Former FBI agent Colleen Rowley discusses still unanswered questions about the lead up to 9/11

Source: The Real News Network
Date: October 23, 2009
Url: http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4363&updaterx=2009-10-23+09%3A36%3A36

Former FBI agent Colleen Rowley discusses still unanswered questions about the lead up to 9/11. Coleen Rowley is a former FBI agent and whistleblower. Rowley jointly held the TIME "Person of the Year" award in 2002 with two other women credited as whistleblowers.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnLMAzUIb5M&feature=player_embedded

Where are the headquarters officials?

One would like to think the absurdity of the news coverage would register at some point. Why haven't the officials who sat on the investigations come forward to explain their conduct? When do news outlets pick up a phone and call the FBI to get these officials on the air? We should at least hear before every such interview, "We contacted X but they don't believe the public deserves answers to these questions. They refuse to explain their conduct."

“Still unanswered questions” isn’t working

Coleen Rowley spoke briefly at American University in Washington DC on October 21, at a ceremony to present the 2009 Sam Adams Truthtelling Award to Col. Larry Wilkerson. (It was an impressive panel that included Ray McGovern, Daniel Ellsberg, and Craig Murray. More info at her post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/colonel-larry-wilkerson-t_b_...

Wilkerson gave an impassioned speech about moral courage, the failure of the media to do their job, and our duty as citizens to demand truth and accountability from our elected officials.

Great.

Afterwards, a few of us from the dc911truth group approached Rowley to ask her where she stood on 9/11 (no camera, unfortunately). She would only go so far as to say we needed a new investigation, that she had signed the petition for it, and she supported the NYC CAN initiative. (She also mentioned Jon Gold…in a good way.)

However, when asked about Richard Gage’s work, the nanothermite paper, and the scientific basis for controlled demolitions, she tensed up, saying she wasn’t a scientist, didn’t have the knowledge, and would need an advanced degree to understand the theories. She held firm and was clearly unwilling to discuss it further.

That was very discouraging. For whatever reason, she would not (publicly) veer from the official script of al Qaeda, the 19 hijackers, Moussaoui and the FBI lapses.

Ray McGovern had the same response. He said he’s looked at the scientific evidence but isn’t convinced that it’s strong enough to support controlled demolitions. Including Building 7, presumably.

This, after a speech about moral courage and the duty to be informed.

It leaves us wondering why these “truthtellers” and “whistleblowers” even bother with events like this. They garner our admiration for having the courage to speak out; they urge us to do likewise. Yet when we do, when many of us risk our own careers and reputations to follow the truth regardless of where it leads, they refuse to go out on that limb with us. Why?

“Unanswered questions” is safe. Saying we need a new investigation is safe. But unless these public figures move beyond that and start using their soapboxes to challenge the official story, with more courage and conviction, nothing will happen. The 9/11 Truth movement will remain stagnant, divided, demoralized -- and contained.

Do they know something that we don’t?

An Eye Opener

This is very interesting information about Rowley and McGovern. Why do they bother trying to be part of the 9/11 truth movement if their responses are so tepid about scientific evidence? Edmonds for all her bravery has stuck to a script as well about finding documents about the hijackers and Al Queda and warnings, but that's not enough, and I'd like to see her say something more in depth about Building 7 for instance and a slew of other anomolies.

(She also mentioned Jon Gold…in a good way.)

Litmus test

“Unanswered questions” is safe. Saying we need a new investigation is safe. But unless these public figures move beyond that and start using their soapboxes to challenge the official story, with more courage and conviction, nothing will happen. The 9/11 Truth movement will remain stagnant, divided, demoralized -- and contained.'

Well said USAPatriot.

If the 9-11 Truth movement has a litmus test, then the controlled demolition of the three towers is it.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

I would put it a little differently

If they were to apply their 'unanswered questions' position to include those about how the WTC buildings came down, then that might cover it. If they hesitate to draw conclusions, OK--but stop pretending that the official version of how they came down is sound.

And in general, what ultimately is most important for people ostensibly friendly to truth-telling isn't so much the specifics of CD on 9/11, but that they stop treating the account of bin Laden and al Qaeda hijackers being responsible as having been proven. Sticking to your area of first-hand knowledge, as a whistleblower, doesn't give one license to be gullible--and thereby encourage others to be gullible--regarding other critical aspects of the 9/11 story.

“Unanswered questions” is safe.

"“Unanswered questions” is safe. Saying we need a new investigation is safe." These are also factual claims.

Rowley was a Special Agent with the FBI, who witnessed her superiors throwing up ridiculous roadblocks to an investigation that could've disrupted the 9/11 plot. She blew the whistle and became a famous public figure. As was pointed out above by noise, no officials have been held accountable for the 'failures', and the media have dropped the ball, as usual. Rowley has no background for weighing the evidence for controlled demolition. And though she has repeatedly, willingly talked about and even testified to Congress about what she witnessed regarding the handling of the Moussaoui investigation, it seems clear from her statements that she thinks it was really bizarre and deserves to be fully investigated, but that what she witnessed is not by itself hard evidence of malfeasance or criminal actions- she's even suggested the explanation could be that the superiors were mostly thinking of avoiding risks and protecting their careers by being overly careful before authorizing a fuller investigation of Moussaoui.

Rowley is either unwilling or unable to put other facts together and be more of an advocate, but she supports an investigation and is an advocate for whistleblowers- that's great! We can put the facts together, though- and point to her case and the other people involved, and all the connections and facts that need to be addressed, which are in the public record and catalogued at historycommons.org Any real investigation that eventually happens will call Rowley to testify under oath. imho, that Rowley, Edmonds, McGovern and others have stuck to what they witnessed and what they know, adds to their credibility, and their usefulness to any future investigation.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised if one reason these people have not more openly embraced the so-called '9/11 Truth Movement' is cuz it's riddled with people promoting irresponsible speculation as 'conclusive evidence'- and some controversial and famous figures I won't dignify by naming have even done it on Faux News to an audience of millions, polluting the public's consciousness of what the 'Truth Movement' represents. It may seem that CD is totally obvious- but anyone who believes that and is intolerant and impatient with people who don't understand it, is not advancing public understanding or the cause of truth and justice, which is going to require a full, impartial investigation, if there's going to be prosecutions and sentences, or a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Evidence will have to force that new investigation,

however, because "unanswered questions" won't. If C.D. can be proved (and it can quite clearly) then many questions are either cleared up or rendered somewhat moot, imo.

For the 9/11 families would then know that their loved ones were killed not due to incompetence or even criminal negligence, but due to premeditated murder as part of a false flag operation. For C.D. proves inside job.

Therefore we should prove demolition....for the families. It's our best bet to getting answers and criminal justice.

Controlled Demolition is proven fact

http://www.ae911truth.org

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

You bet it is a proven fact

but what most 9/11 truthers fail to realize is that Big Bin and his band of merry men had keys to the twin towers and had tons of thermite at their disposal so it was a led pipe cinch to rig the buildings before hand
. They dressed up like custodians at night and proceeded to rig the buildings and also set up remote control devices so that after they hijacked all the planes and smashed them into the towers they simply waited a while and then demolished the buildings. Remember these are very clever terrorists. They were also clever enough to get NORAD to stand down. They used mind control on Cheney and others to accomplish this feat. Boy Big Bin sure is a smart guy. I wish he was on our side. He could probably figure out a way to solve all our problems. I wish he would run for president.

'They used mind control on Cheney'

LOL!!! Loved that!

NO IT IS NOT. Controlled

NO IT IS NOT. Controlled Demolition is a hypothesis. With some compelling evidence behind it, yes. However, it has not been proven. Quite frankly, I'm sick of the people in this movement who try to shove it down everyone's throat and denounce those who focus on other aspects of the 9/11 cover-up. These tactics run completely counter to the basic ideas behind this movement.

You can attack me all you want. However, it matters not what you say. I've contributed as much to this cause as anyone else on this site.

Justin A. Martell
www.formyourown.org
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow.

See comments below...

"So stay on the fence and want more 'proof' there were explosives. Physics alone proves that it had to be a force greater than gravity - explosive force - to turn those THREE buildings to pile of dust. The Law of Angular Momentum? Fulcrum point? Newton’s second law?" - Submitted by LeoAlphaMale

http://www.ae911truth.org

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Demolitions of towers and humans inside is a true fact

I'm not trying to shove it down your throat Justin or denounce you for choosing to focus on aspects of the 9/11 cover-up. You have done some great reporter work in getting numerous people on record about their stance on a new and real 9/11 investigation. I think that the strategic path of undoing the 9/11 covert operation from the cover-up side of things is an important and crucial way towards 9/11 truth and justice. However, it must be done in a responsible fashion, which to me, means two things: 1) Not unconsciously reinforcing the official and false narrative which hinges on a racist and anti-semitically (i.e in terms of the descendants- ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural- of Noah's son Shem) accepted state-sponsored myth of Arab Muslims hijacking and running planes into buildings and 2) An acceptance of some hard facts to have been clearly proven true, i.e. those buildings and the people in them having been blown up in controlled demolitions of some sort.

Those buildings were blown up. That is not only a fact, meaning it can theoretically be objectively proven to be true or false, but also the truth. This is an important thing to understand about the many possible meanings of the word "fact" that we need to deal in the truth movement. A ground, legal definition of the word "Fact" speaks to whether a certain claim can be proven to be true or false in an objective sense, i.e. that it is not an opinion or solely in the realm of the subjective. A good example of this in relationship to understanding 9/11 and the truth movement, might be the claim that Ahmed of the ISI wired $100k to Atta right before 9/11. Clearly, this is a fact. It either happened or it didn't, with possible leeway given for alterations of some of the details of the fact. However, while it is a true fact, I am almost sure, that this fact was put forth in an Indian newspaper, it can hardly be considered to have been proven to be a true fact itself, unless someone has seen paperwork and other evidence backing it up.

Meanwhile, the demolition of the towers and building 7, and all the people therein, is, has been proven, way beyond a reasonable doubt, by numerous open evidence strains (audio-visual, testimonial, chemical physics, structural physics, hypothetical logic, circumstantial), and it is important to not shy away from calling our knowledge knowledge. Now, I am completely open to the arguments that say that dealing with the cover-up and the conflicting accounts or unanswered questions in relationship to the official false- narrative is a powerful strategic pathway, but it is hard to do with scholars who are unwilling to clearly call a fact well proven to be true to be the truth.

There are important reasons why understanding the difference between fact and truth is crucial to the mission of the 9/11 truth movement. Because 9/11 was clearly some form of intelligence-sponsored black op, the cover-up of it is also almost guaranteed to take some form of intelligence-sponsored black op. This means that the understanding of facts and reality and the sometime gap between the two is crucial. An important example of this is the brave whistleblowing testimony of Sibel Edmonds. From what I have observed of Ms. Edmonds, her experience and her testimony, she seems highly credible and full of integrity. She brings forth to the table of public discourse, numerous facts, many of them incendiary in relationship to the national security state, 9/11 and the larger GWOT.

Many, if not all, of the facts she presents may be true. However, despite the numerous indications (Senators, IG, FBI and intelligence insiders) that what she says is highly credible, we, as people who have not seen the reports/transcripts/etc. from which these facts are drawn cannot know for sure whether they are true. I very much believe that Ms. Edmonds is telling the truth. However, even she would not necessarily know for sure if all the facts she has knowledge of are true or not, since she didn't observe almost any of the scenarios in a firsthand manner. And even if she, or even we, had, we might still not know what is the truth, being that we're dealing in the realm of potentially deceptive intelligence operations. These are the kinds of situations that can be easily manipulated by intelligence-sponsored disinformation or limited hangout operations. This is why we have to help protect Ms. Edmonds and her brave testimony from being used by those seeking to cover-up the truth. A crucial part of doing this effectively is having a point of reference of what we can say we know for sure to be true about 9/11. And one of the most crucial things, for many reasons- moral, political, epistemological etc.- to assert our knowledge of in relationship to the truth of what happened on 9/11, is those buildings being blown up with our fellow human beings inside. For example, it is a stated fact that the WTC towers were blown up with humans inside, while it is also a stated fact that Representative Schakowsky got it on with a female Turkish asset or agent. One of these I can say I know to be true for sure and the other I for sure can't say I know to be true. Not that they're both not true.

In short, there is epistemologically-based, psychological warfare being waged against us. If we are to prevail in this confrontation with criminality and deception, we must claim what reality we know to be ours to know. Was that Rumsfeldian enough truthspeak?

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

Eloquently stated, Jeremy! Thank you.

Justin, you don’t have to say CD is a proven fact, but you DO have to say the official explanation is 100% DISPROVED. And that’s why we need a new investigation -- not because we still have some unanswered questions. This has to be stated aggressively, openly, and repeatedly by everyone, because it’s the only way to get to the truth.

If you remain silent or noncommittal, then you’re in the “safe” camp with Rowley and McGovern and others who want to keep 9/11 Truth contained, because regardless of whatever new investigation we finally succeed in getting, we’ll be hamstrung by the false premise of al Qaeda, Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers. It might result in nailing a few dispensable people here and there for incompetence or covering up, but the real perps will walk away free, and their neocon wars will have been justified.

That would be a damn shame, after all these years and all that hard work.

If you don’t believe the official explanation (especially about Building 7), then you have no choice but to say the destruction of the buildings was somehow planned in advance. There’s no middle ground. Pre-planned CD is the only theory that fits ALL the observed and recorded phenomena (you know: multiple explosions, both before and during the collapse; lateral projection of debris; symmetrical collapse of all 3 buildings, despite widely uneven damage; free-fall acceleration, requiring zero resistance from below; pools of molten metal staying white hot for weeks). The official explanation of jet impacts and office fires can't even reasonably account for one of those.

You’re left with one inescapable and irrefutable conclusion: The al Qaeda/Bin Laden/hijackers story is false. And anyone who keeps pushing it -- knowingly or not -- is complicit in mass murder and treason.

"complicit in mass murder and treason."

"The al Qaeda/Bin Laden/hijackers story is false. And anyone who keeps pushing it -- knowingly or not -- is complicit in mass murder and treason."

Certainly, proof of CD introduces reasonable doubt that the so-called 'Al Qaeda' did 9/11 unaided. But it doesn't prove that Bin Laden and the patsies weren't knowingly involved in the 9/11 plot- it indicates that, if they were involved, their plot- if it was really even their own idea- was co-opted by others.

These people are complicit in mass murder and treason for socializing and funding Islamic terrorism:

"The US, through USAID and the University of Nebraska, spends millions of dollars developing and printing textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The textbooks are filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation."
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a84textbooks#a84textbooks

Brzezinski: "Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

I reject USAPatriot's charge that I am complicit in mass murder and treason because I don't endorse his personal theory about what happened. I will continue to point out facts and raise questions while advocating for a full investigation. It's not my job to explain what happened. Far too many facts have been suppressed. It's the US govt's job to conduct a full and credible investigation, and make a solid case to the public. That has not been done, and there is no reason to accept the OCT. The fact that so much information has been suppressed, and so many obvious questions are being ignored by the Establishment, destroys their credibility in the eyes of any honest person who looks into it. There are many entrances to the rabbit hole, and different evidence prompts different people to choose which one to go down. It makes no sense to me to say people are only allowed to go down the CD one.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Let me back up a bit…

I certainly don’t mean to accuse Justin or Loose Nuke of complicity, and I apologize. That was meant more as a rhetorical statement.

I’ll have more to say later, but I felt an immediate clarification was in order. No offense, guys.

thx for clarifying

personally, in 2005, when i watched video (with an open mind) of WTC 1, 2 and 7 destructing, it was obvious it was CD. And I've reviewed the RJ Lee, FEMA, NIST and USGS info- there's evidence of CD in these reports, and evidence for CD by what is left out, and a lack of evidence for their 'theories'. And I've reviewed the work of Hoffman, and Steven Jones et al and I don't understand all of it, but I'm still waiting for peer-reviewed responses to be published in refereed journals that debunk or even rebut their work- if it can be done. I've also been to JREF and other 'debunker' sites, and their 'debunking' is a sham.

However, I don't have a problem with people that reserve judgment due to lack of experience, or focus on other evidence, as long as they support disclosure and accountability. In the case of whistleblowers, I don't see they should be expected to do anything except blow the whistle on what they were a witness to. In the case of Jon Gold, unless I'm mistaken, his issue is primarily that CD is being pushed as the main issue, so much so that other issues are effectively being marginalized- and that the CD claims have been used effectively against the movement by the Establishment media and institutions.

There's so much 'misinfo' being circulated and attributed to 'truthers', which has been used by the Establishment to tarbaby the truth movement, I'm sure that's at least one reason people on the outside are reluctant to express skepticism about the OCT re: the WTC destructions, though they might have questions and concerns about flaws in the OCT, that are more obvious to them given their personal background.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Embrace the truth

"It makes no sense to me to say people are only allowed to go down the CD one."

No one is saying that "people are only allowed to go down the CD one." What is being said is that no one in the 9-11 Truth movement can reject the CD one, and be considered by others to embrace 9-11 Truth. Controlled Demolition at Ground Zero on 9-11 is the truth. It is true. It is not open for deciding whether or not you agree with it or believe in it. You don't have to talk about it, but it is the truth.

All of us can stand absolutely confident behind Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth. We can stand absolutely confident behind Controlled Demolition of Building 7 and the Twin Towers. When I personally speak to others about CD, I speak with such calmness and confidence because I am standing on the truth. It's such a wonderful feeling. They are helpless in their whining and complaining, and hostility, because I am standing on the truth, and they are not. It does not take long before they quiet down and ponder the shift in reality their consciousness is going through with the realization of the truth of CD at Ground Zero. For that level of absolute confidence, we should embrace CD.

You don't have to embrace CD, but you should. You don't have to embrace any truth about 9-11, but you should. As a reminder, this is the 9-11 Truth movement we are all participating in. I ask that you not speak in a deriding tone about those who do embrace the truth of CD. Jeremy put it in eloquent terms, I suggest everyone read his comment above.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

So I'm complicit in mass

So I'm complicit in mass murder and treason because I am stating the FACT that CD is little more than a compelling hypothesis? This movement is ass-backwards and has completely lost it's way. We are not winning, we are spinning our wheels. You know who we have to thank for this? Those who have only pushed the "scientific" anomalies with regard to 9/11. Yes, I did push these things at one time. However, I guess I'm one of the few who isn't completely delusional as to whether or not these things turn more people off than on to 9/11 truth. At this rate, in another twenty years, we'll still be seen by the masses as a fringe movement who's only argument is that the buildings were blown up. Congratulations, IDIOTS!

Justin A. Martell
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from to bow.

We are winning

"We are not winning, we are spinning our wheels."

You are spinning our wheels about CD. The discussion is over. Controlled Demolition at Ground Zero on 9-11 is a fact. Controlled Demolition at Ground Zero on 9-11 is the truth. The vast vast vast majority (99.99999%) of the 9-11 Truth movement has embraced this truth. Join us, and help us as we propel the movement forward at an ever-increasing rate. Don't be one of those that insists on holding us back by constantly questioning CD at GZ on 9-11. It's been proven. It's a fact. Stop spinning our wheels on this matter. Please embrace this truth, and let's all move forward together.

CD is the truth.

"stating the [FALSEHOOD - NOT FACT] that CD is little more than a compelling hypothesis" is tantamount to helping the cover-up of the truth about 9-11.

The cover-up of the truth about 9-11 is complicity in withholding justice for those who died on 9-11, and complicity in withholding justice for those who perpetrated 9-11, and thus indeed complicity in mass murder and treason.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

First of all, have you ever

First of all, have you ever even been to ground zero on 9/11, Bruno? Because I have every year since 2006. Well, Bruno, you can insist that CD is a fact all you want. Just be prepared to continue to get the "what is this lunatic talking about?" face from everyone you hand the thermite paper to. Every time I see someone inching for the door when you approach them in a video it definitely makes me feel as though we're winning. Bravo, sir! Bravo!

Have you ever looked at any responses to the thermite paper? Have you looked into the history of the journal in which that paper was peer reviewed and published?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

And now I guess I'm an agent for linking to JREF.

Justin A. Martell
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

I must have seen you there the past few years!

I guess we passed by each other. I was there this year. On Saturday, 9-12, I got a debunker (who rode a bike to Ground Zero to confront us) to be at a loss for words by saying "A 110 story skyscraper can not turn itself into powder in 10 seconds, or even in 10 days, no matter what they tell you"

A police officer on that same day told me to go away because he doesn't want to talk to me, but after he heard me talking about the controlled demolition to others, he apologized to me and told me that he can't talk about it on duty. He said that he knows he is at risk just because he is a police officer and he has to do what he is told. You better believe we had a powerful hand shake after that. I have had dozens of powerful handshakes with police officers in Los Angeles, and the bulk of them I talk to about Controlled Demolition at Ground Zero. It wakes them up fast.

On 9-11 this year at Ground Zero we stood in a line on the sidewalk, facing dozens of police officer who were there apparently to keep us in check. I began calling out to them with my CD speech (below) and each officer that I looked at was lock-eyed with me, their jaws hanging. I was pointing at the new Building 7 as I described it coming straight down in 6.5 seconds. As usual, I could feel the officers transforming right there, and I talked to a few of them while marching. They were very friendly.

Delivering the thermite paper to Congress members is one thing. And yes, I saw there faces. Wasn't that great!? They weren't looking at us like we were crazy. They were looking at us like we had balls to confront them with complicity in treason and mass murder.

----------------------------->

This is from the comments under the Dr. Sunder article http://911blogger.com/node/21664 :

I have had tremendous success talking about controlled demo

My bullhorning speech at street actions:
(I can see people stop what they are doing and listen as I progress through my statements. I can see the transition their thoughts are going through - written all over their faces, and the fact that they are unaware of their mouths hanging open)

-------------------------------
Have you heard of Building 7?

Why haven't you heard of Building 7?

Your television is hiding Building 7 from you. You will never see Building 7 on TV. Your television is hiding Building 7 from you.

They know that once you see Building 7 coming down, then you will know that 9-11 was an inside job.

Building 7 is the third tower that came down on 9-11. 47 stories tall, it fell straight down in 6 and a half seconds. (I use my hand in a horizontal position, to demonstrate the top of the building moving straight down). You've seen it before, you know what it is, it's an obvious controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions take weeks to months of advanced preparation.

Watch footage of the Twin Towers coming down. They were exploding (I use my hands to demonstrate the banana peel explosions). They weren't collapsing. They were exploding. It's obvious.

How can 110 story towers turn themselves into powder in 10 seconds? Try clapping your hands 110 times in 10 seconds. Go ahead, try to cheat (I demonstrate tapping the palm of one hand with the fingers of my other hand as quickly as I can). You will never make it up to 50, yet you are being asked to believe that 110 story towers turned themselves into powder in 10 seconds - both in the exact same way.

The Twin Towers didn't collapse, they exploded in controlled demolitions. Did you see 110 stories stacked on top of each other? No, you saw powder, several inches thick spread out over 75 acres.

There is too much to tell you here, and that's why we ask that you go home and get online and look up Building 7. Start there.

-------------------------------
I have over 90% estimated success with this speech. I can usually get it out during one red light cycle without rushing. I don't yell. I just calmly state this through a bullhorn, putting expressive sincere inflections in the appropriate spots. I don't own the copyright on these words ;), so feel free to use them as your own.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

My apologies for not

My apologies for not thinking you had been to GZ. The issue here is that I do not take kindly to being accused of being complicit in mass murder and treason just because I don't talk about CD. I could reverse the argument and say the same for those who talk about CD as opposed to other aspects of the cover-up, I don't, however.

With regard to the thermite paper, I have not seen a coherent rebuttal to any of the refutations of that paper or other "debunkings" of CD. Every time I've watched a debate where CD was the topic of discussion, the person arguing in defense of CD has not performed well. Whenever a debate has been about the cover-up, "debunkers" have lost without a question.

As I've said, it's a compelling hypothesis, and it may be right. However, I have a problem with it being promoted as fact when, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the masses, it has not been proven to be one.

With YOU in the struggle,

Justin A. Martell
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

Stop kidding yourselves

Justin, try to prove that it wasn't controlled demolition, and you won't get very far.

Facts are facts - those buildings came down because of the use of explosives. Victims who died, survivors, and first responders experiences corroborate the independent scientific studies, which corroborates what we all see and hear on the photographic, video, and audio evidence, which corroborates proven physics, which corroborate the physical evidence found at the scene during and after the event. There have been countless attempts by our government to cover-up this evidence.

No, you need to stop kidding

No, you need to stop kidding yourself. The burden of proof does not lie with me, but rather with you. Did you look at the link I provided refuting Jones's thermite paper? Or how about this:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

What masses am I referring to that don't believe in controlled demolition? How about the 2,999,000 Americans that don't show up at Ground Zero every September? Also, what audio evidence are you referring to? No microphones picked up the sound of a single explosion during the collapses of buildings 1, 2, or 7 on 9/11...

Go back and look at the arguments of this movement in 2004, then look at the arguments that took hold in 2005/2006, and give yourselves a pat on the back. You've destroyed a legitimate movement.

Justin A. Martell
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from to bow!

Or how about this:

http://www.ae911truth.org

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

I've got...

...a better idea!

http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php

Justin A. Martell
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow.

Your still kidding ...

The movement is not destroyed in the least. Most of us acknowledge the wealth of evidence proving explosives were used at the WTC site on Sept, 11th, 2001.

Physics alone proves it Justin. If you don't want to research the Laws of Physics, then you won't find the answers you say you seek.

Go back and research - there are dozens of examples available in the public forum where you can listen to the explosions, on top of all the published reports of explosions taking place.

If NYC CAN was successful in getting the voters to decide on a proper investigation, the impartial commission would have wanted evidence to the answer questions posed. If any of the lawsuits brought by family members made it to court, there would have been evidence submitted. The evidence for controlled demolition is overwhelming.

Your refusal to accept peer-reviewed and refereed science that shows the unexploded, bi-layered chips of thermite found in all samples of dust taken from the crime scene is just one of many reasons why the burden of proof lies with you.

You assume hundreds of millions of people don't believe. I feel that not only do many people believe, but many know. Unfortunately, too many are still diseased with apathy and the inability to critically think. Of course, the successful classical conditioning of the ongoing PsyOp doesn't help either.

This movement not destroyed, but growing as more people are taking action. We Are Change had a hugely successful event just last night - standing room only turnout. As the masses are empowered with the knowledge we present and act upon it, perceptions of the mass murder will continue to change.

Trust there will be the Justice and Accountability due us all thanks to the diligent actions of a few right now. Can't knock the hustle Justin.

"Go back and research -

"Go back and research - there are dozens of examples available in the public forum where you can listen to the explosions, on top of all the published reports of explosions taking place."

Could you please link me to a video that features audio of explosions during the collapse of either three buildings? I have yet to find one.

"Your refusal to accept peer-reviewed and refereed science that shows the unexploded, bi-layered chips of thermite found in all samples of dust taken from the crime scene is just one of many reasons why the burden of proof lies with you."

PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE!?!?!? The editor of the journal resigned over the paper. Additionally, that journal has been discredited:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peer...

Since you won't read my link, I'll summarize it. That is an article detailing the submission and publication of a paper written deliberately as a hoax in the same journal Jones et al had the thermite paper published in. The authors of the article left clue after clue in the paper that would have given the true nature of the article away to anyone giving the slightest bit of thought to their review of the paper.

Justin A. Martell
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

You have to want - really to need - to do the research.

No, no, no Justin. I'm not doing the work for you. You have to want to find this out if your going to come to any conclusions. You can search through past submissions to this site to start, then head off to some search engines and social networking sites. Enough people heard the explosions too. What do you think Willie Rodriguez heard?

So because of one hoax submission, you feel the science that Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and other objective, respected professionals is not supported?

Did you ever research the editor of that journal? You'll find some issues with her too, especially her background and reason for stepping down.

Who are these "masses" you speak for?

There was a mass of individuals at Venice beach on the October 11th when we were there with the blue banners with many different messages about 9/11 on them. Some of these individuals who made up the masses of people there I'm sure knew about the buildings being blown up, some disagreed and some had never thought about it before. What is the opinion of the "masses" about the obvious demolitions of the towers? Who knows. You would have to ask the question in many different forms with many different permutations of groups acting in different ways to either encourage to or discourage each other from saying what they really believed to be true to get even an idea of what all the individuals that make up the "masses" think. At what percentage of acceptance, acknowledgement or familiarity with the obvious demolitions of the towers would you be willing to say that it is a fact? Does a "fact" have to be consensual? Or is it a democratic affair? Or does it take a super majority for an obvious physical truth to become a "fact?" And at what point will you speak for the opinion of the "masses" to have accepted the obvious controlled and criminal demolitions of the towers and the living humans inside them to be a "fact"? Will all the masses inform you, or will you take the pulse of the masses? When Amy Goodman considers it a fact is it a fact? When MSNBC reports it as a fact, will it be a fact even if CNN doesn't report it as a fact?

I don't ask these somewhat rhetorical questions to be nasty, I ask them to help orient ourselves about the actual contested terrain on which we are working. This is what scholars must do- have it out about matters of intellectual contention. You are a student scholar and I consider myself to be a street scholar of sorts and so we debate and talk over contentious issues.

At some point, we have to deal with the fact that we are operating within a highly socio-politcally charged and psychologically-driven terrain of epistemological warfare. Racism, anti-semitism (against the perceived other of the descendants of Shem on the other side of the planet), political and social correctness, groupthink, popularity, self-esteem, propaganda, idealism-these are all contributing factors to the difficult psychological terrain on which we operate. Political and psychological strategy is crucial to think about in this terrain, however we should not let it, as much as possible, unconsciously drive our own acceptance of the truth as such. I'll bet that it isn't that you haven't seen enough conclusive rather than compelling evidence for controlled demolitions or rebuttals to a single paper that the entire proven theory doesn't even hang upon just further builds and specifies. I'll bet that there is an internal psychological, maybe even spiritual, block presented by the hard reality of those buildings and your fellow human beings being simultaneously blown up, and the implications of really saying that you know that to be true and not a "compelling hypothesis.". But, as any pop psychologist, I'm sure I could likely be wrong. And I am completely willing to be psychologically analyzed by you if you so choose.

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

Who talks about just the proven fact of controlled demolitions?

Since it is a fact that I have only been to Ground Zero twice, once during the anniversary and once not, am I less qualified to comment on the truth of 9/11 or the strategic epistemological concerns of the truth movement? This being brought up in relationship to what it means to be a participant in a truth movement is worrisome to me. It has the tinges of a cult of geography or event or something like that, rather than a morally and intellectually-based affiliation of sovereign individuals working together to uncover and hash out the truth, and pursue justice for the sake of the possibility of peace.

At this point, while there is still war, injustice and outright deception based on 9/11, we are all still effectively complicit in mass murder and treason. None of us have done enough yet, or planned strategically enough to say we can rest completely easy in our conscience. I'd even say that until we all fulfill the letter of the law and exhaust the spirit of the responsibilities of citizenship regarding reporting our knowledge of ongoing treason and complicity after the fact in mass murder (that includes judges, state and federal, city officials including DA's, governors, our congresspeople, the FBI, Homeland Security, iWatch- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmRPJv5jZE - International Criminal Court), we are even legally accountable for the ongoing treason and cover-up of mass murder. And until we succeed in arresting it fully, we are morally accountable to treason and mass murder.

I don't think anyone, or almost anyone, only chooses to talk about the obvious controlled and criminal demolitions of the the WTC and the humans inside, though many of us think and can argue for why it is a central and crucial piece of what we know to be true regarding 9/11. When I handed Biden the nanothermite paper, he hoped to turn it into a situation of ridicule, but most everyone there could sense that there was something real being asked about, and so he had to run away from words and paper. I don't think that shows that the evidence is weak or not a fact in the opinion of "the masses." I think it shows the opposite. However, I am quite open to the suggestion that I might have accomplished a good deal more if I had stuck to a question of supporting a new investigation and gotten the VP on record about that. These are things we need to debate. BUt the buildings having been blown up in a criminal and controlled fashion with our fellow humans inside is a factual truth of the matter.

If you watch my recent encounter with a former National Security insider, head of Air Force and NRO, I first brought up mimetic wargames, because it fit right in with his area of expertise. Then, later I bring up the evidence for demolitions and put it in his hands and it doesn't look like he is poo pooing it. It looks fairly clear that he is avoiding making a clear statement on the matter. Yes, I could have asked him if he supported a new investigation of 9/11, but is it really another former military man to be listed on patriotsquestion911.com that is going to break through the psychological and political blocks we face? I would say that, in many cases, standing on what we know is a much more effective strategy than the unanswered questions/cover-up/commissioners' critique angle. Although, that is an important angle at times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7ZL3jUEEhQ

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

I'm not saying it's the only

I'm not saying it's the only thing people talk about, but it has been pushed by many people as the movement's main issue. I thought your recent encounter was good and very well researched. He, too, seemed interested in what you had to say. That is until you handed him the thermite paper...

Justin A. Martell
www.formyourown.org
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

If you have a problem with empowering people with knowledge ...

Then offer at least one solution instead of getting defensive about your non-commitment to the evidence.

Curious about this: What's wrong with offering scientific information supporting the facts of the case?

Still can't believe you provided a link to ae911truth . info ...

There's nothing wrong with

There's nothing wrong with offering scientific information as long as it's sound and presented as a hypothesis. I have a problem promoting theory as fact. Besides repeating that it has been proven and "peer reviewed," (also, please read my post about the Bentham Journal on the previous page) can anyone provide one tangible piece of evidence that PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt that the buildings were blown up? All of the circumstantial evidence of reports of explosions and the videos showing what looks like a controlled demolition makes for a COMPELLING HYPOTHESIS, not a positive conclusion.

You can't believe I linked to ae911truth.info? Why? It offers some very interesting responses to some of the major claims made by those who promote CD. Can you provide a refutation of any of the arguments made on that site? If so, I would be very interested in hearing them. If all you can do is keep telling me that I'm misguided, then I will have to stay on the fence. If someone provides for me something that PROVES the buildings were blown up, I will gladly promote CD.

Justin A. Martell
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow.

Please present them here

Please don't refer us to a debunker website. Instead, present responses to the 'major claims made by those who promote CD'... here... yourself. That is if you really stand by them.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

Science and math are about as factual as it gets

The Laws of Physics proves beyond reasonable doubt Justin. Do your research.

There is physical evidence, substantiated, you prefer not to entertain as well.

There's even the admission by the leaseholder of the property himself to take down his last building standing. Oh wait, it wasn't the last one. There were the smaller buildings, WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, some at least partially, that were still on all of their supports, even though they were heavily damaged by the imploding buildings.

How about you provide a refutation to the arguments presented by Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin ryan, Eric Lawyer, etc. Would be real curious with that one ...

I have done my research.

I have done my research. I'm sorry that you are incapable of reading anything that does not support the CD hypothesis. See, the mistake you are all making is that you are turning this argument into whether or not CD happened. I've said it's a compelling hypothesis, but because of the arguments to the contrary and the lack of HARD evidence, I do not think it should be used as the movement's main talking point.

It doesn't matter what I say, you will never listen. I hope you are prepared to give your WTC 7 stump speech on a corner for the next 40 years, because CD will never get you any further than that.

Justin A. Martell
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

As a former student scholar ...

How can you move the mass of any undamaged building away and have the entire structure collapse at nearly free fall speed WITHOUT the use of explosives?

And when was the last time you went to Ground Zero, with groups like We Are Change (who are engaging the public every Saturday with facts of the matter), and argued how there's not enough evidence to prove how those buildings came down?

Curious too are you saying that Kevin Ryan / Steven Jones work, which yet again found the hard evidence you speak of, is flawed?

Rowley seems scared to acknowledge fact

She tries to play the pseudo-intellectual card by not commenting on the forensic evidence, which is corroborated in so many instances. She and McGovern take the same timid route as this former We Are Change New York member:

I'm hardly an architect or physicist, so I can't tell you whether or not Mr. Jones's work checks out. But the few people I do know that have some background in these areas have all read it at my recommendation and told me that it's pretty inconclusive. So I don't feel I've seen any proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that there were explosives used to take down the buildings. For a long time I pushed myself to believe this, but the more I tried to research it, I couldn't find anyone who could corroborate the ideas Jones and others have put forth.

However, I don't need to see evidence of any of that to say that I think a new investigation would be a great thing. My concern is that said investigation will start out as almost a bizarro version of the original, where, rather than start with the conclusion that the official story is... official, we're going to start off by declaring that explosives were in the buildings, and work backwards to prove a theory.

So, as I've previously said, I'm all for a new investigation. But I simply don't agree that anyone has proven beyond any doubt that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. I certainly have my suspicions and questions about how the towers came down. But I'd be pretty arrogant to make the leap to say that I've read one very controversial (in the scientific community) paper and thus there is no need for any further debate. For me, that sounds like the 9/11 Commission all over again.

I replied:

One doesn't have to be an 'expert' to acknowledge valid proof through the scientific method. Now the few people you know that have 'some' background, are they open-minded or enough to objectively look at the facts, or are they where you and I were a few short years ago in finding it too hard to understand not only the depth of the depravity of the criminals inside and outside of our government, but the classical conditioning that has limited the critical thinking process in all of us since birth.

So hundreds of firefighters saying they heard specifically 'explosions' and 'bombs' don’t offer you reasonable doubt, even though they are trained to recognize the difference. What reason do they have to lie? What about the survivors and even the victims who died, who told their family member the same things? The audio evidence throughout the public forum where we actually hear explosions going off does not solicit a reasonable doubt? The video evidence of a 110 story tower turning to a six story pile of dust and molten metal doesn't offer reasonable doubt? All three buildings falling symmetrically at almost free-fall speed due to 'fires', which do not spread evenly and cannot weaken every support at exactly the same time for such a symmetrical collapse does not offer reasonable doubt?

How many scientific and peer-reviewed studies have you seen that support the govt. theory? How can there be a concern when a new investigation would be fact-driven, and not theory driven. In a court of law, it’s the weight of physical, forensic, scientific, empirical, substantiated evidence that goes as far as putting someone on death row, and that's what would be granted to the world citizenry, and not the vast cover-up of evidence we have witnessed from our government so far. Just the cover-up alone speaks volumes of the actual circumstances of the case.

You watch CSI? You watch Cold Case? That's a lot like how honest investigations are run, and that's what would be expected. More and more honest people acknowledge every day the weight of the evidence … that is if they dare believe in science learned since grade school.

So stay on the fence and want more 'proof' there were explosives. Physics alone proves that it had to be a force greater than gravity - explosive force - to turn those THREE buildings to pile of dust. The Law of Angular Momentum? Fulcrum point? Newton’s second law? Even history alone dictates that to take a building down and turn it to a pile of rubble, one uses explosives, and not jet fuel.

The 9/11 commission was a travesty - the courageous work of independent professionals who have little to gain save for getting us closer to the Truth by the scientific method and working with physical evidence is extremely different. What is concerning is that you would rather turn a blind eye to the heroes, survivors, and victims experiences than accept the scientific proof and the wealth of empirical, photographic, video, audio, corroborated, forensic, substantiated evidence. Ever hear of 'reasonable suspicion’?

Bizzaro versions

'My concern is that said investigation will start out as almost a bizarro version of the original....'

Agh! As if the official version isn't itself 'bizarro,' as her own testimony helps to make clear?!

'I certainly have my suspicions and questions about how the towers came down.'

OK--I'll take this statement for what it's worth. Possibly more than what she would have preferred to admit, and if so, it's a testimony to the great work of 9/11 truth researchers that , despite all hesistancy, she did finally admit to these 'suspicions and questions.' Which means, among other things, that she's not satisfied with THEIR explanation either. That's probably the most we'll get from her regarding this topic for the time being at least. And I guess I prefer to accentuate the positive in this case.

And just who are those 'few people' she knows who have 'some background in these areas'? Anyone independent of government agencies? Anyone with whistleblower's credibility?

Part 2 of the interview

This interview is much more revealing than Part 1

[at 3:28] I was one of the very first people to put War on Terror in quotes in that May of 2002 memo, because I knew that that reaction, saying, calling it a War on Terror and launching it was a very improper, if you knew why 9/11 had, the lapses and why it had happened, well, launching a war made no sense. It made no sense whatsoever.

[at 5:48] Q. Are you satisfied that we have the truth now? Does the official version of events as the 9/11 Commission tells it, are you satisfied with that version?
A. Well, I think it’s incomplete… As far as it goes, I think it’s pretty accurate. But it probably did not go far enough.

To her credit, she does call for a new investigation and insists we need to get to the truth, for the sake of the victims’ families and the first responders. But she also believes the Bin Laden/al Qaeda cover story as to “how and why” 9/11 happened, and says how important it is to understand that. If she's sincere, then she’s allowing herself to be used as an obstacle on the path of truth and justice.

Please, Coleen, snap out of it!

excellent assessment, USAPatriot!

Well said/

Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.
- Dale Carnegie

Part 3 of the interview