2013.04.03 Easter - needing a new investigation of the conspiracy to kill Jesus, and his birth certificate
I have been accused of being a skeptic but...
On this Easter day let us seek the truth of what really happened when Jesus was crucified. Some historians estimate that the Crucifixion was around April 3, 0033. The Official Story is that the Roman judge Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the decision by asking the people who should be killed, Jesus or Barabbas. Does this make any sense? Pilate was not an elected official and did not have to answer to the common people. However, he would listen to the class with influence and money.
According to the official story, Pilate asked a crowd outside his palace who should be the one to be crucified. Now, does this make any sense? How many people, in the days before newspapers or Tweeting, would even know that such a vote was about to take place? How many could take off work and stand outside the palace, waiting for the time to take the vote? Was it a representative sample size of the population? Barabbas was a thief or murderer, so why would the crowd choose peaceful Jesus who stood up for the ordinary guy?
Jesus had recently chased the money changers out of the temple with a whip, the only report of him being violent. This was bad for the early banking business. The regular people liked Jesus, who preached equality and freedom for all. So why would the people want him killed?. It is far more likely that a conspiracy of money changers, those with financial influence over government, would want him killed. The Sanhedrin was a council of 23 influential people in the community, probably people with money - the money changers. We need a new, independent investigation of the official account of what happened in Jerusalem on 4/3/33.
Note: I do not intend to implicate any religion. Money changers
were business men who could also be Roman god worshippers, Pharisees, Sadducees,
Essenes, atheists, polytheists - or money worshippers.
Also, no one has ever produced a paper birth certificate for Jesus showing God to be the father - which may be to hide Joseph as the real father - a close friend Mary had been traveling extensively with. There is no record of their requesting separate rooms or mangers at the Inn.
History repeats itself.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate = Roman judge for the Jerusalem area
wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin - council of 23 elders, who asked Pilate to crucify Jesus
The group is not Custodians and Janitors for 9/11 Truth.
but Architects and Engineers - people who know buildings.
Not High School Dropouts for 9/11 Truth,
but Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
The job of the Fireman is to put out fires.
The job of the Mechanic is to fix machinery.
The job of the Doctor is to heal the patient.
The job of the Teacher is to teach the student.
If the student does not believe 9/11 was an inside job.
Then we have not answered their questions properly.
If we think we answered them, and they don't wake up.
We have to explain 9/11 Truth in a way that they will get it.
That's what we do.
OCT was dominant 2001 - 2008. RCTO/CD theory rising 2009 - 2013
Some scientists spoke out for the OCT in 2001 - 2008 when there was no other
explanation for 9/11 on the table,
and most Americans believed that Bush and Cheney would not lie about WMDs. Everyone believed the OCT. I believed it until 2006.
But more and more scientists see plausible alternative explanations, including Remote Control Take Over (RCTO) and Controlled Demolition (CD) that fully explains the same evidence, plus more. There are even movies with alternative explanations such as OperationTerror.com . Fewer and fewer people and scientists defend the Offishy Theory each day.
Look at the dates of the papers, from the list posted on JREF.
1. Go to www.911Experiments.com/OCT
2. Ctrl+F for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and you will find some papers
2. Ctrl+F for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013 - No find
The OCT was dominant for 8 years. But the CD theory has been rising its 4th year.
Also notice that the 2001 - 2008 papers have no real life material experiments, no replications, and been largely debunked.
None of the 2001 - 2008 studies explain the beam in the AmEx, or the 2.4 seconds of free fall in WTC 7.
That's why there is no organization of architects, engineers, or scientists defending the official theory any more. The mark of a failed theory is that no scientists defend it any more. It goes the way of the flat Earth theory.
As there are more and more questions about 9/11, there should be more papers defending the OCT.
But no. There are fewer and fewer papers trying to defend the Bush-Cheney theory.
2009 is when the Bentham study came out, (peer reviewed by Dr. David Griscom) and www.NielsHarrit.org
A follow up study to replicate it, at an independent lab, is now in the works. www.MarkBasile.org
Dr. Millette has not published his study in over a year.
www.JournalOf911Studies.org continues to publish papers, right up until March 2013.
It is far more likely that at an investigation, whether it is in the USA, or the International Court at the Hague,
experts from Columbia, MIT, Yale, and Harvard on the AE911Truth list would show up and testify.
Controlled Demolition experts would concur that absolutely, controlled demolition happened on 911.
Former FBI Special Agents would come forward and testify their prosecution of terrorist suspects was thwarted from above, for no good reason.
CIA agents such as Ray McGovern would testify that the Bush Administration encouraged "cooked" intelligence to justify the wars.
All the Columbia PhD can say is that they could not distinguish the seismic signals from debris falling to the ground from explosions many floors above - which make negligible seismic signals. Explosions from higher floors make no seismic signals measurable from Columbia. Think about it. Seismic waves are just vibrations. It is also hard to tell which direction they came from.
Dr. Shyam Sunder would not show up. He has refused to speak about 9/11 since 2009. He did his job, lied, got his raise, got his award, and wants to go on to other things.
Steel going sideways over 600 feet for over 60 mph and sticking in the AmEx building is the smoking gun for anyone who knows basic physics.
More and more members of www.Students911Truth.org, the professors of the future, are challenging what their professors say about 9/11.
No self respecting scientist would risk a perjury charge by testifying under oath for such an obvious bunch of lies, and violations of Laws of Nature, now that they have been pointed out.
Characters from the movie www.OperationTerror.com and real life counter parts.
L. Paul Bremer added to 9/11 Suspects
Facebook page added for www.Facebook.com/pages/Association-for-Nine-Eleven-Truth-Awareness
I was interviewed by Andrew Steele on the 9/11
Free Fall show, No Lies Radio station, December
2, 2012 at 4:00 pm
I was interviews by Dr. James Fetzer on his internet radio show,
The Real Deal, on November 28, 2012.
techniques for influencing people have been popular since 1936,
because they produce positive results for over 75 years.
I periodically need to review these points myself.
New movie about 9/11: Operation Terror
I ordered the DVD and can't wait to receive it and review it.
Writer Art Olivier ways:
The theory in Operation Terror is that an remotely controlled A3 shot a missile at the Pentagon and then followed the missile though the hole. A3's have folding wings so they can fit more of them on aircraft carriers. The main reason I have remotes in the movie is because of the defense related occupations of the victims on the passenger lists. I suspect they were killed because of their knowledge of something.
Another trick is to call anyone who does anything bad to us "Al Queda".
----- Original Message -----From: Mr XTo: Mr YSent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:18 AMSubject: Re: Governors, Congressmen and Senators who want a new investigation of 9/11
There is not ONE Governor, Congressman, or Senator who wants a new investigation.
You already know he is 100% for it.
“You should question some things if they don’t make sense,” he said. “I don’t think it’s unpatriotic.” Peterson said both he and his wife, Dorothy, decided to support the petition article after watching one of the videos of the collapse of the Twin Towers, which he said looks like a controlled demolition to them. “That raised questions because that’s not how a building would fall if it was attacked,” Peterson said. “Both Dorothy and I had viewed the video and there were certainly a lot of serious questions raised about what happened there.”
I'm not sure if they (CIA) broke the law or not but what they did do, I think, is try to impede our investigation,"We, to this day, don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
How was it that it took over an hour after the first transponder went off before planes were scrambled to meet the threat? All of them too late.
I am convinced that the 9/11 Commission Report did ignore some very, very important things like the third building, as well as why did those numerous Arabs from Saudi Arabia with the name of bin Laden get to go home when none of us were allowed on airplanes.
Regarding the 9/11 Commission Report "There's something wrong here, something tragically wrong. The American people, the families, the country and the Congress need to know the truth, the whole truth, the complete truth. And so far we haven't gotten it. … Somebody's got to connect the dots and answer the questions. If the 9/11 Commission won't do it, then Congress has to do it."
Signed petition: We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media."
First of all, you have to understand that all over the country people are concerned about whether or not they've been told the truth about 9/11. And the way that the administration handled 9/11, taking us into a war against Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11, deepened people's suspicions about the possibility there may have been a cover-up. Because, why would the government lie about a cause for war? And so, what I'm saying is that I respect the concerns people have about whether they've been told the truth or not.
"I think there are some questions that have not been satisfactorily answered by the Federal investigators -- the official government -- the Commission, and so forth. For example Building 7 still hasn't been explained. In fact they really haven't come up with an official -- they've come up with some tentative things regarding the building.
Question: 53% of the Americans in the New York Times / CBS [poll] think the government is lying to them about 9/11. Why is that question not asked at these debates?
Senator Gravel: I don't know. They don't want to ask it. And I pledge to the people who are concerned about that, that should I become President, we're going to have a new investigation.
Question: Do we know the whole truth about 9/11?
Senator Gravel: Hell, no!
U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) said yesterday that while he was positively disposed toward a new investigation into the events of 9-11, his support for such a probe would depend on the form it would take. ...
"I think it's not a bad idea," Schumer said. "You know, you've got to do it in a good way, but yes, I'd be for it."
The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers "would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,"
"They [NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission. ... For almost three years now NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history."
the two questions that the Congress would not ask, because the Republicans won't allow it, is, why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama bin Laden cornered, why didn't they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions, these questions would have been asked years ago.
----- Original Message -----From: Mr. XTo: Mr YSent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:16 PMSubject: Re: Can't lump credible, scientific 9/11 Truthers or Birthers with Joel Gilbert
Easily. You lie and misrepresent facts all the time, and I assume you get that from the Truthers. I don't think you are capable of honestly debating anything, which is why you got such hostility from JREF. (I have taken what they say is a crazy position, and have no such problem---but I don't lie and misrepresent facts).How about if every time you write, I just point out the lies? You make Cheney look like St. Peter.>the Governors, Senators and Congressmen on PatriotsQuestion911.orgThere is one former governor, Jesse Ventura, who is not considered a credible reference, and who can't get on TV discussing anything seriously. Lie 1: So the use of plural is the lie.Lie 2: There is not a single Congressman or Senator who has stated any of the core Truther tenants (the US government was behind 911 or was involved in killing its own citizens; the WTC buildings came down from explosives).and the Investigators on Sheriff Arpaio's teamare credible.Lie 3: There were no investigators and no report was issued, and there was effectively no investigation. One guy with no forencis background went to HI, but he did not speak with anyone other than the lady at the desk who told him he'd have to be "approved" by filling out the form on their website, which he did not do prior to leaving on his trip. He spoke, according to CNN, with no one in authority for the state of Hawaii, and he hired no forencis experts to examine the evidence.Mr. X
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM, <Mr Ywrote:
You can't lump the credible, scientific 9/11 Truthers or Birthers with Joel Gilbert.He is a fraud and gives Skeptics a bad name.I'm exposing him big time, such as on Facebook.I made this Facial Analysis.Richard Gage and the PhDs and CE's on AE911Truth.org,
the Governors, Senators and Congressmen on PatriotsQuestion911.organd the Investigators on Sheriff Arpaio's teamare credible. Joel is not.----- Original Message -----From: Mr. XTo: Mr YSent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:59 AMSubject: Re: Joel Gilbert is a fraud. National Press Club
Given all the lies, nonsense, facts distortion and absence of evidence to support anything the Truthers say, you are worried about this one guy?Like worrying about a burning match while the house is burning down. This guy on his most lying day ever, couldn't touch the bold face lies the Truthers tell in trying to pretend they have an argument.
"The little things are infinitely the most important." - Sherlock Holmes.
I had a computer consulting job in 1996 at the Washington Institute a "think tank" for American (Israeli and oil) interests in the middle east. Washington DC is full of these organizations on K and L Streets, to influence our Congressional Representatives on which way to vote. Its mission is "improving the quality of U.S. Middle East Policy" - improving it for whose interests?
He openly suggests a false flag attack to get America into a war in Iran. He says "I'm not advocating it" - right after he suggests it. "It would be best if somebody else starts the war."
Same with the board of "experts", headed by Robert Satloff PhD, holder of the "Howard Berkowitz Chair". Yes Berkowitz.
Find me even one sane person who says that steel can fall sideways
The World Trade Center was finished in 1973, but used asbestos insulation
Documentary on Lucky Larry and WTC 7
If you fight you might lose.
If you don't, you have already lost.
On August 28, 2006, Dan Eggen of the Washington Post published this article about the FBI and Bin Laden.
About the lack of 9/11 being mentioned on Bin Laden's wanted poster, Prosecutor David N. Kelley said:
I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was.
We would be troubled too, if we started 2 wars without formal charges.
The FBI maintains a separate "Most Wanted Terrorists" list, which includes bin Laden and 25 others who have been indicted in U.S. federal courts in connection with terror plots. But this second Bin Laden listing also makes no mention of Sept. 11.
Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
The article implies that Bin Laden organized the 9/11 attack. He praised it but never claimed to have organized it.
This article was published on August 28, 2006. It has been 6 years since then, with no further evidence coming forward, not even from the "treasure trove" from the alleged Bin Laden raid in May 2011.
FBI spokesman Rex Tomb stated there was no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.
Letter to Senator Charles Grassley of the Judiciary Committee
It was a pleasure to meet you at the Convention in Des Moines, and I look forward to attending the Convention in Tampa this week.
In Des Moines, I showed you the book by James Corsi (PhD Harvard) "Where's the Birth Certificate" and mentioned Sheriff Joe Arpaio's forensic investigation. As a computer consultant, I see many anomalies in the digital file we have been given, pointing to forgery.
Dr. Corsi has written on the President's many facial and body similarities with Hawaiian Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, a close friend of his mother Ann Dunham, who was mentioned many times in the President's autobiography.
So I am suspicious, and concerned if our President is telling the truth about his background and priorities.
Thank you so much for your response of July 25, 2012 about missing evidence related to the raid that allegedly killed Bin Laden - which President Obama is taking a lot of credit for.
There are reports that Bin Laden died of Marfan's Syndrome around 2002. Shockingly, the main evidence, the body, was dumped into the ocean. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that there is something fishy going on.
Still, there should be other hard evidence, to be sure the man seen via MISTY satellites and HUMINT was not really one of Bin Laden's doubles. There should be fingerprints from around the Abbottabad compound and on the seized "treasure trove" of objects.
DNA can be found in comb hairs, then compared with the DNA of known Bin Laden family members. Please ask that standard Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) techniques are applied to this most important case.
There are many benefits that Obama and others would gain through the story of the mission to "kill or capture Bin Laden". Note he says "kill" first, as if that was the priority (if he couldn't be killed, then capture him) so the man could never testify in court.
Missouri is the "show me" state, yet Iowans are also critical thinkers, not easily bamboozled, and demand evidence in such an important case.
Just Google "Cheney lies" to find over 11 million hits.
Did the whole FBI single out Bin Laden?
The FBI did not single out Bin Laden. Robert Mueller did.
|"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes|
Consciousness, Sherlock Holmes, and 9/11
For more on Sherlock Holmes and 9/11: Norwood and Operation Northwoods
May 31, 2012 - Memorial Day
On this day we Remember US soldiers and sailors on the 4th of July
especially for the Great Generation who fought WWII and Korea
- the last wars against a truly dangerous enemy.
VietNam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were war of choice against weak armie, and war crimes for oil,
Great Generation Envy, medals, drug business, and job security for the Military Industrial Complex.
May 1, 2011
It is a common myth that the CRAP paper got "published" in Bentham. It never was. Notice that no one ever cites an issue number nor date it was supposedly published. The CRAP paper was only accepted for initial review. The next step would be that the author submits the application fee (about $800). He then would be assigned a qualified peer reviewer who would read it in detail and make suggestions to the author. At that stage the paper would probably have been seen for what it was, a hoax. It is misleading to say that the paper was "accepted by Bentham for publication" because it never was, and never appeared. In the end, the process worked. Bentham sells science books and has a reputation to preserve among science teachers who may recommend its books for their students. Although the myth makes a funny story, Writers should rationally state the facts, not slander Bentham, nor mislead the public.
Letter to New Scientist:
"CRAP paper accepted by journal"
Updated 14:28 28 September 2009 by Peter Aldhous
I would subscribe but the title of Peter Aldhous' article is very misleading and insulting to the Bentham science journals. Peter's title is "CRAP paper accepted by journal" (28 Sept 2009). The paper was NOT accepted for publication, which the title implies. It was only accepted for initial review. A peer reviewer would next be assigned. The paper never appeared in the Bentham Journal. There never was an issue it appeared in. The title should be immediately changed to "CRAP paper accepted for REVIEW by journal". I would expect New Scientist to be more careful about the titles of its articles, so as not to mislead the subscribers.
title of this article is misleading. The CRAP paper was never fully accepted for publication. The automated message from Bentham was that it was "accepted for publication AFTER peer-reviewing". That is not a guarantee of publication.
The $800 is to help pay for staff time to process the application, and find someone qualified who has the time and willingness to take a close look at the paper, and make suggestions for improvement to the author. The author would have to make those improvements to get published.
Phillip Davis evidently did not want to spend $800 because he knew that if someone really took the time to read his paper, it would be rejected, and he would waste his $800. He knew he would not be entitled to a refund after wasting Bentham's time and trying to play a trick on them. So he never sent the $800. So the $800 fee acts as a natural barrier to keep jokers like Phillip out.
By submitting credit card details to Bentham, Davis would be disclosing his real identity, which he did not want to do. So Bentham would take no further action to publish the article. Bentham says that they were suspicious by this time and were trying to find out who he was.
I don't believe the story that "to be a nice guy" he voluntarily "retracted" his paper. I don't believe the theory (never proven) that the paper "would be published". It was not "retracted" because it was never fully accepted in the first place.
Davis was evidently out to see how far he could get with the CRAP paper as long as he did not have to spend significant money. But if he never paid the application and review fee, and never really started the process, he cannot claim the paper was "accepted".
Davis is not a credible source for what happened. He is an admitted trickster. He claims that Bentham "made no attempt to get in touch with me to find out my true identity". This is a misleading statement. Since he gave Bentham fake contact information, they could only wait for the name on a credit card, which is harder to fake. All they could do, and did, was send an invoice to the email address he provided.
It is understandable that the busy Bentham staff will not spend much time to read papers that have no attached application fee, and just send a quick standard message, so they can focus on the papers that they were paid to consider.
It is a funny story - yet a myth that the paper was fully accepted. The article never got published, which is the main point. No one can cite an issue number or publishing date.
This is like Davis asking a university for an application, receiving an encouraging message from a clerk with a request for an application fee, never paying it, never having his application reviewed by the Admissions Committee, then claiming he was "accepted into the university".
Bentham has a 3 hurdle process to keep crap out of its journals. 1) Payment is required, which gets papers from people who are confident in their work and serious. 2) After payment Bentham staff takes a closer look at the paper to determine the topic and who can be a qualified peer reviewer. 3) A qualified peer reviewer is chosen who agrees to reads the paper in detail.
Davis' paper was self-eliminated at the 1st hurdle. It never even got to hurdle 2, or to hurdle 3, much less past it to publication. The process worked.
The proper title for this article is "‘CRAP’ paper accepted for 1st of 3 levels by publication".
In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practise it much. In the everyday affairs of life it is more useful to reason forward, and so the other comes to be neglected.
There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically.
A Study in Scarlet (1887)
From the clues, analyze the cause.
Seeing the iron microsopheres,
leading to the thought they came from explosives
leading back to that someone put them there
who had access to the building
Given premises, see conclusions.
Given that a group of powerful men organized 9/11, people can see how they could have gotten control over the WTC security and elevator company, to get explosives into the WTCs.
Wrong again. You have indicated in writing to me that some part of the Federal government caused 9-11, and in any event who caused 9-11 isn't central to me argument, so there is no "straw man." My arguments work no matter who was involved.
Straw Man again - putting an easily refutable argument of your choice in the other person's mouth. Again, I did not say that "the government murdered 3000 people" so please stop that. I do not believe Bush signed an Executive Order in the Oval Office to put explosives in the WTC.The debate about the presence of explosives has been won for almost a year now, due to hard physical evidence. Dr. Niels Harrit and Dr. Stephen Jones studied WTC dust and found it contains material with the chemical signature of nano-thermite explosives. No one has yet refuted their study or found that the chemicals were anything else, such as red paint.The material matches high tech explosives developed at places like Lawrence Livermore Laboratories. Dr. Jones is still listed as Professor Emeritus at www.Physics.BYU.edu - Brigham Young University has no obligation to do that. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htmBYI also lists his Thermite study. Why would they do that, unless they respect his work? His resume was updated April 2009, AFTER he retired (with full benefits) in 2007 to include the study. Evidently the early retirement was just to avoid distraction, and undue pressure from some powerful yet unfair influence.I have no reason to suspect Dr. Harrit would lie, or jeopardize his career, tenure, or pension.The dust contains 2Al+Fe2O3+Al2O3+2Fe+K+Si until anyone can prove the chemicals are otherwise. An experiment of identification, simply finding what chemicals are present, is irrefutable. It is what it is. No one can fudge this type of science. The scientist simply reads the result from the X-Ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS). Another experiment, detonating the chemicals, resulted in a highly explosive reaction.The only possibility is that this Dr. Stephen Jones and Danish Chemistry Professor somehow purchased controlled American military explosives, without anyone knowing. Why would he do that, and put his reputation and life at risk, even if he could?. I am inspired, however to keep looking on eBay, and for a reasonably priced electron microscope. XEDS gives the same chemical analysis results regardless of who uses them, regardless of wheter the scientist is Danish or Mormon.Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit welcome follow up studies of their work, offering assistance, and ask for any other explanation.Justin Kios has also done a follow up study on it, hitting the unexploded red material with a laser, and it explodes. Paint does not do that. I would not want "paint" like that on my house. Kevin Ryan discusses the need for publishing in refereed scientific journals.In April of 2002, RJ Lee Group was retained by the law firm of Pitney Hardin Kipp & Szuch LLP, on behalf of the Deutche Bank, to oversee and investigate the presence, type, amount, and extent of environmental contaminants in the Building. They found iron rich micro spheres, that require explosive-like temperatures to form (see page 16, 24 of attached PDF). In liquid form, iron forms tiny spheres due to surface tension. The RJ Lee Group is a scientific analysis company with no relation to the Truth Movement or any bias. Their very business depends on objectivity.The US Geological Survey Report also reported these spheres.Dr. Stephen Jones discusses the findings of the WTC dust and holes in the iron beams
The list of credible people who believe the WTC was controlled demolition can be seen with a Ctrl+F to Find "demolition" on www.PatriotsQuestion911.com911Truth.org has commissioned a poll by Zogby International (an independent survey company) in 2006 and found in several polls that:44% believe Bush exploited 9/11 attacks42% US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up38% The Commission should have investigated WTC 7's collapse45% Reinvestigate the attacks19% The US media's performance was Poor
>I have no idea what statement those 1,000 people signedThe petition that 1048 architectural and engineering professionals signed is visible from the "Sign the petition" button in the middle of www.AE911Truth.orgTo the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate of the United States of AmericaOn Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.Sincerely,The Undersigned
Note how the names include their Architectural or Engineer License Number. This is not some survey they quickly signed, but one they carefully considered, and were willing to include their professional credentials, including universities and firm names, risking their reputations for the world to see. Each was called to get a fax of their certificate for verification. The time to get on the list, and fax the verification would take at least 20 minutes of time from each signer, quite an investment, unless they believed in the cause.Richard Gage just finished a 9/11 Truth Press Conference in San Francisco on February 19 and is going strong. The number of member are increasing, not decreasing. Standing up for the truth only takes boldness in the beginning. Soon it will be common knowledge.
----- Original Message -----
From Mr. XSent: Monday, February 22, 2010 2:13 PMSubject: 1000 architects and eng
One comment on your 1,000 architects and engineers that support the position that the government murdered 3,000 people in downtown Manhattan on National TV.
The claim is unfounded until it is verified independently.
To verify is pretty simple: you hire an independent polling firm that calls a statistically significant sample (70 people?) and asks them, “Do you agree with the statement that the US government exploded the WTC buildings on 9-11? Yes/No/I don’t know.” Would this cost even $1,000 to do?
I have no idea what statement those 1,000 people signed (what did the petition they agreed to say?). People (like Clark and Marshall) were critical of the 9-11 commission for whitewashing the Bush Admin security team and the intelligence community, but it does not follow from a desire to investigate our Intel community and John Ashcroft, that those people believe that Bush blew up buildings filled with people. (The Pentagon and CIA certainly didn’t blow themselves up so you are left with Bush).
In determining what causes a building to fall after it has been hit by a jumbo jet full of fuel at high speed, the only opinions that matter are from those with technical expertise to ascertain how buildings fall. That means PhDs in structural engineering or physics or a background in demolition of some kind. Perhaps civil engineering.
The 1,000 people number is irrelevant. I do not believe that 1,000 PhDs in America believe that the government blew up the WTC and killed 3,000 people. But it would be easy enough for the Truthers to establish that independently, which of course they don’t.
Rick says Flight 77 plane exploded, just prior to hitting the Pentagon, explaining the smaller than expected hole.
Craig says plane flew over the Pentagon
----- Original Message -----From: xTo: RickSent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 10:03 PMSubject: Re: Guru.com - to bring more internet based jobs to Fairfield to keep up the numbers in the Dome
What I don't understand is how your group can expect Congress and taxpayers to authorize another study, in addition to the one that was done for the government by the best civil engineers in the world, without first presenting independently reviewed evidence that what you claim is true. I can't think of any political area where you could expect action from Congress without extensive studies that have been reviewed for the science.
What's in a name? Activists or Awareness?
Welcome to ANETA, our new Association for Nine Eleven Truth Awareness. The initial name was Association of Nine Eleven Truth Activists. We want to appeal to the greatest audience. Some people are hesitant to become "activists" but everyone wants more awareness. Consciousness, another name for Awareness, is primary in the universe, according to physics. So it is good to have the word awareness in the name.
In Washington DC there are many non-profit organizations of activists, such as:
Activists: Associations, Artists & other Abolitionists
International Association of Communication Activists
(ANA) Activists News Association
The African Activists Association
There are also organizations for awareness, such as:
Public Access Awareness Association
Jamaica Awareness Association of California
Breast Cancer Awareness Association
Association for Higher Awareness
Pipeline Association for Public Awareness
The word activists is good, but the word awareness is even better, so let's go with it. Our goal is to expand awareness, not necessarily the number of activists. The public does not have to become active, aside from voting for political candidates that support a full investigation of 9/11 and measures to prevent a false flag operation from happening again.