By Elizabeth Woodworth

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624

Global Research, February 15, 2010

(Note from Colorado 9/11 Visibility: Despite a trend in the U.S. government and the U.S. corporate media to link the 9/11 Truth movement with terrorists or potential terrorists and an overall failure to report honestly on the subject inside the U.S., there has been increasingly objective coverage of 9/11 Truth in the international media that is awakening global awareness to this controversy.  There are also nascent signs in the U.S. of increasing media objectivity–most notably the KBDI, Colorado Public Television’s two pledge drives screening the films 9/11 Press for Truth and 9/11:  Blueprint for Truth. More can be found at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.)

Abstract

In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account.

Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a “conspiracy theory” ignoring science and common sense.

This essay presents these media analyses in the form of 18 case studies.

Eight countries  Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Russia  have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.

This more open approach taken in the international media–I could also have included the Japanese media–might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks  a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country’s foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge.


I.  Introduction

Until 2009, doubts about the official 9/11 story were briefly entertained by the mainstream media on each anniversary of the event, allowing the independent research community only a fleeting moment once a year to publicly voice its findings.

But after crucial scientific evidence emerged in April 2009 to challenge the official story of how the towers fell, a spate of European media reports followed.  The news coverage of this evidence seems to have opened the door to more serious reflection on all aspects of the 9/11 issue in the major media.

The first paper in my series, “The Media Response to 9/11,” dealt with the New Statesman’s grudging recognition of Dr. David Ray Griffin, the world’s “top truther” (as it dubbed him), placing him number 41 among “The 50 People Who Matter Today.”1  Since this admission in September 2009, the issue has gathered increasing momentum.

The collective content issuing from this new momentum is presented here in the hope that it will embolden other major media to take up the pivotal controversy concerning 9/11, and pursuing the truth wherever it may lead.

Observations on the Analysis

While carrying out my analysis, I observed five new features in the media treatment of the 9/11 issue that developed as 2009 progressed.  They are listed here, so that readers might look for them in the case studies that follow below:

1. The 9/11 issue is increasingly framed not as conspiracy theories versus hard science, but as a legitimate controversy resting on unanswered questions and a search for truth.

2. News reports and television programs examining these controversies have become longer and more balanced.

3. Major media outlets have begun to present the claims of the truth movement first, followed by counter-arguments from defenders of the official story.

4. Major media outlets have begun to include, and even to introduce, extensive evidence to support the claims of the 9/11 truth community.

5. The media treatments increasingly suggest the possibility of a re-investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.

The first part of this essay deals with the crucial scientific evidence that emerged in early 2009, the significance of this evidence in relation to the official story of 9/11, and the immediate news coverage it received. 

II.  Scientific Paper Finds Nano-thermite Explosives in World Trade Center Dust, April 3, 2009

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009,2 reported that a little known high-tech explosive called nano-thermite was found throughout the World Trade Center dust.

These physicists and chemists involved in this study discovered “distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers”3 in four samples of dust collected from the area.  The presence of aluminum and iron oxide in the red material provided one of the signs that it might be nano-thermite, which is a high explosive (whereas ordinary thermite is an incendiary.)

Another clue was provided when putting a flame to the chips produced an explosive reaction.

On the basis of these and other observations, the team concluded that “the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”4

The article’s first-named author, Dr. Niels Harrit  a University of Copenhagen chemistry professor who specializes in nano-chemistry5 explained on Danish TV2 News:

“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron.

“So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive.  It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.

“You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite.”6

What was the significance of this sophisticated material?

Reported Evidence that Nano-thermite is a Military Substance

In a German interview in May 2009, Dr. Harrit said: “There are no experts on nano-thermite without connections to the military. This stuff has only been prepared under military contracts in the USA and probably in bigger allied countries. This is secret military research.  It was not prepared in a cave in Afghanistan.”7

Chemist Kevin Ryan, another co-author, had reported in an earlier article that explosive nano-thermite, which may be painted onto surfaces, was developed by US government scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.8

A United States Department of Defense special publication confirms that work on these “energetic materials” has long been “performed in laboratories within all military services.”9

According to a June 2009 statement by Britain’s prestigious Institute of Nanotechnology,10 the Harrit study “provides indisputable evidence that a highly engineered explosive called nano-thermite was found in the dust of all three buildings that came down on 9/11 2001 in New York city. [sic] This advanced explosive incorporating nanotechnology is only available to sophisticated military labs.”11

It thus became known by mid-2009 that explosives of military origin, probably in the United States, had been involved in the World Trade Center collapses.

Early Coverage of the Nano-thermite Finding in the European Mainstream Press

Although the new scientific evidence against the official story of 9/11 was not reported in the mainstream British or North American media, it did receive attention in continental Europe.

The day the article was published, a thorough essay in the Danish journal Videnskab (Science) examined both sides of the controversy about controlled demolition.12

The same issue of Videnskab also carried an interview with Professor Harrit, who answered pointed questions about the peer-review history of the article, and the military nature of nano-thermite.13

The following day, Denmark’s politiken.dk reported the scientific nano-thermite paper in an article called (in Danish) “Conspiracy theories about 9/11 get new life.”14

Then, the day after Professor Harrit’s April 6 interview Danish TV2 News, he was featured on the popular talk show, “Good Morning Denmark”, on which he said:

“The material we found is super hi-tech frontline military research.  It’s not a mixture of random chemicals.  It’s an advanced material which is difficult to get information on.  But some conference papers and internal reports have been published.  There has to be a normal forensic investigation of this attempt.  Our research is high-level forensic work.  We have provided technical evidence that can be used in the future investigation.”15

On April 13, an online Croatian political newspaper posted the Danish TV2 video interview with Harrit along with an article titled “VIDEO: 9/11 No Longer Taboo Topic in Denmark”.16

Russia also took notice. On July 9, Laura Emmett, the London correspondent for RT, interviewed Dr. Niels Harrit for over 10 minutes. (RT, previously known as Russia Today, is a globally broadcast English-language channel sponsored by the state-owned news agency RIA Novosti.  It reaches 1.5 million people monthly, including half a million Americans.)  Stating that “the evidence for controlled demolition is overwhelming”, Harrit reported that the nano-thermite reaction produced pools of molten iron beneath the rubble and inextinguishable fires that lasted for months.17

I turn now to ways that the mainstream news coverage of the case against the official story has changed since the appearance of the nano-thermite paper.

III.  The Changing Mainstream Media Treatment of 9/11 Evidence from early 2009 to early 2010:  18 Case Studies

Two February 2009 news items illustrate the wary mainstream attitude towards conspiracy theorists early in the year.  A New York Times article said about actor Daniel Sunjata:

The second episode of “Rescue Me’s” fifth season, starting in April, may represent the first fictional presentation of 9/11 conspiracy theories by a mainstream media company.  Mr. Sunjata’s character delivers a two-minute monologue describing a “neoconservative government effort” to control the world’s oil, drastically increase military spending and “change the definition of pre-emptive attack.”

Mr. Sunjata surprised some of the TV reporters when he said that he “absolutely, 100 percent” supports the assertion that “9/11 was an inside job.”18

Fox News was somewhat less constrained, saying:

An upcoming episode of the drama “Rescue Me” is about 9/11 being an inside job. The actor who spews the theories on camera, Daniel Sunjata, actually believes in it too.

Look, the fact is, actors who barf this crap are doing it for their own egos. It makes them feel smart, because for once they’re spouting something provocative instead of puerile. Never mind that it’s an insidious insult to the victims of 9/11  as it is to the rest of us, who may or may not be guilty, according to Sunjata’s theory.19

However, things started to change after the appearance of the nano-thermite paper on April 3, as may be seen from the following case studies of media reports, each of which is identified as having corporate, public, or independent ownership.

The case studies reveal the evidence which has been introduced into public consciousness during the past year.

Case Study 1:  The Dutch TV Mock Trial of Osama bin Laden, April 25, 2009

On April 8, 2009, a popular TV program called “Devil’s Advocate” held a mock trial of Osama bin Laden with lawyers arguing before a politically balanced civil jury of five people.

The case against bin Laden was argued by two real-world opponents:  former American correspondent Charles Groenhuijsen, and Dutch-American Glenn Schoen of a US security firm.  Real-world lawyer Gerald Spong acted as bin Laden’s defense attorney.20

Spong presented new evidence from a videotape of Professor Emeritus of Islamic Studies Gernot Rotter, saying that the American translators who transcribed the bin Laden tapes of the November 9, 2001 “confession video” have “clearly added things in many places–things that are not there even when listening multiple times.”21

Spong won.  Although the jury found bin Laden to be a terrorist, it said there was no proof that he had ordered the 9/11 attacks.

Through this method, this program on AVRO–the Dutch public broadcasting organization–presented evidence, not previously seen in the major media, against the likelihood that bin Laden ordered the attacks.

On April 15, Fox News reported the Dutch jury findings in a long and unusually balanced article, in which former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani was quoted six times, saying that bin Laden’s exoneration sent a “disturbing message” to the world and fueled conspiracy theories.  Giuliani variously called this message “bizarre,” “dangerous,” “aberrational,” “irrational,” and “unfortunate.”22

However, referring to Spong as a “well-known yet controversial attorney,” Fox mentioned him 10 times, and more substantively, reporting his evidence that the bin Laden videos seemed inauthentic, as well as his point that the FBI has not indicted bin Laden for the attacks.

Concluding Comment:  (AVRO is publicly owned, but Fox News is corporate.) Neither of these two mainstream treatments of doubts about the official story was broadcast on the customary anniversary date, and both reached millions of people.

Case Study 2:  Architect Richard Gage in Canada’s “Financial Post”,  April 25, 2009

One of Canada’s top four English-language newspapers, the conservative National Post, publishes its business section as the Financial Post.

Three weeks after the nano-thermite story broke, Jonathan Kay, a National Post columnist and editor with degrees in both engineering and law, wrote an article about Richard Gage, the “lucid” San Francisco architect who heads up the 1,000-strong “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.”23

Kay, who himself endorses the official story of 9/11, described Gage as a “respectable-looking middle-aged” architect, “complete with suit and tie, and receding hairline,” and reported that Gage’s organization “scored a booth at the upcoming American Institute of Architects conference from April 30 to May 2.”

In the midst of references to thermite reactions and iron-oxide-based explosives, Kay wrote of controlled demolitions:

“As radical as Gage’s theory may sound to readers, it’s surprisingly popular. The ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ has millions of adherents across the world. Many believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed on Sept. 11 through controlled demolition set in motion by officials within America’s own government and military.”

Gage’s presentation was also described as “effective”:

“In one particularly effective segment, he puts up shots of the localized fires that broke out in the lower floors of WTC Building 7 hours before it collapsed. Seconds later, he shows footage of Beijing’s Mandarin Oriental hotel which suffered an epic top-to-bottom conflagration in 2009…and remained standing.”

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate). Besides reporting Gage’s evidence without any attempted refutation, this corporate-press writer remarked that “no major media outlet has done a truly comprehensive profile or investigation of the Truther movement.” He thereby seemed to be suggesting that it is now time to take the 9/11 truth movement seriously.

Case Study 3:  Norwegian State Radio’s Public Debate on 9/11 Truth, May 21, 2009

Professor Harrit, who was lecturing in Norway in late May 2009, was interviewed by public radio program “Here and Now”,24 on NRK (the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation).

Harrit presented the findings of the nano-thermite paper, which were then discussed by three Norwegian scientists who did not support his conclusions.

Following the radio program, an extended email debate continued between Dr. Ola Nilsen, who teaches chemistry at the University of Oslo, and Dr. Steven Jones, a co-author of the nano-thermite paper who formerly taught physics at Brigham Young University.  This debate, during which Nilsen somewhat modified his original view, was posted to a Norwegian blogsite in English.25

Concluding Comment:  (Public). Although NRK in this April program challenged the findings of the Harrit paper, this was to change by late summer, as we shall see below.

Case Study 4:  Architect Richard Gage on Fox News, May 28, 2009

The hosts of Fox News on KMPH in Fresno, California, began their 7-minute interview by saying, “He’s an architect experienced in steel structures.  Now Richard Gage is here to show us why he’s calling for a more thorough investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.”26

These two anchors actively encouraged Gage’s discussion of the ten key features of controlled demolition.  He was allowed to explain the free-fall acceleration of WTC 7 (shown on his two video frames as dropping at the same rate as a second building felled by controlled demolition) and the “uncanny” failure of 40,000 tons of structural steel columns that were designed to resist its collapse.

Although normal office fires were said to have caused the collapses, he explained, various firefighters had reported large pools of molten iron at ground level.

“What produced all that molten iron?” he asked.

The answer, he said, was found in the inches of dust covering lower Manhattan.  “The by-product of thermite is molten iron and it’s dispersed throughout all this dust and there are small chips of unignited thermite as well.  This is very high-tech thermite–nano-thermite.  It’s not found in a cave in Afghanistan; it’s produced in very sophisticated defense department contracting laboratories[its] particles are one-thousand times smaller than a human hair.”

Asked whether bin Laden might have had access to the buildings, Gage said probably not–that someone else who had access to nano-thermite, and to the buildings’ security systems, would need to be investigated.  Someone who had access to the elevator modernization, which was going on nine months earlier and was “immediately adjacent to the core columns and beams in the building.”

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate). This Fox News show began by asking Gage about his credentials, saying “We ask that for clarification so that as we get into this, we want people to make sure that you’re not just someone with a wacky idea…you come with some science to you.” The program ended with a sincere thank-you to Gage for “opening up a lot to think about,” and an announcement that there is “a great deal of information” on the KMPH.com website.  In short, Gage was treated with the respect due to any serious participant in an important and controversial issue.

The next major mainstream event was the Russia Today program of July 9, 2009, which was covered above, so we will move directly to the anniversary period of September 2009, when further evidence of the impact of the nano-thermite discovery became apparent.

Case Study 5:  The National Geographic Documentary, “9/11: Science and Conspiracy”, August 31, 2009

In late August, 2009, the National Geographic Channel (NGC) aired a two-hour documentary, “9/11: Science and Conspiracy,” which sought to answer several questions, “What caused the collapse of the Twin Towers? Was it from the fires, or were explosives placed inside the buildings, causing them to implode? Did a missile, rather than a commercial airline jet, strike the Pentagon?”27

This “NatGeo” program purported to explore evidence about controlled demolition presented by the 9/11 truth movment.  It interviewed Dylan Avery (the maker of the “Loose Change” films), Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, and Steven Jones. But in reality this NatGeo program was entirely devoted to debunking their claims by using pseudo-scientific demonstrations to refute claims that none of these men have made.

For example, in order to refute the claim that nano-thermite could have brought down the buildings, NatGeo used ordinary thermite (with the narrator explaining that they had no access to nano-thermite). Moreover, instead of using the thermite to make shaped charges, which can cut through steel, the NatGeo experimenter simply placed a bag of thermite next to a steel column and lit it. When the burning thermite (entirely predictably) did not melt the column, the narrator concluded, triumphantly, that science had disproved the claim of the conspiracy theorists.

A review in Media Life Magazine, while not fully exposing the phoniness of the program’s claim to represent “science,” did point out some shortcomings, saying:

Some of the issues raised by the truthers, however, aren’t addressed, or are addressed in brief asides. This leaves this documentary open to charges of picking and choosing which points to cover.  “9/11: Science and Conspiracy” spends too much time discussing the psychology behind conspiracy theories  which isn’t really a hard science.28

A review in the New York Post quoted Sander Hicks, a journalist who is openly a member of the 9/11 truth community, as saying that its representatives on the program “come off as careful and professional, unemotional, but compassionate about the truth,” and that the program, in spite of its faults, shows “that the topic is still relevant and that the case isn’t closed.”29

Concluding Comment: (Corporate). This program by National Geographic provides a good reminder of how the 9/11 truth issue has generally been handled by the corporately-controlled media. But it also demonstrates the fact that the controversy is very much alive in the major media.

Case Study 6:  Germany’s Weekly TV Guide, “TV Hören und Sehen,” August 31, 2009

“TV Hören und Sehen”, with a paid circulation of nearly a million copies, is owned by the Bauer Media Group, which publishes 308 magazines in 14 countries.  The TV magazine features interviews and articles by prominent German authors.30

It is therefore significant that on August 31, 2009, this magazine published “Die Geheimakten von 9/11″ (”The Secret Files of 9/11″) as a full double-page spread, continuing with photos on two subsequent pages.  It opened by saying: “9/11 is officially the largest criminal case in history  but classified documents and witness accounts are surfacing, that speak against the official versions of the CIA and Pentagon.”31

It then asks what force could pulverize 200,000 tons of steel in 11.4 seconds, quoting US engineer Neel Ginson:  “In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially exploded outwards.” Ginson added that, looking closely, one can see small explosions in the Twin Towers always occurring before the floors are reached by the collapse line.  The fact that the towers were the first steel-frame buildings in the world to collapse because of fire, he added, was even admitted by NIST (the National Institute of Science and Technology, the government agency that produced the official reports).

Among many other questions, the article raises the issue of adjacent World Trade Center 7, the 47-storey steel-frame building with a base the size of a football field that collapsed at 5:20 PM the same day:  “But the official 9/11 investigation never mentions the building once.”

With reference to the Pentagon, this article asks:  How were the victims identified by their fingerprints, when even the airplane steel had melted?

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate).  Although this article does not specifically mention nano-thermite, it clearly suggests that artificial explosions brought down the buildings.  By not defending the official story at all, this large-chain corporate media outlet was among the first to give an open hearing to the independent 9/11 research community.

Case Study 7: Two California Newspapers Review the Role of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, September 2009

In September 2009, Metroactive (Silicon Valley’s number-one weekly magazine) and the Santa Barbara Independent, each published slightly different versions of a long article on the controversy surrounding the WTC building collapses.32

The Independent article  entitled “Twin Towers, Twin Myths?”  begins:

“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.”33

The version in MetroActive  called “Explosive Theory”  says “[E]ight years after 9/11, a growing organization of building trades professionals suspect that there was more to the event than the government will admit.”  It then gives a short history of Gage’s now 1,000-strong organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE).34

Deputy Director Michael J. Heimbach of the FBI’s counter-terrorism division, this article adds, had recently acknowledged in a letter to the organization that Gage’s presentation is “backed by thorough research and analysis.”

One local AE member was quoted as saying “it takes too much energy”  energy that was not there  to collapse the buildings at free-fall speed, given the resistance that steel offers.  This was borne out, this member continued, by a team of scientists “working at technical laboratories in the United States and Denmark [who] reported in April that analysis of dust gathered at the World Trade Center found evidence of the potent incendiary/explosive ’super thermite,’ used by the military.”

Almost half of this article deals with the controversy over whether nano-thermite was used, with most of the space allotted to evidence supplied by the 9/11 Truth Movement.  Near the end, however, spokesman Michael Newman is brought in to defend NIST’s research, saying there was “no need” to test the dust for thermite.

But the last word was given to engineer Ed Munyak of AE, who said:

“The fact is that the collapses don’t resemble any fire-induced behavior of structures, but it exactly mimics a controlled demolition, so why not investigate that? It’s all very suspicious and that’s why an independent investigation is needed so we can all learn from this.”

“Explosive Theory” also focuses pointedly on the growing number of professional organizations and retired officials calling for a new investigation, including:

…two dozen retired U.S. military brass and eight former U.S. State Department officials, along with a number of Republicans who have served in high federal positions since President Reagan, including former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts and former Reagan administration Assistant Defense Secretary (and retired Marine Corps colonel) Ronald D. Ray.

The version in the Santa Barbara Independent concludes with an unusually candid observation:

And how would America deal with such an investigation against the backdrop of suppositions that some officials in government were complicit? This idea is virtually unthinkable to most of the public, much less something the American political system can handle…The forces of denial, in the system and in most of our minds, are innately powerful and probably sufficient to mitigate against a reopened investigation. Despite this, [Richard] Gage [of AE] sees his role as provoking a better investigation.

Concluding Comment:  (Independent). The authors of this article, rather than referring to “conspiracy theorists,” present the 9/11 issue as a “technical dispute” of historic importance. Both versions of the article represent a 180-degree turnaround in American newspaper reporting, providing a useful introduction to the long-ignored research by independent professionals. The Santa Barbara Independent, curious about public opinion rather than seeking to hide it, published a local poll asking if conspiracy was behind the collapses: 75% of respondents answered “yes”.35

Case Study 8: Dr. Niels Harrit on NRK1’s “Schrödinger’s Cat,” September 10, 2009

NRK1 is the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation’s  main TV channel. It’s program “Schrödinger’s Cat”, which is about scientific research and technology, comes on every Thursday following the evening news.  It has won several awards, and averages 487,000 viewers.

For the September 10 program, Dr. Harrit was interviewed for about ten minutes in his office and laboratory at the University of Copenhagen Nano-Science Center, where he demonstrated the magnetic quality of a WTC dust sample.  He also showed videotape of molten iron flowing from the upper South Tower, which was iron, not aluminum (which melts at a much lower temperature than steel or iron).  Emphasizing that an office fire, even if fed by jet fuel, could not possibly get hot enough to melt steel, thereby producing iron, he concluded that the flowing iron had to have been caused by something such as nano-thermite, which produces “an enormous amount of heat”, and molten iron is created in the process, with a temperature of  4530 F.36

Although Harrit did not know who placed the explosives, he said, he had no doubt that a crime had occurred.

In the final third of the program, three other people were asked for comments.  Two of the people tried to cast doubt on Harrit’s conclusions, but their comments were weak, even absurd.  An architect argued that the energy from the airliners brought the Twin Towers down and then Building 7 came down because the collapse of the towers acted like an earthquake to weaken the ground.  American buildings are weak, he explained, because they don’t use reinforced concrete.

Finally, Dr. David Ray Griffin has stated that “for scientists and people who study the facts, the official story about the Twin Towers is completely ludicrous, but for the general public it has seemed plausible.  Jet fuel fires–they seem so hot.  Jet fuel’s just kerosene.”

Concluding Comment:  (Public). This prime-time coverage by Norway’s largest TV channel was quite a turnaround from the earlier NRK radio coverage in May.  Most of the time was given to Drs. Harrit and Griffin; the content was groundbreaking; and the opposing views were obviously insubstantial. Considering Norway’s NATO membership and military participation in the US-led operations in Afghanistan, the program could prove to be significant.

Case Study 9 : London’s “Daily Mail” asks  whether Osama bin Laden is Dead, September 11, 2009

This long and detailed article opens with the menacing bin Laden audiotape of June 3, 2009, timed to coincide with Barack Obama’s arrival on his Middle East tour, and then moves to the new Anglo-American offensive to “hunt and kill” the al Qaeda leader.

But, the Daily Mail asks, what if bin Laden isn’t alive?

What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes since the early days after 9/11 is a fake–and that he is being kept ‘alive’ by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror?

Incredibly, this is the breathtaking theory that is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts.37

Professors Angelo Codevilla of Boston University and Bruce Lawrence of Duke University point out that the early, verifiable videotapes of bin Laden do not match the tapes that have emerged since 2002–and even one in late 2001.

Telltale distinguishing features include a changed facial structure and increasing secularism in the content of the messages.

The article then presents the findings of Dr. Griffin’s book on the topic–Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?–as “provoking shock waves”.

This book presents evidence that bin Laden died, probably due to kidney failure, in mid-December 2001, which would mean that his taped messages since then have been faked to “stoke up waning support for the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Perhaps the most controversial of all the tapes was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001, claiming that it had been found in a home in Jalalabad. Prior to this tape, bin Laden had, while praising the 9/11 attacks, consistently denied responsibility for them. But the bin Laden of this tape boasts about having planned them.

President Bush, the Blair Government, and the mainstream media all hailed this message as offering conclusive proof of bin Laden’s guilt.

The Daily Mail, however, points to various reasons provided in Griffin’s book to believe that the man in this video was an imposter. It refers to the existence of a “highly sophisticated, special effects film technology to morph together images and vocal recordings.”

And it quotes Griffin as saying: “The confession tape came exactly when Bush and Blair had failed to prove Bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11 and both men were trying to win international public support, particularly in the Islamic world, for the anti-terrorist campaign.”

Far from seeking to ridicule Griffin’s book, the Daily Mail concluded thus: “[T]he Bin Laden tapes have emerged with clockwork regularity as billions have been spent and much blood spilt on the hunt for him.  Bin Laden has been the central plank of the West’s ‘war on terror’. Could it be that, for years, he’s just been smoke and mirrors?”

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate). This 2400-word article is the first serious mainstream coverage the evidence that Osama bin Laden is dead  and has been for many years.

Case Study 10.  The New Statesman announces Dr. David Ray Griffin as No. 41 in “The Fifty People who Matter Today,” September 24, 2009

Two weeks after the Daily Mail article, a second corporate British publication put Griffin in 41st place in a list of people who “matter today.38

Because this article was discussed in my earlier paper, Part I of this series, it is mentioned here only as a significant milepost, one that gave (grudging) recognition to the fact that the movement challenging the official account of 9/11 can no longer be ignored.

Its impact on the media is shown by the fact that the New Statesman placed Dr. Griffin (who scores 200,000 results when googled) above Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez, (who scores over 11 million results) on its list of influential people.

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate). Although the New Statesman called the movement represented by Dr. Griffin “pernicious”, its evaluation of his importance represents a point of no return in the media coverage of 9/11–as we shall see.

Case Study 11:  Jean-Marie Bigard on France 2 Public Television, October 28, 2009

Back in September 2008, Jean-Marie Bigard, France’s most popular stand-up comedian, was led to apologize for claiming 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.39  But by July 2009, Bigard had started to post  humorous videos on his website ridiculing the official account of the September 11 attacks.

In October 2009, Bigard and award-winning French filmmaker Mathieu Kassovitz appeared for an hour in a debate on France 2, the publicly owned French national television channel.40

The hosts, who had refused to include the scientist who was originally supposed to be on the show (Dr. Niels Harrit) attempted to center the debate on “straw man” theories that neither Bigard nor Kassovitz held. This led to arguments, which then allowed Le Figaro, France’s second largest newspaper, to dismiss the debate as “noisy sophistry”.41

Concluding Comment:  (Public). Although this program was aimed at debunking the 9/11 movement, as shown by its refusal to include a scientist, the fact that it was aired on this state-owned network was a breakthrough, ending the era in which 9/11 questioning was ignored in France.

Case Study 12: “The Unofficial Story”,  by CBC’s The Fifth Estate, November 27, 2009

On November 26, 2009, Canada’s largest newspaper, The Globe and Mail, noting in an objective review42 that the 9/11 truth movement is “gathering steam,” reported that a documentary airing that evening “follows up on some fairly startling public-opinion polls of late.”

It was referring to “The Unofficial Story”,43 a program in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s weekly award-winning investigative series, The Fifth Estate.44

Host Bob McKeown, himself a recipient of multiple awards45, opened by saying that eight years after the “most scrutinized day in history”, there may be “more questions than ever”, and that an increasing number of people now believe the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. “Incredibly”, he adds, “public opinion polls now show that a majority of Americans believe the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of those attacks, and one way or another allowed them to happen, and polls show that one Canadian in three believes that, too.”

“The Unofficial Story” then allows leading members of the 9/11 truth community to present a spectrum of evidence on various issues:

Architect Richard Gage on how the towers were brought down by controlled demolition

Canadian scientist A.K. Dewdney on the impossibility of cell phone calls at high altitude

David Ray Griffin on the FBI’s 2006 admission that, although US  Solicitor General Ted Olson had reported receiving two calls from his wife, CNN commentator Barbara Olson on Flight 77, the evidence indicates that she attempted only one call and that it was “unconnected” and hence lasted “zero seconds”

Dr. Griffin and Canadian media commentator Barrie Zwicker on the military’s explanation of why it did not intercept the airliners

9/11 documentary filmmaker Craig Ranke on the fact that footage of the Pentagon attack is virtually unavailable to the public in spite of many cameras trained on the building

Dewdney on evidence that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military

Richard Gage on the presence of nano-thermite in the World Trade Center dust

In response, defenders of the official account, such as Johnathan Kay (of Canada’s National Post) and 9/11 Commission counsel John Farmer, focus more on why the American public is susceptible to conspiracy theories, than on the disputed evidence itself 46 – although Kay does credit Richard Gage for being involved in a serious quest for truth.

Jim Meigs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, also directs comments against the skeptics themselves rather than their evidence.  Conspiracy theorists, he says, are deluded by “the myth of hyper-competence” in relation to the failure of the US Air Force to intercept the planes.

However, Brent Blanchard, presented as a demolition expert, argues against the controlled demolition theory by producing seismographs showing the absence of spikes that, he says, would have been produced by explosions.

He also expressed concern that people around the world, by reporting US government complicity in 9/11 “as fact”, are affecting how people view America.

But actor Daniel Sunjata (of “Rescue Me”) ponders the price of not asking the hard questions:  “Sometimes boils need to be lanced. Sometimes poison needs to be brought to the surface in order for real healing to take place.”

McKeown concludes: “We did it not to promote one side or the other, but to shine some light on some of those unresolved issues and unanswered questions.”

And indeed, the program website published links to both sides of the issue.47

Concluding Comment:  (Public). This hour-long documentary was the first truly fair opportunity in North America for advocates of the “unofficial story” of 9/11 to present some of their case on mainstream television.  Representatives of the “official story” were also given time to speak, but their case was patently weaker. This imbalance was allowed by the producers, and indeed by the Canadian government, to stand.  Aired several times across Canada, this program drew unusually high viewer commentary.

Case Study 13:  New Zealand TV’s “Close Up” hosts Architect Richard Gage, November 27, 2009

The same day “The Unofficial Story” was broadcast by the CBC, Richard Gage appeared on New Zealand TV’s popular public affairs program, Close-Up, for a six-minute interview.48

“WTC 7 was never hit by a plane but it still came down,” the host begins, “and that’s what troubles internationally respected architect Richard Gage.”

Gage is then allowed to explain that the building fell straight down in 6.5 seconds, and that NIST, the agency tasked with explaining the collapse, admitted that it had come down in absolute free-fall for the first hundred feet or so.  “That means the structure had to have been removed,” says Gage. “There is evidence of very high-tech explosives in all the dust throughout lower Manhattan – nanothermite.”

Normal office fires, Gage added, would start “a large, gradual deformation – the building would tip over – it wouldn’t go straight down through the path of greatest resistance.”

This is why 1,000 engineers and architects around the world are demanding a real investigation that includes all of the evidence at the crime scene, not just the planes and the fires, says Gage.

“In the nine months prior to 9/11, we had the largest elevator modernization in history going on inside the towers…We’re looking for an investigation that includes elevator companies, security companies, etcetera.”

Concluding Comment:  (Public). New Zealand’s national television station allowed open and unopposed discussion, by the founder of the world’s largest professional organization calling for a new 9/11 investigation, of the claim that nano-thermite was used in a controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.  The coincidence that this program and the CBC’s “The Unofficial Story” both aired on the same day may prove to be a turning point in media coverage of the 9/11 issue.

Case Study 14 :  “9/11 Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura,” TruTV, Premiere December 9, 2009

TruTV is an American cable television network owned by Time Warner through its subsidiary, Turner Broadcasting. Historically, its has given live homicide trial coverage and other criminal justice programming, though it has recently expanded into more caught-on-video reality, which it calls “actuality” television.

“Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura” premiered December 2, 2009, to an audience of 1.6 million television viewers.

The former Governor of Minnesota has good cause to look into conspiracies, as seen in his December 29 episode, which shows personal experience that the “secret state” holds more power than the senior elected representatives of the people:

“About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the capitol to be interviewed by 23 members of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA…And I said to them, “look before I answer any of your questions, I want to know what you’re doing here.”  Because in the CIA mission statement it says that they’re not to be operational inside the United States of America. Well, they wouldn’t really give me an answer on that. And then I said, “I want to go around the room, and I want each one of you to tell me your name and what you do.” Half of them wouldn’t. Now isn’t that bizarre? I’m the governor, and these guys won’t even answer questions from me.”49

Ventura made the 9/11 documentary after being approached by Donna March O’Connor, whose daughter died in the World Trade Center and wanted “every American exposed to the questions” about 9/11.50

Ventura’s documentary contained interviews with the following people:

Janitor William Rodriguez, the last man out of the North Tower and who was decorated for heroism by President Bush, who reported enormous explosions in the basements just before the plane hit up above, and whose testimony to the 9/11 Commission was ignored

Physicist Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who isolated super-thermite from the enormous dust clouds of the Twin Towers and Building 7, after which he was contacted by a consultant engineer from the Department of Homeland Security, who warned Jones that, if he published his findings “the pain would be great.”

Explosives expert Van Romero, of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, demonstrating how super-thermite can be painted onto a steel beam, causing it to burn through

Ground Zero rescue worker Mike Mallone, who reported seeing one of the four black boxes removed from the site, and was told of two others – and who was told by the FBI that if he talked about it, “there would be a problem.”

Investigative journalist Dave Lindorff, who was told “off the record” by a contact in the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the boxes, that all four had been recovered by the FBI and taken away, though officially, the contact said, this would be denied

Air crash investigator Dale Leppard, who said that the bright orange heat-resistant boxes are never lost

Yet the 9/11 Commission Report claimed that the boxes from American 11 and United 175 were never found.

Ventura concluded by asking:  “If everything they told us was true, then why would they need to stonewall us?”

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate).  By calling his series “Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura”, he openly declares that conspiracies do exist, and that they are a legitimate subject to investigate. According to TruTV, the first episode drew 1.6 million viewers, a record for a new series on this network.

Case Study 15: German Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth Questions the Official 9/11 Investigation, December 15, 2009

Heinz Heise is a German publishing house, which publishes Europe’s most popular computer and technology journals. It also owns Heise Online (heise.de), which is a top-50 site in Germany, and a top-1000 website in the world as a whole.

On December 15 2008, Heise Online carried an interview with German Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth on the legality of the Afghanistan war and the question of whether the attacks were adequately investigated in the US.51

In his response, Deiseroth made the following points:

The 9/11 Commission consisted of Bush Administration officials who were very close to the military industrial complex.

Now, over eight years after 9/11, no independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks.

It is not acceptable for a constitutional state to dispense with the necessary steps in identifying suspects and instead to declare war, bomb a foreign country where suspects reside, and place it under military occupation.

Having made the claim that bin Laden was responsible for the terrorism of 9/11, the United States was under burden of proof, and yet America’s own FBI admits that it has no evidence presented in court of Osama bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate).  This “top-50” online journal exposed many German people to the illegal and unconstitutional responses to the 9/11 attacks – which were the underpinning for the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – and even to questions about the truth of the official account of 9/11 itself.

Case Study 16:  Germany’s “Focus Money” says: “We Do Not Believe You!” January 8, 2010

With 450,000 to 720,000 readers, Focus Money is the second most popular German weekly business magazine.  In January 2010, it published a 5-page, highly detailed, and comprehensively researched glossy feature, “We do not believe you!”52

The article first looks at the many professional 9/11 groups, as well as a 2,000-strong list of prominent and qualified people who question the 9/11 Commission Report at the Patriots Question 9/11 website.

It quotes Richard Gage saying:  “The towers accelerated without interruption in free fall…as if the lower 90 floors of the building did not exist. The only way to bring them down like that is controlled demolition.”

The article weighs Gage’s list of ten features of a controlled demolition, which were exemplified in the World Trade Center collapses, against the three features of a fire-caused destruction, which were absent.

Focus Money also explores the case of Barry Jennings, a former Deputy Director of Emergency Services in New York’s Housing Authority, who reported being trapped in WTC 7 after massive explosions in this building occurred in the morning – before the Twin Towers fell.  Focus Money also reported that Jennings, aged 53, died mysteriously just days before NIST’s report on WTC-7 was to be released in August 2008.

The article recommends films that challenge the official report, including “Loose Change”, which has been seen 125 million times on Google video alone, “9/11 Mysteries,” and “Zero” –  all available online.

Regarding the Pentagon, experienced commercial pilots are cited as maintaining that no one, let alone a Cessna pilot, could fly the route that Flight 77 allegedly took to hit the building.

The article pointed out the lack of debris to support the official story:  “There was no tail, there were no wings, no confirmation of the crash of a Boeing 757.” And there were no titanium engines, which would have survived the crash.

Also cited was Sergeant Lauro Chavez of the US Central Command in Florida, who was involved in exercises the morning of 9/11 to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House. He asks why, when it became clear that the attacks were real, were the rogue planes not intercepted?

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission, in which he reported a conversation between Dick Cheney and a young officer prior to the strike on the Pentagon, supports Chavez’ conviction that there had been a stand-down order.

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate).  This 5,400-word article presented strong evidence against the official 9/11 account to Germany’s economic and political decision-makers.

Case Study 17:  Televised documentary, “The BBC’s Conspiracy Files:  Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive?”  January 10, 2010

In January 2010, a BBC News article53 summarized evidence supporting both sides of the question stated in the title of its upcoming documentary, “Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive?” – a title taken from the David Ray Griffin book that was previously discussed in a Daily Mail article.54

The documentary, which was part of the BBC Conspiracy Files series, opened by presenting evidence that bin Laden has long been dead, including the following points:

Bruce Riedel, chair of President Obama’s policy review on Afghanistan and Pakistan, says the bin Laden trail is cold, “frozen over,” meaning that there has been no intelligence on bin Laden since Tora Bora, either by sightings or intercepted communications.

Various lines of evidence suggest that bin Laden was suffering from advanced kidney disease: CBS News reported, for example, that he was being treated in the kidney ward of a hospital in Pakistan the night before the 9/11 attacks, and the last of the undoubtedly authentic videotapes showed him frail and gaunt, with a whitish beard.

There were reports of his funeral in mid-December 2001 in Pakistani and Egyptian newspapers.

Former CIA agent Robert Baer, who believes bin Laden to be dead, reported that none of his friends in the CIA could state for certain that bin Laden was still alive.

Colonel Iman, Pakistan’s former troop trainer, also believes him to be dead.

The only proof of bin Laden’s continuing existence is the audio and videotapes, and Dr. Griffin has presented evidence (about the structure of bin Laden’s face and hands, and the secular content of his messages) that some of them are clearly faked, leading to the suspicion that they all are.

Pakistan’s former Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, who knew bin Laden, supports this conclusion with regard to the alleged confession video.

Professor Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, a student of the bin Laden tapes, also declared it a fake, especially because bin Laden always loved the spotlight. He asks why bin Laden has been seen so infrequently on video and why his contemporary, Ayman al-Zawahiri is seen so often.55

The BBC narrator says that only six of bin Laden’s 40 messages were videotapes, and only two have appeared since Tora Bora in 2001.

Dr Griffin says the first video appeared conveniently just before the 2004 US election, which helped Bush to win; and the second appeared in 2007, showing a very black beard, which had formerly been almost white.56

CIA agent Robert Baer confirmed that the alleged bin Laden audio and video tapes could have been faked through digital manipulation.

The BBC program also presented evidence that is believed by some to show that the US may not have been intent on capturing or killing bin Laden:

Dalton Fury, commander of the secret Delta Force, says it was “odd” that Washington denied him nearby troops and artillery when he had bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora in December 2001.

Mike Scheuer, formerly of the CIA bin Laden Unit, said the US had ten chances to easily kill bin Laden between May 1998 and May 1999. Each time the CIA briefed the White House of the opportunity, the decision was made not to shoot.

In the final third of the program, the BBC provided rather weak evidence against “the theory that Osama bin Laden died 8 years ago and the US government is keeping him alive, faking videos, and sending troops to battle and allowing them to die in pursuit of an imaginary foe.” However, a reviewer for the TV and Radio section of the The Independent, one of London’s leading newspapers, complained that this rebuttal was too little, too late, saying:

“The Conspiracy Files film about Osama Bin Laden was a dubious affair, which gave regrettable amounts of air time to an obsessive 9/11 “truther” called David Ray Griffin. . . . Griffin only got the airtime, as it turned out, so that Conspiracy Files could systematically work their way through his claims and dismiss them. But I think they grievously overestimated the capacity of common sense to mop up the pollution of paranoid fantasy that they actively helped to spread around in the first 45 minutes of the film.”57

This seemed to be the commentator’s way of saying that the BBC’s show probably increased the number of people who believe that bin Laden is probably dead.

Concluding Comment:  (Public). This program attempts to neutralize the evidence that bin Laden has been dead for 8 years, which if true would mean that fabricated tapes are helping to justify a continuing Western offensive in the Middle East.  That the program was made at all shows how seriously the BBC is taking the growing challenge to the official story of 9/11.

Case Study 18 :  An American Union Paper Calls for a New Probe, February 1, 2010

The New Hampshire Union Leader is a daily union newspaper seen by 143,000 people per month in the United States.

Beth Lamontagne Hall of the Union Leader wrote in February 2010 that “Keene resident Gerhard Bedding doesn’t buy the government’s version of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, so he’s working on a statewide campaign calling for another investigation into the terrorist attacks.58

Bedding and others, she reported, are petitioning New Hampshire’s congressional delegates to push for an independent investigation into “all the evidence and unanswered questions” pertaining to the 9/11 attacks.

Quoting Bedding’s statement that a new investigation is needed “in light of new evidence that has appeared in the last two years,” she pointed out that he mentioned, in particular, the report that scientists had found traces of explosives at the World Trade Center.

Concluding Comment:  (Independent). This article in a daily union newspaper is a significant indicator, more than eight years after the attacks, of the broadening concern over the truth about 9/11, and is another example of the widespread influence of the nano-thermite paper published by Dr. Harrit and his co-authors.

IV. Summary and Concluding Observations

1. In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired examinations of the issue, which were all – with the exception of the National Geographic special – reasonably objective, examining the issue as a legitimate scientific controversy worthy of debate (not as “conspiracy theorists” vs. science and common sense).

2. Eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.

3. These developments may reflect a relaxation in the international media following the change in the US and British leaderships.

4. These developments definitely reflect, in any case, the fact that scientists in the 9/11 Truth Movement have recently succeeded in getting papers, such as the nano-thermite paper, published in peer-reviewed journals.

5. These developments surely also reflect the general professionalism of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as exemplified by the emergence of not only Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth but also Firefighters, Intelligence Officers, Lawyers, Medical Professionals, Pilots, Political Leaders, Religious Leaders, Scholars, and Veterans for 9/11 Truth.

6. These developments seem to reflect, moreover, an increased recognition of the importance of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which is demonstrated by two honors given to its most influential member, Dr. David Ray Griffin, that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago:  the choice by Publishers Weekly of one of his books as a “Pick of the Week,” and his inclusion in the New Statesman’s list of the most important people in the world today.

This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media –  might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country’s foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge.

Elizabeth Woodworth is a retired professional health sciences librarian, and a freelance writer.  She is the author of two published books and many articles on political and social justice issues.

Erratum:

RIA Novosti, the Russian state-owned news agency, has advised in an a formal statement of February 4, 2010, that:

“RIA Novosti, Russia’s leading multimedia news agency is neither a “sponsor” nor a “backer” of Russia Today, an English language satellite TV channel, contrary to recent claims in media reports.”  Ref:  “RIA Novosti neither ’sponsor’ nor ‘backer’ of Russia Today - Statement” (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100204/157770469.html )

This means that seven — not eight — countries have  “allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.”

Notes

1 “The 50 People Who Matter Today,” New Statesman, September 24, 2009 (http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2009/09/world-fashion-gay-india-church ). Note that Part I of this series, entitled “The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9 /11 Truth Movement: Reflections on a Recent Evaluation of Dr. David Ray Griffin,” was published by Global Research, December 12, 2009  (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16505)

2 Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (April 3, 2009): 7-31 (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm)

3 Ibid., p. 29.

4 Ibid., p. 29.

5 Dr. Harrit is Associate Professor of the Department of Chemistry, and has been a faculty member at the Nano-Science Center at the University of Copenhagen since this Center started in 2001.  (http://nano.ku.dk/english/ )

6 “Danish Scientist Niels Harrit on Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust (English subtitles),” TV2 News, Denmark, April 6, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o).

7 By Lars Sobiraj, May 24, 2009,”Germany’s gulli.com (link obsolete now) Interviews Dr. Niels Harrit on Nanothermite at the WTC,” Sunday May 24th, 2009 1:28 PM, http://911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20090525150347423

8 Kevin R. Ryan, “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermite,” July 2, 2008, (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf )

9 Dr. Andrzej W. Miziolek, “Nanoenergetics:  An Emerging Technology Area of National Importance,” In:  US Department of Defense.  “Special Issue:  DOD Researchers Provide a Look Inside Nanotechnology,” Amptiac Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 2002, p. 44 (http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf )  The article reports that, “Very simply, nanoenergetics can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and one can use them in unprecedented ways to tailor the release of this energy so as to maximize the lethality of the weapons.”  p. 43.

10 See the IoN Advisory Group at http://www.nano.org.uk/aboutus/ukboard.htm

11 My italics.  [News]: “Active Thermitic Material Confirmed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” June 15, 2009 (http://www.nano.org.uk/news/jun2009/latest1881.htm)

12 Thomas Hoffmann, “Danish scientist: an explosive nano material found in dust from the World Trade Center”, Videnskab.dk, April 3, 2009  (http://www.videnskab.dk/composite-1945.htm )

13 Thomas Hoffmann, “Niels Harrit:  Scientific evidence of long-time knowledge of 9/11,” Videnskab.dk, April 3, 2009 (http://www.videnskab.dk/composite-2019.htm )

14 Milla Mølgaard, April 4, 2009, (http://politiken.dk/indland/article684567.ece )

15 “Niels Harrit presents evidence for nano-thermite in WTC, on GoodMorning Denmark,” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAUUKPfdeQA )

16 Posted at: http://www.javno.com/en-world/video–911-no-longer-taboo-topic-in-denmark_250703

17 “Did nano-thermite take down the WTC?” (http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html , and

http://rt.com/Politics/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html?fullstory ) .  Also available on youtube as “Dr. Niels Harrit on Russia Today – We need a real 9/11 investigation,” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVbF1ndquZI&feature=PlayList&p=4B3A9D67894B7184&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=20 )

18 Brian Stelter, “The Political Suspicions of 9/11,” New York Times, February 1, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/business/media/02fx.html?_r=2&ref=business )

19 Fox News, “‘Rescue Me’ From 9/11 Conspiracy Theories,” February 4, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487906,00.html )

20 The mock trial is available on youtube in 4 parts:  “911 Devil’s Advocate – English subs – Part 1 of 4″, starts at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOdlA_eu-Lw

21 This is said at the beginning of “911 Devil’s Advocate – English subs – Part 2 of 4″, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJX-rIaAbA4&feature=related.  See also, Craig Morris, “Mistranslated Osama bin Laden Video – the German Press Investigates,” December 23, 2001 (http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801 )

22 Joshua Rhett Miller, “Dutch TV Show Feeds Conspiracy Theories on Bin Laden’s Role in 9/11,” Fox News, April 25, 2009 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516195,00.html )

23 Johanthan Kay, “Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire,” Financial Post, Saturday, April 25, 2009 (http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=f54cf9ee-4637-44de-8819-19d918b3241b&k=21893 )

24 The radio program may be heard at this link, in Norwegian, without subtitles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHZHGUd82wc )

25 Norwegian State Radio initiates public debate on 9/11 Truth (update), (http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/ )

26 Richard Gage interviewed by Kim Stephens and Kopi Sotiropulos on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA, May 28, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&feature=related )

27  “9/11:  Science and Conspiracy”, (http://www.shallownation.com/2009/08/31/national-geographic-9-11-science-and-conspiracy-video-photos/).  National Geographic Channel is a joint venture of National Geographic Television & Film and Fox Cable Networks.

28 Tom Conroy.  “‘9/11:  Science and Conspiracy’ not quite,” Media Life Magazine, August 31, 2009 (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/TV_Reviews_21/9_11_Science_and_Conspiracy_not_quite.asp )

29 Maxine Shen, “The Story Behind 9/11:  Hit or Myth?  Taking on the Truthers,” New York Post, September 2, 2009 (http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/item_tPXUgMFRZVQywHJg28ON7J;jsessionid=5113BAC6DC385827B1486E60DAA759A8#ixzz0eY7F97Dx)

30 The website for this publication is http://www.tvhus.de/home/home.html

31 Hannes Wellmann, “Die Geheimakten von 9/11,” TV Hören und Sehen, August 31, 2009.  The article and its English translation have been downloaded to http://www.911video.de/news/020909/

32 Whereas the article focuses primarily on Bay-Area resident Richard Gage, Santa Barbara is the home of David Ray Griffin, so the Independent version gave more space to him, even including his photo.

33 Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, “Twin Towers, Twin Myths?” Santa Barbara Independent, September 17, 2009 (http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/17/twin-towers-twin-myths/ )

34 Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, “Explosive Theory,” MetroActive, September 9, 2009, (http://www.metroactive.com/metro/09.09.09/cover-0936.html)

35 “Is conspiracy behind the World Trade Center’s collapse?”  (http://www.independent.com/polls/2009/sep/wtc09/results/ )

36 “Norwegian TV examines 911 part 1,” September 10, 2009, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlHuYt_u-kI )  The TV program was followed by a written account of it:  Lars Ole Skjønberg, “World Trade Center ble sprengt” (”World Trade Center was Blown Up,”) September 10, 2009, http://www.nrk.no/programmer/tv/schrodingers_katt/1.6769275 ).  Further information and partial transcripts are available at “Norwegian State Television presents 9/11 Truth (en subs), (update)

(http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/norwegian-state-television-presents-911-truth/ )

37 Sue Reid, “Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years – and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?” Daily Mail, September 11, 2009 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years–U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html )

38 New Statesman, “The 50 People who Matter Today.”

39 “French comedian apolgises for claiming 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government,” Belfast Telegraph, September 10, 2008 (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/french-comedian-apologises-for-claiming-911-was-orchestrated-by-the-us-government-13968453.html )

40 “L’objet du scandale, 11 septembre, Bigard, Kassovitz,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uc4Mb9rF0c   The program is also available with English subtitles, at http://world911truth.org/911-debate-with-kassovitz-and-bigard/ .  The debate was originally intended to include journalist Éric Laurent and Prof. Niels Harrit, but apparently France 2 could not find anyone to debate them.  See “France 2 backs away from real debate, censors Niels Harrit and Éric Laurent,” October 24, 2009, http://world911truth.org/france-2-backs-away-from-real-debate-censors-niels-harrit-and-eric-laurent/ .

41 Hervé de Saint Hilaire,  «L’objet du scandale» : sophismes bruyants, Le Figaro, 30 octobre 2009 (http://www.lefigaro.fr/programmes-tele/2009/10/30/03012-20091030ARTFIG00348-l-objet-du-scandale-sophismes-bruyants-.php )

42 Andrew Ryan, “Was 9/11 a conspiracy? ‘Truthers’ make their case: CBC’s fifth estate airs The Unofficial Story,” The Globe and Mail, November 26, 2009

(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/was-911-a-conspiracy-truthers-make-their-case/article1378976/ )

43 CBC. The Fifth Estate.  “The Unofficial Story”, November 27, 2009 (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/ )

44 The Fifth Estate has won 243 awards, including an Oscar for best documentary, three international Emmy Awards, and 31 Geminis.

45 McKeown’s awards include two Emmys, two Geminis, two Edward R. Murrow awards, two Gracies, two National Headliner awards and a National Press Club award. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McKeown )

46 It is worth noting that attempts to derail critics of the official story have often framed the issue as “conspiracy theorists” vs. “the science” or  vs. “the facts.”  But as the current essay illustrates, the debate is now increasingly being framed in the media as science on one side of the issue vs. science on the other side.

47 The Fifth Estate, at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/links.html

48  “Richard Gage AIA on New Zealand National Television,” November 27, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2INIOXe_WI )

49 “Conspiracy Theory Episode 4 Big Brother with Jesse Ventura,” December 29, 2009 (http://conspiracytheoryjesseventura.com/forums/index.php?board=2.0 )

50 “9/11 Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura,” TruTV, Premiere Wed, December 9 at 10PM (http://www.conspiracytheoryjesseventura.com/2009/12/watch-episode-2-911-conspiracy-theory-jesse-ventura/ ) Also at “Conspiracy theory with Jesse Ventura – 9/11 part 1,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uw5Bz-oL3w )

51 Marcus Klöckner, “Das schreit geradezu nach Aufklärung,” December 15, 2009 (http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/31/31729/1.html ). The English Google translation is at http://translate.google.ca/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Ftp%2Fr4%2Fartikel%2F31%2F31729%2F1.html&sl=de&tl=en )

52 Oliver Janich, Focus Money, No. 2/2010, January 8, 2010 (http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/terroranschlaege-vom-11-september-2001-wir-glauben-euch-nicht_aid_467894.html ).  For English Google translation, see http://translate.google.ca/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.focus.de%2Ffinanzen%2Fnews%2Fterroranschlaege-vom-11-september-2001-wir-glauben-euch-nicht_aid_467894.html&sl=de&tl=en .  For English introduction and commentary, see http://www.911video.de/news/080110/en.html .

53 Mike Rudin, “The Conspiracy Files,” BBC News, January 9, 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8444069.stm )

54 David Ray Griffin, “Osama bin Laden:  Dead or Alive?” Interlink Books, 2009. The documentary, “The BBC’s Conspiracy Files:  Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive?” January 10, 2010, is now periodically available on BBC stations throughout the world, and presently available on youtube:

“BBC: Osama Bin Laden; Dead or Alive (1/6),” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpqg9SF2×50&feature=related ).

55 A Wikipedia article lists 34 videos of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri that have been released since May 2003.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Ayman_al-Zawahiri)

56 Frames from the 2004 and 2007 videos may be seen side by side in the online article:  David Ray Griffin, “Osama bin Laden:  Dead or Alive?”  Global Research, October 9, 2009 (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15601 )

57 Tom Sutcliffe, “Last Night’s Television: By The People: The Election of Barack Obama, Sat, BBC2; Conspiracy Files: Osama Bin Laden – Dead or Alive?, Sun, BBC2,” The Independent, January 11, 2010 (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/last-nights-television-by-the-people-the-election-of-barack-obama-sat-bbc2brconspiracy-files-osama-bin-laden-ndash-dead-or-alive-sun-bbc2-1863741.html )

58 Beth Lamontagne Hall, “NH group cites need for new 9/11 probe,” New Hampshire Union Leader, February 1, 2010 (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=c2822a9b-f0c3-4f03-b8c3-09c3e0765b2f&headline=NH+group+cites+need+for+new+9%2f11+probe )

Elizabeth Woodworth is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Global Research Articles by Elizabeth Woodworth

Contact: Colorado911Visibility.org

On October 21st at the University of San Diego, Mr. Dwain Deets, former Director of NASA Aerospace Projects, gave a multimedia presentation on behalf of nearly one thousand architects and engineers who cite evidence of explosive demolition in all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 and are calling for a new, independent investigation into their destruction. These architects and engineers are listed on their website at ae911Truth.org.

Mr. Deets was an engineering executive with NASA Dryden Flight Research Center for more than 37 years and formerly served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. He received the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the federal government’s Senior Executive Service (1988). In 1986, Deets was awarded the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).

Resolutely empirical, non-political, and non-finger-pointing, ae911Truth only asks for a new investigation of the towers’ collapse that does justice to the forensic evidence it presents. The concerns presented by Mr. Deets and the conclusions of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth are shared by hundreds of scientists; senior-level military, intelligence, and government officials; firefighters; pilots and aviation professionals; scholars and university professors; 9/11 survivors and family members; and media professionals around the world.

Mr. Deets will continue giving presentations and is a member of the writers group for ae911Truth.org.

For more clarifying information see: ae911Truth.org, 911PressForTruth.com, 911Truth.org, 911Research.wtc7.net, stj911.org, and 911Review.com.

A belated but hearty Thank You! to all of you who donated to this cause.  Due to your passion for truth, we sent nearly $4000 to NYCCAN to help with their petition effort and legal fees.   Here is a message from NYCCAN to all of us:

We can’t thank you enough for the support you and Colorado 9/11 Visibility
gave all along the way.  We are very disappointed that New York City voters
did not have a chance to create a new 9/11 investigation, but we feel the
campaign was a huge step towards the truth and justice we are looking for,
and so we are carrying the fight onwards.

NYCCAN is re-grouping to determine what their next phase will be.  Here is a preview of one of their future efforts:

Right now we are working hard on planning and initiating strategies that we think will make 2010 a huge year.  Among the efforts we are going to undertake will be “Vote For Answers”, a national campaign of dozens of ballot initiatives in cities throughout the country; sustained lobbying of the new Manhattan District Attorney; and a civil court action to bring all of the evidence into a court of law under oath so that it can eventually be used by a prosecutor somewhere in the country to open an investigation.

We have hopes that this setback will become the impetus for a stronger national movement toward truth, justice, and real peace.

Once again, Thank You! for your dedication to a real investigation.

Fran, Tim, Michael, Earl, Marti, Dorothy, and Simone

Messages from NYCCAN

1)  Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied
October 9, 2009
Yesterday afternoon, Justice Edward Lehner of the State Supreme Court rubberstamped Referee Louis Crespo’s recommendation that the decision to establish a local commission to investigate the events of September 11th not be put before the voters on November 3rd.

After showing interest in weighing both sides’ arguments in the hearing, the Judge’s short decision gives no indication of having considered the arguments put forth in the Petitioners’ memorandum of law, nor any acknowledgement of the need for a new investigation, which the City of New York callously dismissed as “irrelevant”.

On a dark day for democracy, the patriotic call for answers by hundreds of 9/11 families, first responders and survivors has been stifled, and the will of the people of New York City once again denied.

Judge Lehner ruled that modifying the petition to make it “legally permissible” would result in it being “inconsistent with the law sought by the signatories of the Petition” despite the fact that all 80,000 signatories agreed by signing the Petition that “If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”

The deadline for inclusion on the ballot falls just before the election, making it possible to appeal Judge Lehner’s decision. NYC CAN is weighing all options and will make an announcement early next week on this issue, as well as on how it will be moving forward on other fronts. Regardless of the outcome in court, the quest for answers continues full throttle.  This fight is only the beginning.

[By October 16, 2009, NYCCAN had decided that their chances of winning the appeal were so slim than they could not justify the use of their remaining resources to delay their seemingly inevitable defeat in the Appellate Division.  They saw no positives in continuing the case--even garnering additional media coverage seemed remote.  Thus, they felt it was their responsibility to move on and use the little remaining resources to initiate new, very promising efforts, beginning in 2010.]

Please see the next article for the lessons learned and plans for the near future.

2) The Turning Point
October 16, 2009

On Friday, October 16, instead of our usual monthly video meeting at Hooked on Colfax coffee shop, we invited you to attend Yankee Tavern, a play now running in Denver in which 9/11 Truth plays a significant role.  The play runs through October 24, so you still have a chance to see it.

WHAT: “Yankee Tavern,” a play by Steven Dietz, directed by Chip Walton
WHERE: Curious Theatre, 1080 Acoma St at 11th Ave, Denver, one block west of Broadway
WHEN: Ends Saturday, October 24, 8:00 p.m.
COST: Three ticket options: $18/$34/$42.

“Yankee Tavern” — 9/11 Truth in contemporary theater

“Yankee Tavern” is a political thriller by playwright Steven Dietz, who resides in Austin. The Denver production is part of a “rolling premiere,” the third in a series of separate local productions of the play in the US this year. It runs Sept 12th to Oct 24th at the Curious Theatre in Denver.

From the Curious Theatre brochure: “From Denver native Steven Dietz comes a new play filled with mystery, conspiracy and thrills. Set in a crumbling tavern in New York City, a young man is saddled with questions about his father’s best friend, their mysterious past, and a stranger who knows much more than he should. In an instant, outlandish hypotheses become dangerous realities as surprising revelations continue to emerge in this eye-opening look at our government and the theories that have shaped our country.”

The story unfolds at an old watering hole in lower Manhattan, where an eccentric and entertaining character named Ray, who fits the stereotype of a “wacky conspiracy theorist,” holds forth with 9/11 Truth, including details of the collapse of WTC7, not hit by a plane. Then a mysterious bar patron named Palmer turns out to be more than a talker–he played a shocking real-life role on 9/11. And the owner of the bar, Adam, has some very real 9/11 intrigue unfolding in his own life. Janet, Adam’s fiancee, is the emotional center of the film, sharing a depth of feeling that will surprise you as events unfold.

Dietz doesn’t make 9/11 Truth the point of the play, so don’t expect the audience to come away necessarily persuaded. After all, Ray is not the most effective messenger with his highly charged delivery, and he undermines his own credibility by seeing conspiracies everywhere, including the 1969 moon landing, corporations making people sick to sell more Kleenex, and even the wedding industry. Said Dietz, “I had no interest in doing a 9-11 rant, and I didn’t want to do a conspiracy theorist rant. I wanted to use those things as a backdrop for a specific story about these people.” But the play is superbly written and acted, and slips a great deal of 9/11 Truth to the audience against a dramatic backdrop. The Palmer character directly undermines the official story, as does Adam’s former college professor, since gone to work as a translator for the NSA. So bring your friends and support local theater, especially when the storyline involves 9/11 Truth!

After each staging, special guests (sometimes the cast) will bring chairs out on stage and engage the audience in a “Talkback” where there will be a chance to share questions and answers. Each “talkback” has its own unique theme.

Click for Bob Bows’ review in the Denver Post and photos from the play.

Tickets available at the Curious Theatre website or by calling the Box Office at 303.623.0524. Advance purchase is recommended as seating is limited at this small theatre.

The next monthly video and action  meeting of Colorado 9/11 Visibility will be at Hooked on Colfax Bookstore and Coffee Shop, Denver, on Friday, November 20.

See you at the Curious Theatre!

To Mr. Dan Haley                        October 8, 2009
Denver Post Editorial Page Editor

Since we have not heard back from you after sending this letter, and after several phone calls to which you have not responded, we have chosen to publish our letter as an open letter.

You are the person who chooses which editorials are printed in the Denver Post, thus we write with the following observation, complaint, and request for a face-to-face discussion:

With Vincent Carroll’s article, “Public TV and the Truthers,” this is the third time within a few weeks of which we are aware that the Denver Post has treated the thousands of citizens of this country (and around the world) who work for a new and real investigation into 9/11 with contempt and ridicule.

Besides Mr. Carroll’s article, there was Joanne Ostrow’s article, “KBDI pushes limits on controversial pledge tie-ins,” and even Mike Littwin gave a hostile jab saying the “truthers” are more weird than the “birthers.”

As shown below, the articles fail to meet the Posts’s own published ethical standards for journalism such as the requirements of intellectual honesty, to present all sides, to be fair and even-handed, and to avoid loaded phrasing.  None of the authors has attempted to present any facts or a reasoned analysis for their dismissal of these citizens.  They instead have all stooped to ad hominem attacks, displaying a striking and perplexing lack of curiosity as to why a new investigation is supported by 45% of American citizens (2006 Zogby poll).  Thus, the overall tone of each piece is that of propaganda and not news or journalism.

Besides ignoring the evidence and facts which sustain this growing worldwide movement (see postscript below for a number of examples), you are also failing to inform your readers about the four mothers from New Jersey who were widowed on September 11th (aka “the Jersey girls”) who went to Washington and waged a battle with the Bush administration to bring about the original 9/11 Commission.  Those widows, who merely sought accountability and answers, ultimately concluded that the Commission served to cover up the issues rather than address them.  They are now supporting the voter petition that has been signed by 80,000 New York City residents to put the issue on the ballot this November (see nyccan.org) and create a new 9/11 investigation in New York.  You are completely missing this human interest story.

In reviewing the ethics guidelines of the Denver Post, we were surprised to find these sentences (emphasis added):

As journalists, we seek the truth and strive to present a responsible and fair glimpse of the world.  Our power must be used responsibly. The newspaper is our powerful vehicle, and we endeavor to face the public with respect and candor.

Our power must be used responsibly. Our notebooks and cameras are tickets into people’s lives, sacred worlds and complex institutions.

Our job is to intensely scrutinize the activities of others as watchdogs that challenge authority and give voice to the voiceless. Our own actions should withstand equally intense scrutiny. We should be transparent.

Transparency is won through accuracy, compassion, intellectual honesty and an introspective mission to convey complete, contextual views of our world.

Our goal is to begin and end each day with a primary obligation to the public’s right to know.

With every ethical scar, we threaten a delicate relationship with readers. Ethical breaches violate hard-earned trust and shatter our credibility.

The constant tension of demanding a better society, while still living in it, is an obligation of a passionate and compassionate journalist.

Ethics is the constant process of examining and drawing these lines. It is a communal effort, and we should hold each other accountable in the protection of our values.

Nailing our stories can be as simple as phoning three people - or as grueling as spending months chiseling away the nonessential, the rumor, the red herrings.

Our aim is to deliver the facts with precision and context.

We believe in getting not only both sides, but “all” sides.

A strong sense of fair play must imbue our writing, accurately reflecting motives of sources. The tone and language of stories must be even-handed and avoid loaded phrasing.

Mr. Haley, how we agree with these ethical standards!   But we submit that each point in this list has been ignored by these authors and thus by the Denver Post, thereby violating its ethical standards. The writers have been anything but the “watchdogs that challenge authority.”  The 45% of Americans who believe we should have a new and real investigation, and the citizens who have devoted themselves to educating the public about the extensive evidence showing that we have not been told the truth about what happened on 9/11 have been rendered “voiceless” in the Denver Post.  Finally, a “strong sense of fair play” has not imbued the writing of these authors, and most obviously, “all sides” are not being heard in this important debate.

With frustration, yet in the spirit of respectfully holding “each other accountable,” we suggest that we have a face-to-face meeting to determine how we can work together to help the Denver Post regain its moral high ground expressed so eloquently in the ethical guidelines on your website.  We suggest that we include as many of the above-mentioned columnists as possible, and we would like to include from our group a journalism major, an engineer, and an attorney who are very interested in meeting with you to discuss this situation.

To consider the possibility that we have not been told the truth about 9/11 takes courage, as it involves a paradigm shift that threatens our worldview. Yet the evidence and history will bear out that the paradigm shift is necessary to conform to present reality.  We invite you to do what Martin Luther King advised:  ”do not what is politic or expedient, but do what is right.”

We are an educational organization, and our intent is not a confrontation, but a sincere mutual outreach to get to know each other and discuss this civilly.

Yours truly,

Colorado 9/11 Visibility

Michael Anderson
Tim Boyle, Software Support Manager
Jon Fox, Major, USMC (retired), Captain Continental Airlines (retired)
Michael D. Haughey, P.E.
Marti Hopper, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist
Dorothy Lorig, MA, National Certified Counselor
Gregg Roberts, Co-author, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe;” Associate Editor, AE911Truth.org, 911Research.com
Simone Schellen, M.Ed.
Frances Shure,  Licensed Professional Counselor
Earl Staelin, Attorney
Michael Wolsey, visibility911.com

P.S:  Here are a few examples of the evidence and facts which fully justify the search for what happened on 9/11 and the movement for a real investigation and accountability:

1) Three WTC buildings collapsed in a manner that was unprecedented in the history of steel-frame buildings (except by controlled demolition).   The 47-story WTC 7 collapsed that day, even though it was not hit by a plane, and had a few relatively small, isolated fires. The government’s top investigative engineers (NIST) have agreed that the collapse exhibited precisely freefall acceleration for more than 100 feet.    Freefall means nothing is supporting the structure that is falling.

Even though NIST concluded that the twin WTC towers fell in 11 and 9 seconds, essentially free fall speed, a more careful researcher, David Chandler, has measured the acceleration of the North Tower for several seconds of its “collapse” and found it to be approximately 2/3 of freefall. But it is the constancy and symmetry of this downward acceleration that causes more than 900 architects and engineers to call for a new and full investigation of 9/11 and the building collapses.

They agree that the only reasonable interpretation of these facts is that the underlying structure of all three buildings was removed by explosives. There is no known alternative explanation, and NIST does not offer one. They simply admitted these facts and then refused to investigate the possibility that controlled demolition was used to bring down the WTC buildings.  The 9/11 Commission never mentioned WTC 7.

2) No tall steel building has ever collapsed due to fire, even much worse and longer fires than those on 9/11.  There are many examples of this.

3) Nanothermite, a powerful military explosive, was found in abundance in all four independently collected samples of WTC dust.

4) General Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, with close ties to the CIA, had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta a week before 9/11, and then met with high-ranking Bush administration officials in Washington in the week leading up to 9/11.  The 9/11 Commission refused to investigate these facts and failed to report them in its official report.

5) Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation on 9/11, testified to facts suggesting that Vice President Cheney ordered an air defense stand-down on 9/11. Other witnesses corroborate that a stand-down order came from the highest levels of the White House.

6) The government has refused to release any of the 85 videos that would show exactly what hit the Pentagon, and seized all private such videos within minutes after 9/11.

7)  Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, when asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, said: “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

8)  The failure of the 9/11 Commission:
The chairs of the Commission have stated “We were set up to fail.”

Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission, wrote the Bush administration’s preemptive war doctrine, a fact he failed to disclose to the Commission before his selection, and according to Phillip Shenon of the New York  Times, he wrote an outline of the Commission’s proposed findings before the investigation had begun.

60% of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.

In August 2006, in the Washington Post, John Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, stated: “I was shocked how different the truth was from the way it was described… “The (NORAD Air Defense) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years….”

Max Cleland,  former Senator from Georgia, resigned from the 9/11 Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal. This investigation is now compromised. One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.”

Several top commissioners suspected such serious deception that they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

Over 25% of the footnotes in the 9/11 Commission Report refer to information obtained through torture making it highly unreliable and inadmissible in a court of law.

KBDI Historic Airings of 9-11 Documentaries Draws Media Attention.

9-11 Blueprint for Truth to Debut on Colorado Public Television.

Media Breakthrough! 9-11 Press for Truth to Be Shown on Mainstream Television.

KBDI Press Release: 9/11 Press for Truth on Channel 12 Draws Huge Support from Colorado Public Television Viewers.

Recent airings by KBDI-TV Channel 12 in Denver Colorado of important documentaries such as 911 Press For Truth and 911 Blueprint For Truth has received substantial mainstream media attention, first, here in the Denver Post hit piece from August 21, 2009.

Current Magazine, public broadcasting’s monthly newspaper, has now given this bold move by KBDI some well deserved attention in its September 8, 2009 issue.  This article is much more balanced than Joanne Ostrow’s disrespectful treatment of the 9-11 truth movement and is more in line with real journalism that is so lacking in today’s mainstream media.  Thank you to Current Magazine!

current-mag-9-08-09-article

KBDI has also announced that there will be several encore presentations of these films in the month of September.  Times and dates are below.

Everyone is urged to show KBDI how much you appreciate their programing by donating anytime online!  Be sure to link your contribution to one of  these films to receive the gifts KBDI offers for your pledge.

SCHEDULE OF AIR TIMES

Thursday September 17
8:30 PM 911 Blueprint for Truth

Saturday September 19, 2009
1:00 AM 911 Blueprint for Truth
3:00 AM 911 Press For Truth
5:30 PM 911 Blueprint for Truth
7:30 PM 911 Press For Truth

Sunday September 20, 2009
4:00 PM 911 Press For Truth
11:00 PM 911 Blueprint for Truth

Monday September 21, 2009
1:00 AM 911 Blueprint for Truth

KBDI-Channel 12 has a reputation for broadcasting bold, distinctive documentaries. Just where to draw the line between bold/distinctive and kooky/irresponsible is a matter of opinion.

Last weekend, during a pledge drive, Channel 12 aired controversial documentaries promoting conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and claiming taxes are unlawful. Answering the phones during the pledge drive were conspiracy believers who reportedly encouraged callers to believe.

The station received complaints over “America: Freedom to Fascism” along with ” 9/11: Press for Truth” and ” 9/11: Blueprint for Truth.” It also fielded requests for more.

The claims made in “Freedom to Fascism,” namely that the country is evolving into a police state ruled by a powerful elite that has tricked Americans into paying taxes, have been refuted by facts, notably in a lengthy New York Times piece last month.

I’m with the viewer who cancelled his KBDI membership and wrote, “What’s next on the KBDI hit list, films about President Obama being a citizen of Kenya or about how health-care reform wants to kill your grandmother?”

It’s nothing new for KBDI to staff the phone banks during pledge drives with supporters of whatever is on the air. Conservationists have been recruited to answer phones during nature broadcasts. Still, the arrangement raises questions about whether the station is making deals with interest groups to carry programming in exchange for pledge support.

A KBDI spokeswoman said, “Phone bank people are instructed not to get into debates whatever the issue. We can find people to staff our phone banks without making deals.”

Shari Bernson, Channel 12’s membership director, selects documentaries for airing. Her goal, she said, is to provide a forum for expression of different points of view and to air things the other stations won’t. “It hasn’t been easy with this content,” she said.

” 9/11: Pressed for Truth” was one of KBDI’s top five fundraisers in the past year. The station plans encores of the 9/11 docs in September.

“I am not a 9/11 truther,” Bernson volunteered. But her research found 43 percent of Americans have questions about what actually happened on 9/11. As far as fundraising goes, “Our mission is airing programming outside the mainstream.”

The station knows controversy fuels fundraising. Fully 32 percent of the station’s budget comes from pledges.

Original article here.

Denver, KBDI-12, Colorado Public Television

TV airing of “9/11: Blueprint for Truth”

In-studio appearance by Richard Gage, AIA

BOULDER  Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 2:00 p.m.

Live presentation by Richard Gage, AIA

“9/11: Blueprint for Truth,” Re-examining the Destruction of the Three World Trade Center High Rise Buildings

University of Colorado at Boulder

Mathematics Building Auditorium, Room 100

$10 suggested donation
DENVER - For more information on Richard Gage’s KBDI TV 12 appearance, see the next article on this web page.

BOULDER - Internationally acclaimed 9/11 speaker and San Francisco Bay Area architect Richard Gage, AIA, will present the evidence of the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises at the University of Colorado at Boulder on Sunday, August 16, 2009, at 2pm in the Mathematics auditorium. Gage will give a live multimedia presentation on behalf of more than 750 architects and engineers questioning the official story of what happened to these buildings on 9/11/01. After careful examination of the forensic data omitted from the official account, these professionals are calling for a new independent investigation into these catastrophic events.

A practicing architect for more than 20 years, Richard Gage is the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The organization contends that the official FEMA and NIST reports provide insufficient and contradictory accounts of the towers’ destruction. AE911Truth points in particular to the destruction of the third high-rise, World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building which was not hit by an aircraft yet came down at free-fall acceleration in less than seven seconds. The group bases its conclusions solely on forensic evidence and does not engage in conspiracy theories or in assigning blame.

AE911Truth’s conclusions are shared by thousands of scientists, senior-level military, intelligence and government officials, pilots and aviation professionals, firefighters, scholars and university professors, 9/11 survivors and their family members, and other professionals around the world (patriotsquestion911.com, firefightersfor911truth.org, journalof911studies.com).

Gage will present an abundance of photographic, video, and forensic evidence showing that the way in which the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC Building #7 collapsed (straight down, symmetrically, at accelerating speeds) is inconsistent with the plane-impact-and-fire scenario that is the official narrative.  The collapses in fact exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by controlled demolition.

You’ll see eyewitness testimony from firemen about molten metal in the rubble pile, see video of molten metal flowing from the windows before collapse, and then learn that even jet-fuel-induced fire is not hot enough to produce molten metal.  Where did the molten metal come from then?  You will learn about how the chemical signature of the incendiary thermite has been found in the dust that blanketed lower Manhattan on 9/11.  Thermite does produce molten iron and it can slice through massive steel columns “like a hot knife through butter.”  Evidence of nanothermite, an ultramodern explosive, was found in abundance in the dust.  These are chemical fingerprints at the scene of the crime, yet the official government studies of the event have refused to even test for accelerants or explosives (which they are obliged to do, according to fire investigation standards).

Bring your skeptical friends who want solid, documented evidence and disciplined thinking. We need our best critical thinkers to examine this evidence. Richard Gage, AIA, has put his professional reputation on the line, and over 750 architecture and engineering professionals stand in solidarity with him at AE911truth.org.  The time has come to set politics and unfounded belief systems aside and for scientists to follow this evidence wherever it may lead.

The 9/11 Truth Movement, which Time magazine called “a mainstream political reality,” is gaining momentum. There are currently thousands of web pages calling the official 9/11 account into question. As AE911Truth’s own influence grows, Gage has embarked on over 100 speaking events, covering 19 states and 8 countries. The organization recently hosted exhibits at architectural conventions in San Francisco and Washington DC, educating thousands of architects and engineers, rapidly signing up about 100 onto the petition calling for a new investigation.

Gage will be speaking later this year in 11 cities in Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

Parking at University of Colorado: There is a parking lot directly west of the Mathematics Building.  See Campus Map.  The Math building is a blue shape on the map, on the south side of Colorado Ave at Folsom Street.  Parking areas are shaded in pink on the map.  Add’l parking info
Notes from a few of the hundreds of Architects and Engineers…

“I think we were all shocked when the buildings came down; it just didn’t seem right. Richard Gage, AIA, does an excellent job uncovering the problems with the official explanation in a scientific, non-partisan way. It’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ about 9/11 that everyone should be aware of. Brace yourselves.”
-Chris Mungenast, AIA
Somerville, MA

“WTC Building #7 was not hit by aircraft, yet it collapsed nearly at free-fall speed - similar to the towers. The small fires don’t explain this, and the two reports (FEMA & NIST) don’t address this or the molten metal found in the basement by the demolition contractors.  Why not?  What happened there?  I have serious questions as a result of Mr. Gage’s thought-provoking presentation.”
-John Cole, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA

“The presentation by AE911Truth.org brings serious doubt to the official story. It is very difficult to understand how all 3 Trade Center buildings could have come down the way they did, solely as the result of the 2 airplane impacts and resulting fires.”
-Jeffrey G. Arnold, Architect
Orinda, CA.

“AE911Truth exposes that a localized failure in a steel-framed building like WTC 7 cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards at free-fall speed without a simultaneous and patterned loss of several of its columns at key locations within the building.”
-Kamal Obeid, PE, Structural Engineer
Fremont, CA

“I completely support AE911Truth.org.   Besides the prima facie evidence which they present well, I think there is a hidden truth in the lack of changes demanded by insurance companies and building code agencies as preventative measures. If they don’t want to change policy or method as a result of the ‘collapses,’ then there is no truth to the official story.”
-Keith Burns, Architect
Warren Grove, New Jersey

KBDI, Channel 12 will be featuring ‘9/11: Blueprint for Truth’  as a pledge drive fundraiser.   Richard Gage, AIA, will be at the studio for on-air interviews during this historic broadcast.

We are thrilled with this development!

However, please do not call or email KBDI.

The staff at KBDI thank you all for your calls and emails regarding the broadcasts of ‘9/11 Press For Truth’ and the upcoming broadcast of ‘9/11:  Blueprint for Truth.’  As much as they would like to be able to personally respond to everyone, they cannot as the volume of grateful responses is overwhelming their small staff!

But here are things you can do that will help the 9/11 Truth movement:

1) If you are outside the Colorado area, contact your local PBS station and deliver to them a copy of ‘9/11 Press for Truth,’ ‘Zero,’ and  ‘9/11:  Blueprint for Truth.’  Tell them of the great success KBDI Colorado Public Television has had with their pledge drive with ‘9/11 Press for Truth,’ and suggest they screen these films.

Don’t forget, this is a relationship you are building with your local PBS station.  We may soon have some guidelines for you–but you know what to do:  dress nicely, be polite, build credibility, thank them, follow up after they’ve had time to view the films, be patient, etc.

Look for an opportunity to volunteer for your local PBS station.

2) If you choose to support KBDI with a financial contribution when ‘9/11:  Blueprint for Truth’ is screened on August 15, 2009, call or email and make a pledge.  Colorado 9/11 Visibility will be at the phones and delighted to be overwhelmed by your calls!

70% of KBDI’s funding comes directly from the Colorado Community and mostly in the way of individual contributions — this is how they stay in business.

3) Donate anytime to KBDI!

Thank You!

Fran Shure, Tim Boyle and Michael Wolsey

for Colorado 9/11 Visibility