Denver and Boulder Meetings: David Ray Griffin: “9/11: Why Do Bill Moyers and Robert Parry Accept Miracles?” Grand Junction: “Gasland”: February 2012

Scroll down for announcements of events by other organizations, with a few corrections.

This month Colorado 9/11 Visibility is proud to present Dr. David Ray Griffin’s brilliant challenge to the progressive media:  9/11: Why Do Bill Moyers and Robert Parry Accept Miracles? (1 hour, 15 minutes)

Hosted by philosopher, educator, activist, and author Dr. Richard Curtis, Professor Griffin explores at Town Hall in Seattle why some of the best independent journalists in America accept without question the official conspiracy theories put forth by the 9/11 Commission and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) in their investigations of the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
Using Bill Moyers and Robert Parry as examples of journalists who have previously demonstrated notable courage, objectivity, and a willingness to examine crucial events in depth, rather than simply accepting a single-minded source, Dr. Griffin challenges their current disregard of the overwhelming scientific evidence uncovered by the growing number of professionals openly supporting the 9/11 Truth Movement and calling for a proper investigation.

Dr. Griffin explains how careful examination of the official conspiracy theories regarding the unprecedented collapse of the three tallest World Trade Center buildings reveals contradictions and violations of the laws of physics, which he rightly points out as being impossible, and therefore would require “miracles” to achieve, unless carried out by the use of explosive, controlled demolition techniques.

Please join us and bring a friend!  This is an excellent film for your friends who are new to this issue as well as for those who are informed yet perplexed by the reaction of some of our media’s best journalists.

Bio: Dr. David Ray Griffin, Emeritus Professor of Theology and Philosophy of Religion at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, is one of the world’s most influential proponents of the 9/11 Truth Movement and author of 11 books questioning the official accounts of the events of September 11, 2001.

[Read more…]

9/11 and Skeptic Magazine’s ‘Science’ of Controlled Demolitions

The debate of March 6, 2011, at the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado, between Richard Gage, AIA, and Chris Mohr, Denver investigative journalist, continues with this excellent rebuttal by Jeremy Hammond to Chris Mohr’s claims.  A dialog between Mr. Hammond and Mr. Mohr is also posted at the end of this article.  Here is the audio of that debate hosted by Colorado 9/11 Visibility and co-sponsored by Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, and We Are Change Colorado.

 

Foreign Policy Journal 9/11 and Skeptic Magazine’s ‘Science’ of Controlled Demolitions

by Jeremy R. Hammond

September 16, 2011  Chris Mohr at Skeptic magazine writes that “conspiracists are working hard to publicize their claims of scientific validity to the conjecture that the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition.” He mentions a debate he had with Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, where more than 1,500 professional architects and engineers who question the official explanation for the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings have signed a petition calling for a new—that is to say a real—investigation. “I thought initially that Gage might be on to something,” Mohr writes, “until I examined his science carefully” and debated him. In his article, he lists his responses to the controlled-demolition hypothesis. Sticking to the question of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), let’s examine Mohr’s arguments against the science behind the controlled-demolition hypothesis and in favor of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. If you’re unfamiliar with WTC 7, you can watch it collapsing on 9/11 in the video below. Mohr begins his case with the argument that “You cannot secretly prepare a controlled demolition of the two World Trade Center buildings … without anyone noticing anything unusual.” He does not mention it, but we may presume he thinks it would be just as impossible in the case of WTC 7, the third WTC building to collapse completely on 9/11. The main point to be made about this assertion is that it is not a scientific argument, but speculation. It for starters assumes that nobody noticed anything unusual in the days, weeks, and months before 9/11. But is that true? Since this possibility was never actually investigated, and thus building workers were never interviewed and asked whether they noticed any suspicious activity going on, we don’t really know. Also, while it may seem unlikely that this could be done, if the actual scientific evidence disproves the fire-induced collapse hypothesis and proves the alternative, then one has a priori knowledge that however unlikely, this must have occurred. So we must turn to the science, which Mohr does get to, eventually, as we shall see.

Mohr writes, “Though it is true that no tall steel frame buildings ever collapsed due to fire alone prior to 9/11, since then, other tall steel framed buildings have.” He is referring, of course, to WTC 7, which wasn’t hit by a plane. It did suffer significant debris impact damage from the collapse of the North Tower, but the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency responsible for the investigation into the building’s collapse, acknowledged that the damage was neither an initiating nor determinative factor in the collapse. As the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) noted in its initial report, “Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings.” Following up on FEMA’s preliminary investigation, NIST noted in its final report that the collapse of WTC 7 “was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.” Richard Gage has observed that in every instance where a tall building (that is, a steel-framed skyscraper) has collapsed with characteristics like those of WTC 7, it was a known controlled demolition.

But Mohr says that it has since occurred that “other tall steel framed buildings have” “collapsed due to fire alone”. His example? “On May 13, 2008, a large part of the tall concrete-reinforced steel architecture tower at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands caught fire and thereafter had a very fast, nearly straight-down collapse mostly into its own footprint.” The first problem with Mohr’s [Read more…]

Tenth Anniversary Message From Interlink Publisher: September 2011

September 11, 2001 is a date forever etched in our collective memory. No one can forget what happened on that fateful day: the horrific attacks, the innocent people who died when the towers collapsed; the bravery and heroic sacrifices of rescue workers and service men and women; and, not in the least, the death, destruction, and consequences of the morally and legally unjustified wars that ensued.

But as we remember, it is our responsibility as citizens to question our government and demand answers that would explain what really happened as well as how 9/11 was used to take us to war. Are you able to say that the official story gives you an objective understanding of what happened that day? Are you satisfied with the 9/11 Commission Report that left out any reference to the collapse of WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane and fell systematically at freefall speed? And what about those glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in the government’s story and the blind endorsement of the official explanation by the mainstream media?

I, like many Americans, am a skeptic—not a lunatic, a nutcase, or a conspiracy theorist. And I am thankful to David Ray Griffin whose extraordinarily well-reasoned and meticulously  researched books continue to demolish the official account and demand a thorough, independent investigation. His just released book 9/11 Ten Years Later is a must-read, albeit a painfully disturbing one, for anyone in support of a full, rigorous inquiry, without which many questions shall remain unanswerable.

Michel Moushabeck
Publisher