World Trade Center
Cryptome has released WTC photos obtained by FOIA. This site has archived many other important 9/11-related documents, in addition to other material.
As the site says:
"Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression, privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and secret governance -- open, secret and classified documents -- but not limited to those."
Among those posted in March:
wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf NIST Denies Access to WTC 7 Collapse Data - March 14, 2010
wtc-nist-wtc7.zip 52 Photos of World Trade Center 7 Collapse - March 13, 2010 (37MB)
wtc-punch.htm Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Wall of WTC Tower - March 11, 2010
From Op Ed News:
February 25, 2010
The Road to Armageddon
By Paul Craig Roberts
The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper's website for the past three days was the "Inside the Beltway" report, "Explosive News," about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad on February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
ABC News KTRK
Saturday, February 13th, 2010
One day after Republican candidate for governor Debra Medina’s insurgent campaign hit a speed bump, she’s striking back. After comments on Glenn Beck’s radio show Thursday that seemed to support 9/11 conspiracy theories, she says she was set up by her opponents.
(For full 10 minute interview go here)
Perry dismisses 9/11 suggestion by GOP rival
Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison are dismissing a suggestion from a Republican gubernatorial primary rival that the U.S. government was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Appearing on the Glenn Beck Show, Debra Medina said there were "some very good arguments" that the U.S. was involved in bringing down the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
Medina, Perry and Hutchison are battling for the GOP nomination. Perry said Medina's remarks Thursday "were an insult to the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones." He countered that anyone "should be ashamed" for suggesting involvement by former President George W. Bush's administration. Bush was Perry's predecessor as Texas governor.
Hutchison stressed that it was "al-Qaida terrorists who declared war on America. To suggest otherwise is an affront to the men and women who are sacrificing their lives to root out the terrorists in Afghanistan and around the globe."
Presented with 11 questions by world911truth.org, Shermer compares 9/11 skepticism and inquiry to holocaust denial and creationism, only addresses questions related to the WTC destructions, and in doing so, relies on Eager's claim of pancaking (debunked by NIST), and then reposts material from the Implosion World 'debunking', previously debunked by Jim Hoffman: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html - loose nuke
Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers
I can't help but wonder if the defense lawyer for the accused will bring up any 9/11 truth facts during the course of this trial.
Families of 9/11 Victims Divided Over Detainee Trial Plan
Saturday , November 14, 2009
Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to trial at a New York City courthouse was received by families of Sept. 11 victims with mixed reaction Friday.
Many of the relatives expressed opposition to any civilian trial for terror suspects — especially at the federal courthouse 1,000 yards from the spot where nearly 3,000 people died.
Santa Barbara Independent cover story: "Engineers and Architects Argue About What Made the World Trade Center Fall"
There is a balanced article on 9/11 (as opposed to a hit piece) currently appearing in this week's (Sept17-24) Santa Barbara Independent, a free weekly with an audited readership of about 120,000. (Authors: Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie).
One of the crucial technical disputes in American history, perhaps second only to global warming, is underway. It pits hundreds of government technicians who say the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by airplane impact against hundreds of professional architects and building engineers who insist that the Twin Towers could never have collapsed solely due to the planes and are calling for a new independent investigation. It is a fight that is not going away and is likely to get louder as more building trade professionals sign on to one side or the other.
Eight years after 9/11, a growing organization of building trades professionals suspect that there was more to the event than the government will admit
By Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie
JUST A FEW YEARS ago Ed Munyak, a fire protection engineer for the city of San Jose, seemed like a lonely, out-there figure, a sometimes-target because of his outspoken position on the events of Sept. 11, 2001. These days, hundreds of other building trade professionals have joined him in challenging the official narrative about the collapse of three buildings at New York's World Trade Center (WTC) on that fateful, traumatic day.
Munyak, of Los Altos Hills, is a mechanical and fire engineer whose job is to review building plans to ensure they comply with the California Building and Fire Code. In 2007, after speaking out on his own for a few years, Munyak signed on with a then-fledging organization called Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911 Truth), founded by Bay Area architect Richard Gage.
FEMA photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld (recently interviewed by Voltairenet) has released a new set of World Trade Center disaster site images. Some were previously available, but the majority are new and high quality.
(So how did I do? Heavy constructive criticism is most welcome!)
This is the first of three YouTube videos of the June 30, 2009 PowerPoint presentation I gave for my CHEM 1411 class at South Texas College (STC). The subject was on thermite and thermate and how each of their respective nano-sized variants may have contributed to the collapse of World Trade Centers 1, 2, and most especially, 7.
The truth about 9/11
Published: June 20, 2009
I read with interest the letter from William Rice about 9/11 and the subsequent response from a reader to Rice's observations that discount all the facts that he presented. 9/11 discussions on op-ed pages rarely go well. One writer will offer an observation and then another will claim that observation to be absurd. This was exactly the case last week. No matter what fact you may present that shows the official version of events to be dubious, you will almost certainly be called a conspiracy theorist, or worse. TV personality and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck recently lumped those of us who claim to be part of the 9/11 Truth Movement in the same category as James W. Von Brunn, the man accused of murdering a guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. It's a strange leap of logic, but 9/11 discussions rarely elicit logical thinking.
Direct link to smear job- leave a comment: http://www.opednews.com/articles/911-NanoTech-Thermite-Publ-by-John-R-Moffett-090616-456.html
See this link for hyperlinks in my post:
Dr. Moffett Smears ‘Active Thermitic’ Paper by Association- Again
In another headlined article at OpEdNews.com, Sr. Editor Dr. Moffett has again smeared the peer-reviewed paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by Bentham.org. A different Bentham.org journal, The Open Information Science Journal, recently published a hoax paper, and 2 editors resigned: Open Access Publisher Accepts Nonsense Manuscript for Dollars. See Dr. Moffett’s previous smear job rebutted by Dr. Michael Green, here: Pardon Our Dust, or, Why the World Trade Center Dust Matters. See Dr. Moffett’s current smear job here: 911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit
I find some areas of agreement with Dr. Moffet; for instance, he says: "The only way to find out what really happened [on 9/11] is to have a large panel of independent researchers reopen the case, with access to the classified documents that would be needed to make a valid assessment of all the data."
I was going back through the NEADS tapes we released in 2007 and discovered something a little strange ...
DRM1 DAT2 Channel 4 ID Op
08:46:15: New York told me to hold on, you heard that, right?
08:46:36: Come on New York. (Dooley again) You know what, you know what, let's
get a tail number off of for American 11. (Roundtree) Call Boston, American 11 tail
number. (Dooley) Tell them we need the tail number of the aircraft, (male voice)
American one one. (Roundtree to New York) Yes it is, (right now he's primary only.)
Do you have Mode 3 or anything? Or a location? (Fm not showing anything, no.) Lat
Ion? (Hold on, I'll get a lat lon.) Good.
NORTH TOWER IS STRUCK AT 8:46:48.
08:47:05: (Dooley?) We're going to get an updated lat Ion now. (to background
question) We called Boston his filed one [Mode 3] was 1443, but he's not working that,
he's primary only, we're getting an updated lat Ion position. (I'm showing 40 39 North.)
40 39 North. (74 03 West) 74 03 West.
08:47:35: End of HUNTRESS call to NY AMIS
If you input that Lat/Long into Google Maps ...
Editors Note: This appears to be a new release of blueprints. It's 585 images. Some of them have the same date (02/09/84) as the previous release of 261 WTC1 drawings. -jkeogh
This is always essential info. The more that get it the merrier.
The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers. Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure, chemical composition, and ignition behavior.
The basis and validity of this identification can grasped quickly by anyone with a working knowledge of physics and chemistry. They need only read the paper's one-page conlusion, and perhaps its section describing the provenance of the dust samples.
But what of the reader whose strong suit isn't the hard sciences? Does one have to be an expert to understand the findings and evaluate the many claims thrown up by "debunkers" to dismiss those findings?