writes: "The best thing AE could do is slow down..."

Why? Is this the limit you would like to set for AE?

Because while on the outside it may look like things are getting done, the truth is that inside AE is a mess. They are how late on the Experts Speak Out movie now? Oh well, at least they booked an engagement to make some sales at the NOI conference (that would not promote because it is so shady).

NCT writes: 'They should become an internet-based information resource"

They already are.

And so much more, thats the problem. You don't see '9/11 Research' trying to book European tours. You know how much it costs to do that kind of stuff? Are you paying the bills? No, NOI is and broke donors.

NCT writes: " rather than world-tour wannabe rockstars."

That sounds like a snarky put-down of people trying hard to get a message out in the face of

(a) a total corporate media BLACK-OUT, also known as 'censorship' .
(b) character assassination and disinformation.

Except for a couple of people most at AE I would consider friends more than researchers. But they all know I don't mind using a razor-toungue to paint the picture. Please see my above comment about "Self Censorship" by AE. They chose not to tell you and your class about this event with NOI, remember?

I was the one that 'blew the whistle' on this event. Are you shooting the messenger now?