G2Voice Broadcast 143 - Crimes against Humanity
from the Governments of the world - Part II
Sunday, June 9th , 2019
10 AM CST
Last week’s G2Voice Broadcast
G2Voice Broadcast #142: Crimes against Humanity by the governments of the world! - Part One
Next Week’s G2Voice Broadcast
G2Voice Broadcast #144: The Attack is getting stronger BUT “they” will crumble because of the TRUTH!!!!
G2Church Upcoming Seminars
August 17th & 18th
Eden, New York
In response to “Guardian” DECEPTIVE news article about the Genesis II Church!
Forward written by Dr. Leonard Horowitz: https://medicalveritas.org/bleach-cures-cancers/
My Rebuttal to the Guardian Article
The information we are getting out about health is being suppressed by the FAKE Media worldwide.
www.telegram.org is a great alternative to Facebook! Everyone on our Facebook Pages join both channels below to stay up to date with the G2Church and G2Voice Broadcasts here! We can have up to 200,000 members and best part its uncensored!
G2Voice Telegram Channel: https://t.me/G2Voice
G2Church Telegram Channel: https://t.me/g2church
What we have done!
NOTE: We will have two more uncensored sites to make walls between us and the devils trying to stop us from getting the truth out!
“For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.”,
2 Corinthians 13:8-11 King James Version (KJV)
We now have the G2Voice Broadcasts on:
1. g2voice.is (AUDIO & VIDEO!)
G2Voice Telegram Channel:
G2 Sacramental Protocol Videos:
MMS Video Testimonies:
To stay healthy in this toxic world, do the following while you can.
What you can do!
Get our G2Church Documentary to the world!
Get this book and read it!
Read the Free Partial book:
NOTE: If you think the information can help you then buy the complete book at:
“Imagine, A World Without DIS-EASE Is it Possible?
NOTE: 100% of the proceeds go to the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing
Listen to the G2Voice each week!
Audio - www.G2voice.is
NOW we have each week’s VIDEO of G2Voice Broadcast on:
Get the Online course and study it for you and your family and take the exam and become a Health Minister and open a G2Church Chapter!
Learn how to make the G2Sacraments in your home so no one can hinder you getting the Sacraments!: https://g2churchvideocourse.org/
Stock up on G2Church Protocol Products!
Take a travel kit wherever you go!
- Took six months of spraying Chlorine Dioxide and drinking it to CURE this cancer! This stuff is remarkable!
- Heard about MMS in Feb and immediately ordered some. Got it to detox from glyphosates and to heal my gut. First, let me say, start with the starting procedure! I went too fast, I'm guessing like so many do! After 4 weeks of doing many things wrong, I got with the program...starting with 1/2 drop an hour and not neutralizing MMS. 16 days in, I had my first solid bowel movement in over 1 1/2 years, that's a miracle! I am still detoxing and keeping the course. My customized dose seems to be 1 1/2 drops and hour. Plus, I am taking MMS2 in the mornings when I drink my coffee before I start my MMS1 protocols, and again in the afternoon when I have finished the day's protocol with MMS1, but sometimes I stop the MMS1 after 4-6 doses and then go to MMS2 for 1 or 2 doses to finish out the day. I also, take a day off a week from MMS1 and use MMS2, so I can eat/drink stuff that would normally neutralize MMS1. It seems to be working well for me. I now do about a 1/3 capsule of MMS2 (Zero size) each dose. I am a total MMS convert! I carry it in my car, I keep a spray bottle of MMS1, MMS2 & DMSO in my kitchen and MMS 1 in the bathroom for my teeth (love my clean teeth now). I keep the a bottle of drops for my eyes and nose. I use it on mosquito bites too. I've done the MMS1 & MMS2 baths. I've "de-molded" my bedrooms & closets...I kept getting mold on the walls, not now! Plus I listen to the weekly broadcast in my kitchen on my tablet & playing catch up on listening to the older programs...I have learned SO much! My dogs are on a maintenance dose too...I have Jim's book, Mark's book & the DMSO book...have ordered the 24 Hour Diet. I know a big part of my healing is diet, I went through my cupboards and threw away all the processed stuff I had, have been buying some new cookware & getting rid of anything aluminum. I am eating 70% protein/fats and 30% complex carbs...I have lost 10 lbs, not really trying...I am not real big, 5'4" 118 lbs now and it's always been a battle to keep my weight in check...I know why now, too many carbs & low fat! Thank you Genesis 2 Church, you are a Godsend to me. MMS is definitely from our Lord Jesus. Keep up the good work, I so much appreciate what you are doing! Blessings to you!
- Mandy Reed
I used MMS on a tooth abscess. One week of rinsing my mouth every day, gone. Never to return!
- Autistic Child
So proud of Liam. Today he let me take him to a hairdresser and have his hair cut. The first time since he was a baby. I have been cutting it (usually hanging over the bathtub trying to catch him lol), although he has improved with that by starting to sit in a chair and let me cut his hair. But today was a huge milestone and I'm just so happy he is making such good progress :)
Just started on my journey today and I'm already feeling positive healthier and like a fog Has Lifted from my brain, before I got my MMS and I've been doing golden ground organic coffee enemas, I am planning on continuing that but doing it 2 hours or more before I start my protocol. I am pretty much through MMS health and Recovery guide book, and I'm also reading Imagine a world without DIS EASE so far loving both the books and just after one day I am starting to feel amazing results. Been doing research on this for about a month and I'm really excited to learn how to make my body heal itself by getting rid of the pathogens and toxins. God bless all of you at Genesis 2 Church thank you so much Mark and the rest of the staff.
- Steve Wilde, I have been saying this and been using it for 10 years
- Hi mark, PRAY FOR LINDZI, PLEASE
Just wanted to send a heartfelt thank you for giving people a real sense of hope and choice back into their lives.I purchased MMS about 3 or 4 months ago.I was very worried about talking it at first to be honest.
My family mostly, made me feel totally ridiculous even talking about it, let alone taking it!I'm a very cautious person usually, but something made me want to believe in this stuff.Anyhow I take only the smallest amounts of it, and not every day.I have noticed that I feel much more alive, and energised, if you will.I've started to spraying it on my skin with good results. Example, I've been painting a play backdrop for three days,7 hours at a time, none stop!Believe me thats quite something at 59 years old! I was tired by the end but not in the usual pain as I have been in previous years.?The point of this email is I've worked in a junior school in the UK for 23 years without any problems but unfortunately in my enthusiasm I happened to mentioned that I use MMS to one of the 8 year old kids, that was very upset saying, " she hates being a celiac" and, " having to eat the less than palatable food all the time!Because she was upset, I mentioned that MMS could help when and to check it out when she gets she gets older, just to make her feel better.Big, big mistake!!!!!The mother didn't appreciate my commentator all and reported me to the head teacher.So I'm now on a 2week leave from my employment and waiting to see if I have a job at the end of it.I should know better I know that, but my honesty gets the better of me unfortunately, I truly forget that people don't want to know about this.I find it very sad that you can't be a human being anymore!!!Sorry very long winded email.Very best wishes to you all Lindzi
- Sharon Lewis Burton
Great stuff for leg and feet cramps
- Dina Cesano
Powerful and magical!
- Arthritic joint pain relief 05/08/2019
Before MMS the pain in my hips was unbearable. It felt like I was being hit with a cattle prod. My hips were tight and I was loosing range of motion. I'm not old yet, I'm only 59. After about a month of MMS sacraments and prayer I'm about 80% better. So there is hope.
Crimes against Humanity from Governments of the world - Part Two!
This week we are continuing our topic about how Governments of the world are committing crimes against humanity! Whether it by Acts (or sins) of omission and commission i.e. things you have failed to do, or things you have done. It is still being done to ALL of us! This week we will look into one of the BIGGEST crimes done in the U.S. and that is the CRIME of 9/11. There are SO many FACTS that disprove the "official" narrative of what happened that we won't be able to cover them all, BUT we will include many articles and videos for those of you that are CRITICAL thinkers and will do your DUE DILIGENCE in searching out the TRUTH!
Logical unanswered questions about 9/11
9/11 - The Only Post You Need to Read - 50 Questions They Can't Answer
NOTE: This is a Three- Part series that is FULL of Information and unanswered questions! These three videos cover over 4 Hours! IF 9/11 was an “Inside Job” then it behooves ALL of us in the U.S. and the world to research it further. This is a good start. We have much more below! May we all find the TRUTH about what REALLY happened on 9/11! - Mark Grenon
50 Questions That No-One Can Answer!
This is Not a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory - it's Game, Set & Match!
9/11 - 50 Questions They Can't Answer - (Part 1 of 3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVYpZeH3Cqw
9/11 – 50 QUESTIONS They Can’t Answer: (Part 2 of 3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdRmnk6Q1VI
9/11 – 50 QUESTIONS They Can’t Answer: (Part 3 of 3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxF4HL-kIfo
Truth Fears No Investigation – Let’s Investigate!
I am not going to ram my personal opinion/belief on the events surrounding 9/11 down your throat. I am going to present 50 Very Reasonable, Logical and Scientific Questions that ALL of us should be demanding answers to.
I searched the blockchain prior to writing this post (I honestly didn't want to write a post on 9/11 as I have was working on some other stories) but in searching the blockchain I soon realised that no-one had (yet) comprehensively addressed the key-points surrounding the events of 9/11 in a single post.
I think that it is safe to say that each of us awoke after experiencing our very own unique and personal aha moment at some point in time. We may have researched many other topics in the lead-up to our aha moment, but there can only be one aha moment (not dissimilar to your first kiss), for me it was 9/11.
I believe that the steemit blockchain is here to stay, and if it here to stay then steemit needs credible and unique content and that simply has to include a comprehensive post on 9/11 - so with that aim in mind, and in an attempt to spread truth, and play my role in trying to wake people up, I chose to write this post about 9/11 - and now that I have posted it - I respectfully request that you read it, watch it, evaluate it, question it, share it and support it.
If you know someone that still believes or is satisfied with the Official NIST/Gov't Story - or isn't sure what happened on 9/11 - they need to read this post!
I have Provided the Full and Un-Edited Video Further Down the Page – For Now Please Enjoy the Trailer and Keep Reading!
Official Trailer - September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor - 50 Questions They Can't Answer
Popular Mechanics Magazine - Self Proclaimed Debunking of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories back in 2010
NIST (US Gov't / Official Story - 2005) - Final Report on 9/11
Final - Like End of Story?
Whoa, Whoa - Not So Fast - We Will Decide When It Is Final - Not You!
September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor
Massimo Mazzucco has created a 5 hour, 3 part, 9/11 Masterpiece of a documentary called September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. - everyone needs to see this film. Massimo Mazzucco has released it free of charge so that everyone can view and share it. I have re-uploaded the film (in 3 parts) and re-named it 9/11 - 50 Questions They Can't Answer (whilst giving all credit back to Massimo Mazzucco).
Massimo has produced a number of other documentaries which you can view for free on his website.
9/11 - 50 Questions They Can't Answer (i.e. September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor)
This documentary is unique because it avoids falling into the trap of discussing some of the more controversial theories that have been raised by 9/11 truth-seekers and sticks to the evidence that NIST & Popular Mechanics provided in their own reports. The film then proceeds to ask 50 very reasonable questions, that the NIST Report (Official Gov't Story) and Popular Mechanics Magazine avoid, (and continue to avoid).
This film (in my mind at least) proves that the official story doesn’t stack up, and why the self-proclaimed debunkers have failed to make a credible case against the so-called conspiracy theorists. NIST, Popular Mechanics and your Gov't now has 50 questions to answer yet it is highly improbable that they will ever be able to credibly answer the vast majority of them (because they can't).
To use a tennis analogy - the ball is now in their court and I think Massimo has hit a winner!
Pearl Harbor & 9/11 - Introduction
Massimo Mazzucco starts out by listing 12 things that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 have in common. Then it quickly switches gears and begins to forensically examine the data that NIST and Popular Mechanics provided.
Part One - Air Defense, Black Boxes and Hijackers
Mazzucco covers the non-existent air defense systems of NORAD and the USAF, the parallel military drills, the non-existent military interception, reaction, intervention, as well as the 'Cheney stand-down orders' that took place on 9/11. Mazzucco also covers the hijackers, their backgrounds, their inability to fly 2-seater Cessna's (let alone commercial airliners), as well as the 'missing' black boxes and the total lack of any credible evidence to support the claim that the 'alleged' hijackers even boarded the planes.
Question: In relation to the dialogue between Cheney and the young man at The Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 - can you suggest anything other than a direct stand-down order from Cheney?
Question: The Secret Service knew of the incoming planes for at least 30 minutes prior to them hitting their targets (they were tracking them on radar) and had the capability to shoot them down - but they didn't shoot them down. Why?
Part Two - Pentagon, Shanksville (UA93), Silverstein, NIST and WTC Intro
Mazzucco asks questions relating to the lack of video surveillance at the Pentagon on 9/11. I mean seriously, the Pentagon has hundreds of CCTV cameras covering every inch of the perimeter of the building yet, we only ever seen footage from one-angle and it has been doctored. The Pentagon also has missile defense systems that can shoot down approaching planes or missiles, but they didn't work either?
Shanksville (UA93) - where is the wreckage?
Question: The Shanksville (UA93) plane reportedly crashed into the ground, intact - can you explain why debris was found 6-8 miles from the crash site on a day with little wind?
Question: How could the terrorists be preparing to take control of the plane at 9:45am when they had supposedly already been in the cockpit for 15+ minutes?
Question: Can you explain why the Shanksville (UA93) plane was buried deep underground in a hole that somehow closed in on itself?
Question: WTC - Can you produce evidence that the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough, for long enough, to weaken the steel trusses?
Question: WTC - Can you produce evidence that the fireproofing that insulated the steel trusses were dislodged by the planes, especially seeing that NIST has made it a necessary condition for the collapse of the twin towers?
Question: Pentagon - According to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, the aircraft disintegrated before it had travelled a distance that approximately equalled its length, and that it is highly improbable that any significant portion of the aircraft could have retained its structural integrity at this point in time - can you explain what caused the almost perfectly round exit hole in the outer wall of the C-Ring at The Pentagon seeing that the plane had already disintegrated?
Part Three - WTC Towers and WTC Building 7 Free-fall Collapse
Mazzucco looks closely at the WTC towers and WTC Building 7.
Question: WTC - Can you explain why over than 100 eye-witnesses (mostly fire-fighters and policemen) all reported hearing and/or seeing explosions at the WTC?
Question: WTC - Can you explain the huge explosion in the basement of the North Tower before the plane hit?
Question: WTC - Can you explain what caused the huge explosion that destroyed the lobby of the North Tower 1 hour after the plane hit?
Question: Building 7 (the smoking gun) - Can you explain what caused the huge explosion, as reported by Barry Jennings and Michael Hess on the 8th floor of Building 7 - before the twin towers had even collapsed?
Question: Can you explain what caused the numerous explosions that were televised by CNN and the BBC after the twin towers had already collapsed, and before the collapse of Building 7?
Question: WTC - Can you explain the cause of the squibs that we all saw below the level of collapse (between the 30th and 40th floors)?
Question: WTC - Can you explain how large sections of debris literally flew into the air and landed a significant distance away from the towers when the upper sections of the towers did not have the required energy to propel them upwards and outwards?
The Documentary (in 3 Parts) including Time-Stamps (for easy referencing)
Part One - 9/11 - 50 Questions They Can't Answer
0.01:02 - 12 parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11
0.14:10 - The debate: main issues
0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors?
0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory" (radars, transponders)
0.22:00 - The military drills
0.29:40 - Specific warnings
0.33:08 - The chain of command
0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments
0.39:50 - The Mineta case
0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken"
0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary
0.57:15 - "Piss-poor student pilots"
0.59:38 - Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175)
1.01:52 - Ziad Jarrah (UA93)
1.03:06 - Hani Hanjour (AA77)
1.04:00 - The debunkers' positions
1.06:00 - 2 simulations of the Pentagon attack
1.13:10 - Someone knew?
1.16:40 - Airport security cameras
1.20.15 - The missing black boxes
1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones?
1.28:20 - Impossible speeds
1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?
1.38:35 - The cell phone calls
1.48:30 - The debunkers' position
1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where?
Part Two - 9/11 - 50 Questions They Can't Answer
0.02:35 - Downed light poles
0.03:30 - The missing plane
0.04:30 - The official version
0.05:24 - Problems with the official version (wing, ailerons, tail, engines)
0.13:09 - The mystery hole
0.14:10 - The debunkers' explanations
0.16:20 - Conclusions on damage analysis
0.17:00 - The missing tapes
0.18:30 - Security video analysis
0.23.40 - Pentagon summary
0.24.15 - The empty hole
0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations
0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion?
0.34:50 - The debris field
0.37.20 - The shoot down hypothesis
0.38:50 - The small white plane
0.41:40 - "Let's roll"
0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93
THE TWIN TOWERS
0.45:10 - Introduction
0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret
0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein
0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers
0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?
1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation 1
1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation 2
1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation
1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation
1.18:50 - Law of physics violated
1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and free-fall
1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E
Part Three - 9/11 - 50 Questions They Can't Answer
THE TWIN TOWERS (Continued)
0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions
0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives"
0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses)
0.15:00 - "Fuel in elevators shafts" theory
0.23:25 - Debunkers: "Explosions not recorded by tv cameras"
0.30:26 - Squibs
0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage)
0.35:00 - Ejecta
0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts
0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses?
0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures
0.45:30 - Debunkers' explanations
0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams
0.47:40 - Molten steel
0.51:05 - Molten concrete
0.53:50 - Pulverization
0.57:40 - Victims vaporized
1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers
1.05:10 - Introduction
1.06:35 - Official version by NIST
1.09:36 - Collapse computer simulation
1.11:00 - Fire computer simulation
1.12:20 - Debunkers: "Building 7 weaker"
1.14:25 – Pre-knowledge
1.19:00 - Symmetry
1.20:00 - Free-fall
1.22:30 - John McCain
1.24:35 - The last word
Closing Thoughts on the Film
Following are a few of the very interesting points that Massimo Mazzucco raises in the film:
- NIST claimed that the collapse of Building 7 is based on data that remains classified and therefore cannot be independently verified.
- NIST models are inconsistent with the visual records of the collapse of Building 7.
- NIST's own data shows that the fires, that supposedly led to the collapse of Building 7, had for the most part burned out over an hour before Building 7 collapsed.
- No steel-framed building in history has ever collapsed due to fire, yet 3 steel-framed buildings collapsed on the same day - and one of them (Building 7) wasn't even hit by a plane.
- The first-time phenomena of steel-framed buildings collapsing due to fires, as claimed by NIST has not resulted in any regulatory changes relating to how steel-framed buildings should be constructed post- 9/11.
- The hat trusses that sit at the very top of each tower was not found in the rubble - even though there was nothing above them that could have crushed them - it seems that they simply disintegrated.
- By 9:03 a.m. the US Gov't knew that two aircraft had already flown into the twin towers and that two others were hijacked - yet no effort was made to recall the fighter jets that were being used (diverted) in exercises/drills on that day.
- Molten steel was still present 3 months after 9/11 and there is clear evidence of molten concrete - and that requires temperatures that cannot be explained by office fires.
- The damage to the Pentagon could not have been made by a 757, and the plane could not have been flown into the Pentagon by a pilot. Even Top-Gun pilots and many commercial pilots are the the on-record as saying - we could not have flown those manoeuvres, let alone a guy that could not fly a 2-seater Cessna.
Bonus Facts (not in the film):
- The Twin Towers were powered down on 9/11 - for the first time in 30 years.
- The elevators were undergoing renovations in the weeks leading-up to 9/11.
- Bomb sniffing dogs were removed in the lead-up to 9/11.
- Heavy equipment was moved on to empty floors of the twin towers in the lead-up to 9/11.
Benjamin Netanyahu (1996) - A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel. The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values." It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting its possession of "weapons of mass destruction".
1 Year Later (1997) - Project for the New American Century'
Written before the September 11 attacks, and during political debates of the War in Iraq, a section of Rebuilding America's Defenses entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" became the subject of considerable controversy. The passage suggested that the transformation of American armed forces through "new technologies and operational concepts" was likely to be a long one, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans.
8th President of Italy - Francesco Cossiga - CIA & Mossad Did 9/11
In 2007, Cossiga wrote (referring to the 2001 September 11 attacks): "all democratic circles in America and of Europe, especially those of the Italian centre-left, now know that the disastrous attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world, to place the blame on Arab countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan".
In the same statement, Cossiga claimed that a video tape circulated by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and containing threats against Silvio Berlusconi was "produced in the studios of Mediaset in Milan" and forwarded to the "Islamist Al-Jazeera television network." The purpose of that video tape (which was actually an audio tape) was to raise "a wave of solidarity to Berlusconi" who was, at the time, facing political difficulties.
General Wesley Clarke - 4-Star US General, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Forces said USA Planned to Invade 7 Countries Weeks after 9/11.
DUSTIFICATION of WTC on 9/11 - From Steel to Dust
I am yet to fully research 'dustification' but this video is worth watching so am I am including it so that you can do your own research into 'dustification' if you wish. This is Part 5 of Dr. Judy Wood's seminar into 9/11.
9/11 - Were We Pre-Progammed About 9/11 Decades in Advance?
If You Seek Truth You Have Found a Home - Join Me on a Journey of Discovery - I Haven't Even Begun to Warm-Up!
Follow Me - No Topic is Too Big, Controversial or Off-Limits!
Yours in Truth
If this Post Resonated with You Please Considering Following Me and Sharing!
All Comments, Upvotes and Follow's are Greatly Appreciated - They will Allow Me to Keep Sharing Truth with You!
Visit My Blog to Read Earlier Posts.
Education and Indoctrination - Is There a Difference?
Henry Kissinger's War Crimes, Body Count & Nobel Peace Prize - Truth Revealed!
Controlled Opposition - Your Friend Might Be Your Enemy
What do Einstein, Pink Floyd, Noam Chomsky and the Trilateral Commission have in Common?
Massimo Mazzucco: September 11 - A New Pearl Harbor - CONSIDER DONATING
Benjamin Netanyahu - A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Project for the New American Century
Francesco Cossiga - Italian President - Wikipedia
Popular Mechanics 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation
9/11 Film Reaches Beyond the Choir
The 23-member 9/11 Consensus Panel is building a body of evidence-based research into the events of September 11, 2001. This evidence -- derived from a standard scientific reviewing process -- is available to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution. The Panel regularly features selected excerpts from its Consensus Points, with links to full supporting documentation. These featured excerpts are shown below, along with other recent News items.
On March 10, 2018
The 9/11 Consensus Panel mourns the loss of one of its most respected Honorary Panel Members, Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, former Senator and presidential candidate (2015), and Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, who died in Rome on December 31, 2017.
Dedicated to the fight against corruption, he became one of Italy’s most respected judges. He served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations and for over two decades investigated many important cases, among these the kidnapping of former PM Aldo Moro and the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II.
Besides contributing numerous articles to other publications, he authored several books dealing with international terrorism, and not only participated in the “9/11 Toronto Hearings” (2011) but contributed a chapter to the “9/11 Toronto Report.”
Judge Imposimato became involved in 9/11 matters soon after the attacks, assisting in counseling families of victims from Italy. He then became an outspoken critic of the official 9/11 story, and in a 2012 letter to “The Journal of 9/11 Studies” stated that
“The 9/11 attacks were a global state terror operation permitted by the administration of the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq [and] the 9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.”
He repeatedly suggested that the only possibility for achieving justice is to submit the case to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
The Consensus Panel – and many more – will miss this rare promoter of justice and truth. We are dedicated to carrying on his quest for justice for the thousands of victims of the attacks themselves, and the millions of the resulting global war on terror.
Why do self-styled “skeptics” believe in their own brand of miracles?
On March 2, 2018
By Petra Liverani
Off-Guardian, February 27, 2018
I find it such an interesting phenomenon that of all the self-styled skeptics I have corresponded with or whose opinions are aired online, every single one swallows the miracles, told to us by NIST, of the three high rise steel frame building collapses on 9/11 being caused by fire when the evidence clearly shows that the collapses were caused by controlled demolition. Moreover, the $5,000 10-point Occam’s Razor challenge on the cause of collapse of the third building, WTC-7, that I’ve issued personally to a significant number of these self-styled skeptics, has been very loudly ignored.
As Australian politician, Pauline Hanson, infamously said when asked if she were xenophobic, “Please explain”.
Please explain why it is that the most prolific scholar – by far – on 9/11 is a Christian and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, David Ray Griffin, and why this scholar, highly-esteemed within and without his own academic field, does not swallow the collapse-by-fire miracles? He has written over 10 books on the subject of 9/11, his latest being Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. He has also recently authored and co-authored two books on climate change. So he’s on the same page as most of the self-styled skeptics (in no way referring to the so-called climate skeptics, of course) with climate change but not with 9/11.
As summarised by Edward Curtin in his review of Griffin’s book, here are the 15 miracles that Griffin identified that the self-styled skeptics have swallowed:
- The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were the only steel-framed high-rise buildings ever to come down without explosives or incendiaries.
- The Twin Towers, each of which had 287 steel columns, were brought down solely by a combination of airplane strikes and jet-fuel fires.
- WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane, so it was the first steel-framed high-rise to be brought down solely by ordinary building fires.
- These World Trade Center buildings also came down in free fall – the Twin Towers in virtual free fall, WTC 7 in absolute free fall – for over two seconds.
- Although the collapses of the of the WTC buildings were not aided by explosives, the collapses imitated the kinds of implosions that can be induced only by demolition companies.
- In the case of WTC 7, the structure came down symmetrically (straight down, with an almost perfectly horizontal roofline), which meant that all 82 of the steel support columns had to fall simultaneously, although the building’s fires had a very asymmetrical pattern.
- The South Tower’s upper 30-floor block changed its angular momentum in midair.
- This 30- floor block then disintegrated in midair.
- With regard to the North Tower, some of its steel columns were ejected out horizontally for at least 500 feet.
- The fires in the debris from the WTC buildings could not be extinguished for many months.
- Although the WTC fires, based on ordinary building fires, could not have produced temperatures above 1,800°, the fires inexplicably melted metals with much higher melting points, such as iron (2,800°) and even molybdenum (4,753°).
- Some of the steel in the debris had been sulfidized, resulting in Swiss-cheese-appearing steel, even though ordinary building fires could not have resulted in the sulfidation.
- As a passenger on AA Flight 77, Barbara Olson called her husband, telling him about hijackers on her plane, even though this plane had no onboard phones and its altitude was too high for a cell phone call to get through.
- Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour could not possibly have flown the trajectory of AA 77 to strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, and yet he did.
- Besides going through an unbelievable personal transformation, ringleader Mohamed Atta also underwent an impossible physical transformation.
Now could it be that self-styled skeptics all over the Anglo world (Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins and Richard Saunders being notable examples) are suffering from a severe case of skeptic groupthink? You’d think one of them would deviate from the flock in their concept of truth, wouldn’t you?
An example of the faulty reasoning used by skeptics is displayed by Michael Shermer in this interview where he employs a common logical fallacy of 9/11 argument, argumentum ad speculum, by putting forward the seemingly great implausibility of the conspirators’ ability to lay explosives in the twin towers.
This hypothesis ignores the reality of how the buildings collapsed and also displays ignorance of information indicating how the task of laying explosives could have been achieved, as in Jeremy Rys’s 45- minute film, Conspiracy Solved!
There is much study in social psychology on why people believe things and what approaches to take to help them out of their entrenched beliefs (see presentation In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11, by neuroscientist, Laurie Manwell) but it truly baffles me that when you ask a self-styled skeptic to provide even just a single point to justify their belief and they fail, this stark confrontation with their inability to support their belief has no impact.
It truly astounds me. I’m not talking here about aggressive confrontation, in which case one can comprehend a psychological resistance. I’m talking about asking someone, with pretensions to operate in a realm of reason and logic, simply to provide support for their belief.
Occam’s Razor is a tool of logic that can be applied in different ways. In my application I take the approach: what hypothesis fits the piece of evidence in question with the fewest questions and assumptions. It works like magic. If a self-styled skeptic cannot use the tool to support their belief nor poke a hole in the points provided for the opposing view, surely reason and logic dictate that the skeptic must change their mind. If not, their claim to skepticism is utterly fraudulent.
Interestingly, Griffin divides the world into three types of people:
- Those guided by evidence
- Those guided by their paradigms of how the world is thus if 9/11 being a false flag does not fit into their paradigms of how the world works they simply will not consider the evidence
- Those guided by wishful-and-fearful thinking thus if the idea of their own government perpetrating an horrific crime on their own people is too awful to bear they simply will not believe the evidence
Shouldn’t self-styled skeptics, by definition, be of the first type? Apparently, not a one is. They seem to be all of the second type or possibly third.
The Australian Skeptics association defines skepticism as follows:
Skepticism is a dynamic attitude to the world around us. It is not a dogmatic approach restricted by “accepted wisdom”, but a serious and sincere appraisal of claims of how the world works.
In response to my perfectly-reasoned emails, however, a leading Australian skeptic, (we’ll call him “R”), simply dismissed me, without evidence or debate, as a “conspiracy theorist.” Sadly, in his discourteous emails, “R” displays the opposite of genuine skepticism. He displays, only, that he could not be more indoctrinated by the most successful propaganda weapon of all time, the “conspiracy theory,” meme promulgated by the CIA after the JFK assassination to silence and discredit those who questioned the lone gunman explanation.
From an article in the Observer about NYU Professor of Media Studies, Mark Crispin Miller:
The outspoken voice of public dissent considers [the term “conspiracy theory”] a “meme” used to “discredit people engaged in really necessary kinds of investigation and inquiry.”
For Miller, those investigations include, among others: did the U.S. government have foreknowledge of the 9/11 terror attacks and choose to do nothing? Were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others surreptitiously trying to dismantle the republic envisioned by the founding fathers? And is the CDC concealing links between the MMR vaccine and autism?
“It’s one that you run into time and time again,” Miller said on an October 11 episode of CounterPunch Radio. “To the point that I now believe that anyone who uses that phrase in a pejorative sense is a witting or unwitting CIA asset.” [My emphasis.]
What sort of world do we live in when so many self-styled skeptics can watch the 6.5 second, beautifully symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 into its own footprint and accept the government report stating that it was caused by fire?
the collapse of WTC7 now acknowledged by NIST to be at free-fall
Unincinerated terrorist passport fluttering to the ground at the World Trade Centre and being handed in by anonymous passerby? BBC journalist stating that WTC-7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did? Owner of WTC-7, Larry Silverstein, speaking of how he suggested that perhaps the smartest thing to do was to “pull it” (term used originally for demolition by pulling a building down but now also used for controlled demolition using explosives)?
Do none of these puzzles excite even the barest curiosity in these so-called seekers after truth?
PRESS RELEASE: Addressing Controversy Within the 9/11 Truth Community
On December 16, 2017
New York, December 16, 2017 – The co-founders of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, authors Dr. David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, today release the following statement regarding disputed evidence within the 9/11 research community.
Addressing Controversy Within the 9/11 Truth Community:
A Statement of Constructive Principles
Serious students of 9/11 tend to agree that the official story raises too many problems to hold together as a credible account.
However and unfortunately, there are areas of disagreement, especially with regard to the Pentagon, that threaten to undermine good will and mutual trust.
As co-founders of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, we offer the following observations and principles for consideration:
- At the four alleged airliner crash sites, odd phenomena and anomalies continue to cause speculation and disagreement. Some scholars can justifiably take one set of data as most important, while playing down the importance of another set, while other scholars can justifiably take the second set of data as most important.
- These differences of opinion can be justifiable until there is a theory that can take account of all the indisputable evidence.
- Based on an understanding that there are valid reasons for disagreement, the 9/11 research community can best be unified by respect and tolerance for contrary theories.
- Contributions seeking to solve contentious issues can only be made by assembling reliable evidence and by applying critical thinking and peer review according to the standard scientific process. This is the strength of science and the way it has progressed over centuries.
- In conclusion, we offer the “agree to differ” approach: to end an argument amicably while maintaining differences of opinion until there is an explanation that does justice to all the various types of evidence.
Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911
PRESS RELEASE: New Song Profiles the Miraculous Claims of the Official 9/11 Story
On December 16, 2017
New York, December 7, 2017 – The 9/11 Consensus Panel was impressed by the imagination and resourcefulness of a new 4-minute video song created by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The song was inspired by 9/11 Consensus Panel co-founder David Ray Griffin’s recent book, “Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World,” (Interlink, 2017).
The song, a take-off on “I believe in Miracles,” is titled, “I believe in 9/11 Miracles.” Its sometimes hilarious content reflects and illustrates Griffin’s statement:
“If journalists continue to endorse the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center, they should begin their articles by saying: ‘I believe in miracles—lots of them.’”
This snappy little song has been picked up the The Centre for Research on Globalization and may be heard here.
Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911
PRESS RELEASE: The 9/11 Consensus Panel’s Continuing Work at the 16th Anniversary
On September 7, 2017
NEW YORK, September 8, 2017 – With the approaching 16th anniversary of September 11, 2001, and with the global war on terror still raging unabated, the 9/11 Consensus Panel continues its 7-year commitment “to provide a ready source of evidence-based research to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution.”
This year the 23-member Panel published two new Consensus Points, using its “best evidence” review model to analyse the official claims about 9/11. (The Panel has now reviewed 50 official claims and has found each to be a substantially flawed account.)
The first Point, “The Claim that the Hijackers were Devout Muslims,” cites many media reports that the hijackers were engaged in “decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures,” including lap dancing in Las Vegas night clubs.
The second 2017 Consensus Point, “The Claim that Mohamed Atta Had Become a Fanatically Religious Muslim,” explores the question asked by a member of the press to 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste: “If Atta belonged to the fundamentalist Muslim group, why was he snorting cocaine and frequenting strip bars?” Ben-Veniste replied: “You know, that’s a heck of a question.” But it was a question that the 9/11 Commission never addressed.
These two Points build upon the already overwhelming evidence that 9/11, which has been used to justify America’s imperialist agenda in the Middle East, was a deception across the board: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the hijackers, the phone calls from the planes, the fake security video exhibits, and the whereabouts of the political and military commands.
Consensus panelist Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, has published more than 60 peer-reviewed papers in the top chemistry journals and has given more than 300 presentations about the World Trade Center demolitions, speaking in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, Canada, USA, China, Australia, Russia and Iceland.
Frances Shure, a licensed professional counselor on the 9/11 Consensus Panel, was interviewed on Progressive Spirit in August, 2017 about the extraordinary denial that continues to surround the events of 9/11. The title of her interview was “Why Do Good People Become Silent—Or Worse—About 9/11?”
Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies at McMaster University, has published a recent article with an entirely new slant, “9/11: The Pentagon’s B-Movie,” which re-awakens our sense of the horrific yet still-concealed nature of this world-changing deception.
Two other Panelists, physics teacher David Chandler and engineer Jonathan Cole, maintain a separate website, in which their independent research, which is also affiliated with the 2900-member Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scientists for 9/11 Truth, is documented.
Panel co-founder, Dr. David Ray Griffin, has recently released his 11th scholarly book on 9/11, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, perhaps his best-selling title to date. David’s August 2017 interview with John Shuck may be heard here.
The Panel wishes to thank its fine team of voluntary translators, who continue to make best-evidence research about 9/11 much more widely available through other languages.
The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911
9/11: The Pentagon’s B-Movie
On September 5, 2017
By Graeme MacQueen
Global Research, August 31, 2017
The events that took place in the United States on September 11, 2001 were real and they were extremely violent. As David Griffin has recently shown in detail, they also had catastrophic real-life consequences for both the United States and the world. 
But these events were also deeply filmic (like a film) and they were presented to us through a narrative we now know to be fictional. This “9/11 movie” reveals itself to careful investigators as scripted, directed and produced by the U.S. national security state. The movie does not represent the real world. It violates the rules operative in the real world, including the laws of physics. Audiences will remain in thrall to the spectacle and violence of the War on Terror only as long as they remain mesmerized by the B-movie of 9/11.
The Filmic Nature of the September 11 Events
Many people caught a whiff of Hollywood on September 11, 2001. According to Lawrence Wright (screenwriter of The Siege),
“It was about an hour after the first trade centre came down that I began to make the connection with the movie, this haunting feeling at the beginning this looks like a movie, and then I thought it looks like my movie.” 
Steve De Souza (screenwriter, Die Hard and Die Hard 2) has said:
“Well it did look like a movie. It looked like a movie poster. It looked like one of my movie posters.” 
The 9/11 attacks were filmic in at least the following ways
- Given the complex and coordinated nature of these attacks, they had been scripted and given a timeline in advance;
- given the need to make decisions as the attacks progressed (for example, when an aircraft went off course or was delayed), it is clear that there was a director;
- given the overall vision, the need for funds, resources and international coordination over a period of years, it is obvious that there had been a producer;
- given the numerous roles played in this event (for example, by the “hijackers”), there were undoubtedly actors.
In addition, the event included the key dramatic elements of conflict, violence and spectacle.  The entire production was filmed from several angles, and the films, sometimes in the rough and sometimes cleverly edited, were shown many, many times all over the world.
Official U.S. sources rapidly acknowledged the remarkably filmic nature of these events. In October, 2001 some two dozen Hollywood writers and directors were assembled “to brainstorm with Pentagon advisers and officials in an anonymous building in L.A.”  The Army’s Institute for Creative Technologies was the lead organization.  The assembled group was assumed to have relevant expertise and was asked to brainstorm about what future attacks might look like so that the Pentagon could be prepared. (“We want some left-field, off-the-wall ideas; say the craziest thing that comes into your mind”). While the bare fact of this consultation was widely reported by news media, further details about the three-day consultation have been hard to come by. Reporters have had their FOIA requests denied. 
Beneath this consultation lay the “failure of imagination” hypothesis. Although the hypothesis emerged almost immediately after September 11, it was given especially clear expression in a BBC Panorama programme aired on March 24, 2002.  Steve Bradshaw interviewed representatives of Hollywood and of national security institutions. The Pentagon, we were supposed to believe, is a typical large bureaucracy characterized by inertia. It is unable to imagine, and to rapidly respond to, new and emerging threats. It is stuck in the past. It is also afraid to irritate the general population by appearing to be politically incorrect–by looking, in this case, at Islam as a threat. Fortunately, there are two sets of people with imagination and courage: a small number of people within the national security apparatus who were trying to warn the Pentagon but were ignored, and Hollywood screenwriters and directors, who had imagination, who had some contact with the national security dissidents, and who had the courage to risk being called Islamophobic. 
So the planes of September 11, when they burst on the scene, confirmed the imaginative prescience of Hollywood, supported the courageous faction of the national security apparatus, and embarrassed the national security bureaucracy, which had to lower itself in October, 2001 to meet with the purveyors of fiction in order to stimulate its sclerotic brain.
This failure of imagination hypothesis was supported by statements by George W. Bush  and, even more famously, by Condoleeza Rice:
“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” 
The hypothesis became more or less official when it was adopted by the 9/11 Commission in its report on the attacks. 
Of course, given the filmic nature of 9/11, it is clear that, according to these official U.S. sources, there was another group–beyond Hollywood and a few national security malcontents–that had imagination, namely al-Qaeda.
Robert Altman (director of MASH, McCabe and Mrs. Miller and many other films) said in 2002 that Hollywood was to blame for the 9/11 events.
“The movies set the pattern, and these people have copied the movies … Nobody would have thought to commit an atrocity like that unless they’d seen it in a movie.” 
Presumably, by “these people” Altman meant al-Qaeda. Perhaps it was while munching popcorn and watching a Hollywood movie that Osama bin Laden and his high-level companions got the idea for 9/11? This is possible. But would it not make sense to ask if it is true that the Pentagon has no imagination, and that it was incapable of picturing attacks like those of the fall of 2001?
Collaboration between Hollywood and U.S. government agencies goes back at least as far as WW II. Indeed, a 1943 memo from the OSS (forerunner of the CIA) noted that,
“The motion picture is one of the most powerful propaganda weapons at the disposal of the United States.” 
Many Hollywood films and TV programs have, therefore, been supported by the Pentagon, and some have been supported by the CIA. Such support can be crucial for films that require U.S. military assets such as planes and helicopters. But support is not automatic. The script must first be approved, and emendations may be demanded by the national security agency in question. In a recent book on this subject (National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood), authors Tom Secker and Matthew Alford list 814 films and 1133 TV titles that received DOD support. 
Since many of these films are highly imaginative constructions, how can it be that the national security agencies that have helped bring them to fruition have remained trapped in their grey, unimaginative world? Presumably, we are to believe that it is the nature of a bureaucracy to restrict these imaginative insights to one part of the organization–say, the Army’s Institute for Creative Technologies–while neglecting to disseminate them to other parts of the national security state. But is this true?
Those familiar with the History Commons research project on 9/11 will know that it is not true at all. Here are 16 titles from that project (selected from a much longer list) that refer to pre-9/11 exercises and simulations by U.S. government agencies: 
- November 7, 1982: Port Authority Practices for Plane Crashing into the WTC
- (1998-September 10, 2001): NORAD Operations Center Runs Five ‘Hijack Training Events’ Each Month
- 1998-2001: Secret Service Simulates Planes Crashing into the White House
- October 14, 1998: ‘Poised Response’ Exercise Prepares for Bin Laden Attack on Washington
- Between 1999 and September 11, 2001: NORAD Practices Live-Fly Mock Shootdown of a Poison-Filled Jet
- Between September 1999 and September 10, 2001: NORAD Exercises Simulate Plane Crashes into US Buildings; One of Them Is the World Trade Center
- November 6, 1999: NORAD Conducts Exercise Scenario Based around Hijackers Planning to Crash Plane into UN Headquarters in New York
- June 5, 2000: NORAD Exercise Simulates Hijackers Planning to Crash Planes into White House and Statue of Liberty
- October 16-23, 2000: NORAD Exercise Includes Scenarios of Attempted Suicide Plane Crashes into UN Headquarters in New York
- May 2001: Medics Train for Airplane Hitting Pentagon
- June 1-2, 2001: Military Conducts Exercises Based on Scenario in which Cruise Missiles Are Launched against US [“Osama bin Laden is pictured on the cover of the proposal for the exercise”]
- July 2001: NORAD Plans a Mock Simultaneous Hijacking Threat from inside the US
- Early August 2001: Mass Casualty Exercise at the Pentagon Includes a Plane Hitting the Building
- August 4, 2001: Air Defense Exercise Involves the Scenario of Bin Laden Using a Drone Aircraft to Attack Washington
- September 6, 2001: NORAD Exercise Includes Terrorist Hijackers Threatening to Blow Up Airliner
- September 9, 2001: NEADS Exercise Includes Scenario with Terrorist Hijackers Targeting New York
It is not necessary to find an exercise here that perfectly matches the attacks of the fall of 2001. The point is that there is far too much imagination and far too much similarity to the actual attacks of the fall of 2001 to support the “failure of imagination” hypothesis. Hollywood participants in the October 2001 brainstorming exercise, who thought they were being tapped for their imagination, were conned.
Who was better prepared, through both imagination and logistical capacity, to carry out the attacks of the fall of 2001–Bin Laden’s group or the U.S. national security state? The latter had been practising steadily, in relevant scripted training operations, for years, and it had the power and resources to bring the imaginative scenarios to reality. Al-Qaeda was not remotely its match.
Not Just Filmic, But Exclusively Filmic
The violent destruction of the North Tower
If this business of the filmic nature of the September 11 attacks involved only Hollywood scriptwriters we might be tempted to regard it as nothing but a minor distraction. But what we find is that even members of the Fire Department of New York, risking their lives at the scene, were shocked by the filmic nature of what they witnessed. 
- “I thought I was at an event at Universal Studios, on the side, watching a movie being taped.” (EMS Chief Walter Kowalczyk)
- “I remembered hearing Lieutenant D’Avila coming over the radio and saying Central be advised, a second plane just went into the second tower. We ran out and we saw the second plane. It was like watching a movie. It really was.” (EMT Peter Cachia)
- “I looked over my shoulder and you could see the whole top of the south tower leaning towards us. It looked like it was coming over. You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one and a half floors pop out.” (Chief Steve Grabher)
- “The building started collapsing, the north tower started collapsing. It tipped down first and then the thing fell within itself. It was an amazing sight to see. It was really unbelievable. I thought I was watching a movie with special effects.” (EMT Michael Mejias)
- “As I’m looking up at this stuff that’s going on up there now, I just like — I’m saying to myself I’ve seen this in a movie. My whole recollection is going back to a movie or something I saw. I just saw this before.” (Fire Marshal Steven Mosiello)
- “ … it looked like a bomb, of course, had gone off, almost like a nuclear bomb. That’s all I could think of. I’ve never been at war. I equated it to being like when I saw something like when I was a kid and I saw Godzilla in the movies or something, when he crushes those buildings and stuff like that, that’s what it looked like to me.” (Firefighter Edward Kennedy)
- “I’m standing on top of the rig between the bucket and the cab, between the ladder and the cab. People were blessing themselves in this gloominess of going down. It was like out of a movie. I couldn’t believe what was going on.” (Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy)
- “I just recall that those first — those first minutes from the time that sound started, the rumbling started to occur and the dust started to fall and then stopped to get gear and equipment from the fire truck and then continue down to West Street and getting there and seeing the crushed fire trucks, crushed cars, vehicles on fire. It was like a movie set.” (Firefighter Daniel Lynch)
- “Then like a Godzilla movie, everybody that had been standing in that little park there across from One Liberty Plaza and had been just looking up and watching the north tower burn just started running eastbound like they were being chased by someone.” (Battalion Chief Brian Dixon)
- “Then, you started to run, your [sic] helping people, helping them run. You saw it, it was amazing … like out of a movie, you know, the cloud’s just chasing you. As you look back, you see it engulf people.” (EMP Peter Constantine)
- “ … as I turned on Albany I looked over my shoulder and I saw the big cloud of dust that was already on the ground like just making its way down the block, just like a movie.” (EMS Captain Frank D’Amato)
- “The first thing came in my mind was the movie Armageddon, and this was reality, with the black smoke 30 floors high, debris falling everywhere … .Because I have never seen anything like that in 21 years of emergency work.” (EMT Russell Harris)
- “Then as soon as we got over there, as soon as we got off of the Brooklyn Bridge, the people were running like it was a Godzilla movie, and we had to stop there for a while. People were overcome, were shaken, were scared … ” (EMT Christopher Kagenaar)
- “But I ran and ran, and finally I could see the light. When I got to where the tunnel was, I’m looking everywhere. It was just like that movie the day after with the atomic bomb. They drop it and nobody’s left and I’m the only one.” (Paramedic Robert Ruiz)
- “I remember seeing the rubble, seeing the rubble fall and actually start to chase down the street, and, you know, it’s strange because you wouldn’t expect — you wouldn’t expect debris to do that, but it literally traveled, like, you would see these movies with like a tidal wave that flows through the streets and hits down any path it can.” (Rosario Terranova)
These comments, selected from a wider set of similar comments, are intriguing, but what is their significance? As we examine them closely we recognize that the September 11 event was not just filmic but exclusively filmic. By this I mean that the narrative presented to us by authorities could not have unfolded outside of a film.
Since at least as early as 1902, when the French film A Trip to the Moon (Le Voyage dans la Lune) took its viewers into space, audiences have been enjoying the ability of movies to deliver dramatic action through special effects, and especially by suspending, fictionally, the laws of physics. This is part of the power of film and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. But it is important to know when we are in the theatre and when we are not.
In the original 1933 film, King Kong, director Merian Cooper was determined to make the appearance of his monster dramatically powerful, and to this end was prepared to change the monster’s size repeatedly to fit particular scenes.
“I was a great believer in constantly changing Kong’s height to fit the settings and the illusions. He’s different in almost every shot; sometimes he’s only 18 feet (5.5 m) tall and sometimes 60 feet (18.3 m) or larger … but I felt confident that if the scenes moved with excitement and beauty, the audience would accept any height that fitted into the scene.” 
Cooper understood what mattered in a movie. But imagine what would happen if audiences remained convinced by the suspension of the laws of physics after they left the theatre? This, it seems to me, is what has happened with the events of September 11, 2001. Many people are still deceived by the special effects. They are still captured by the movie of 9/11.
Consider two of the most traumatizing elements in the attacks, the disappearance of the Twin Towers and the ensuing debris cloud.
The destruction of the Twin Towers stunned first responders. Their previous experiences, including experiences with high-rise fires, did not lead them to suspect these buildings would come down.
“I’ve worked in Manhattan my whole career in high rises and everything else … you looked back, all you see–you know how fast those buildings came down … it just doesn’t click that these buildings can come down … you just couldn’t believe that those buildings could come down … there’s no history of these buildings falling down.” (Lieutenant Warren Smith) 
“Whoever in their right mind would have thought that the World Trade Center would ever fall down … Nobody in the world, nobody ever would ever have thought those buildings were coming down.” (EMS Captain Mark Stone) 
Investigations over the last 16 years have demonstrated that the first responders’ surprise was justified. The explanations offered by official U.S. agencies have been shown to violate basic laws of physics. 
Awed by the spectacle of the Twin Towers coming down, and by the later fall of World Trade 7, we are supposed to forget our high school physics. We are not supposed to notice that the official explanations given to us leave these spectacles every bit as peculiar as King Kong’s ever-changing size.
So this central dramatic element, as edited for TV, interpreted by ponderous official voices, and played repeatedly for a world audience, belonged to the 9/11 movie. Behind the scenes the director had ordered that explosive charges be set in the buildings.
Well over one hundred members of the Fire Department of New York witnessed explosions at the beginning of the so-called collapses of the Twin Towers.  Their testimony fits with the controlled demolition hypothesis and does not fit with the script of the 9/11 movie. Since promotion of the government’s movie would have been difficult if these voices were heard, they were suppressed.
The second deeply impressive event of September 11, which appears repeatedly in the FDNY musings about the filmic nature of what they witnessed, was the cloud of material that rushed through the streets of Manhattan in the wake of the destruction of each of the Towers. Several films are mentioned by name in this connection, including those featuring Godzilla, King of Monsters, created for Japanese films less than ten years after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a deliberately provocative meditation on the forces of the nuclear age. 
The FDNY World Trade Center Task Force interviews give a lively sense of what it felt like to be trapped in this debris cloud. 
“I’m about ten feet in front of it, running, actually sprinting because I’m an athlete and I’m running … Ash came around another building in front of me, and it caught me in front of me and in back of me, and everything was pitch-black. Where it hit me from the front and the back, it actually lifted me off the ground and threw me. It was like someone picked me up and just threw me on the ground.
Everything was pitch-black. You couldn’t see anything. All I saw was big bolts of fire, fire balls. I could feel the heat around me. It was pitch-black. I couldn’t see anything at all. My lungs, my airways, everything filled up with ash. I couldn’t breathe.” (EMT Renae O’Carroll)
“All of a sudden the noises stopped, the sound of the building falling stopped. We all turned around and it was dark now. We really couldn’t see … The cloud was in there. All eating the cloud, whatever it was like, very thick. I keep saying it was like a 3 dimensional object. It wasn’t smoke. It was like everything. It was like a sand storm.” (Firefighter Timothy Burke)
“So I’m running, and people are running in front of me. They stop. They turn around. I think everything’s over with. So I stop, all of a sudden the thing is coming at us. It was like in dark hell, like a nuclear blizzard. I couldn’t explain it. You couldn’t see in front of you. You couldn’t breathe. You’re inhaling. You’re coughing. You’re running. You can’t see anything.” (EMT Mary Merced)
“You still can’t see it because it’s dark as a mother. You can’t breathe. It’s so heavy with smoke and dust and ash.
I can’t breathe. I have, for lack of a better term, dust impaction in my ears, in my nose. I was coughing it out of my mouth. It felt like I had a baseball in my mouth. I was just picking it out with my fingers.” (Paramedic Louis Cook)
People on 9/11 running from the debris cloud
As is clear from these testimonies, words like “smoke” and “dust” do not do justice to the cloud in which people were trapped. That is because the clouds were the Towers. Each Tower was converted in less than 20 seconds from a powerful, massive structure over 415 metres (1362 feet) high into cut steel and pulverized matter. While the steel lay on the ground, much of the remainder was rapidly propelled through the streets of Manhattan.
Just as the dramatic tale of building destruction involved deception, so did the equally dramatic tale of this engulfing cloud. This cloud was not the result of a gravitational collapse caused by Muslim terrorists flying planes into buildings. It was the result of an explosive building demolition.
That this cloud could not have been caused in the manner claimed by the official narrative has been argued several times, beginning at least as early as 2003.  The demonstrations are independent of the proofs of explosive destruction of the buildings.
Credible scientists have calculated the amount of potential gravitational energy in the Twin Towers–the only major form of energy available, according to the official narrative, at the time of the “collapse” since the energy contributed at that point by the fires was minimal and indirect–and have compared it to the amount of energy that would have been required to create the pulverized debris cloud.
Professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol has recently discussed this issue.  He has calculated the gravitational potential energy of each of the Towers at 508.4 x 109 joules. He has calculated the energy required to pulverize the concrete of each Tower at 857.5 x 109 joules; the energy to destroy the perimeter columns at 219 x 109 joules; and the energy to destroy the core columns at 178 x 109 joules. The total energy required for the concrete and columns is 1,254.5 x 109 joules.
Simply put, these figures suggest that it would have taken about two and a half times the amount of energy available through gravity to have destroyed the Towers as witnessed.
Professor Korol’s calculations are based on experimental work he has done in the laboratory, the results of which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. He has pulverized concrete. He has buckled and crushed columns. He has measured the force required in each case. His calculations with respect to the Twin Towers are extremely conservative in that they do not attempt to include all forms of destruction attested, such as pulverizing of walls, furniture and human bodies.
If, moreover, we were to add to his calculations the energy required to propel the pulverized buildings in all directions through the streets of Manhattan, as some authors have done, we would find the impossibility of the official narrative even more striking.  The comment by the FDNY’s Terranova, quoted earlier–“you wouldn’t expect debris to do that–” is an understatement.
We cannot avoid the conclusion that the gravity-caused debris cloud was exclusively filmic just like King Kong’s fluctuating height. Both honoured the rules of dramatic action by violating the laws of physics.The apparently fanciful references to Godzilla by first responders are actually perceptive. Gravity was aided by an extremely muscular destructive force. But in Godzilla movies the monster is visible, while the monster of the 9/11 movie was invisible and must be made visible through investigation.
In the 1958 trailer for the B-movie, The Blob, film-goers are shown sitting in a theatre as a horror movie begins.  They are frightened, but only in the distant way that film audiences allow themselves to feel frightened by fictional representations. Then we notice the monster (“the Blob”) oozing into the theatre itself. As the movie-goers wake up to this reality and sense the real danger, they tear their eyes from the screen and run from the theatre.
As audiences today watch the War on Terror, hypnotized by the extremist evil-doers, a pitiless oligarchy creeps unseen into the room. Our challenge is to break the spell of the B-movie of 9/11. Only when people sense the genuine danger and leave behind fiction and special effects will they be in a position to deal with the real monster that confronts us.
Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2017)
“September 11: A Warning from Hollywood,” BBC Panorama (BBC, March 24, 2002).)
Spectacle, the visual aspect of dramatic action, was included in Aristotle’s Poetics as an essential element of drama. As for conflict and violence, see Lew Hunter, Lew Hunter’s Screenwriting 434 (New York: Perigee, 1993), pp. 19, 22 ff.
“Hollywood: The Pentagon’s New Advisor,” BBC Panorama (BBC, 2002); Sharon Weinberger, “Hollywood’s Secret Meet,” Wired, March 16, 2007.
Weinberger, “Hollywood’s Secret Meet.”
“Hollywood: The Pentagon’s New Advisor.”
Weinberger, “Hollywood’s Secret Meet.”
“September 11: A Warning from Hollywood.”
George W. Bush, “President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference,” (U.S. government archives, April 13, 2004).
Condoleezza Rice, “Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice,” (U.S. government archives, May 16, 2002).
Alec Russell, “9/11 Report Condemns ‘failure of Imagination,’” Telegraphly 23, 2004. [The 9/11 Commission Report credits Rumsfeld with this phrase (on p. 336, pdf: 353), giving the “DOD memo Wolfowitz to Rumsfeld, ‘Were We Asleep?’” of Sept. 18, 2001 as souce. – editor’s note]
Sean Alfano, “Iconic Director Robert Altman Dead At 81,” CBS/AP, November 21, 2006.
“The Motion Picture As A Weapon of Psychological Warfare.” Matthew Alford, National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood (Drum Roll Books, 2017), p. 31.
“History Commons: Military Exercises Up to 9/11,” n.d.
The New York Times, having obtained the World Trade Center Task Force Interviews from the City of New York through a lawsuit, hosts the documents on its website. The interviews are in the form of separate PDF files. Each file is identified by the interviewee’s name.
“World Trade Center Task Force Interviews” (City of New York, 2002 2001)
From an interview with Cooper quoted in “King Kong,” Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2017.
“World Trade Center Task Force Interviews.” See note 18.
Ibid. See note 18.
The best summary in recent years is Ted Walter, BEYOND MISINFORMATION: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 (Berkeley, California: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., 2015) (free pdf; free e-version).
Graeme MacQueen, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, August 2006.
Tim Martin, “Godzilla: Why the Japanese Original Is No Joke,” The Telegraph, May 15, 2014.
“World Trade Center Task Force Interviews.” See note 18.
The earliest attempt I know of is by Jim Hoffman. See “The North Tower’s Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center, Version 3.1,” 9-11 Research, October 16, 2003.
Ted Walter, BEYOND MISINFORMATION: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 (Berkeley, California: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., 2015) (free pdf; free e-version). Full references to Korol’s articles are given in Adnan Zuberi’s compilation accompanying “9/11 in the Academic Community: Academia’s Treatment of Critical Perspectives on 9/11—Documentary” [which is available on YouTube – editor’s note].
Hoffman, “The North Tower’s Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center, Version 3.1;” Reijo Yli-Karjanmaa, “Energetic Examination of the Collapse of the North Tower of the WTC, Version 3.1,” June 18, 2005
Trailer, The Blob, 1958, YouTube.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Graeme MacQueen, Global Research, 2017
- The Journal of 9/11 Research and 9/11 Issues
Yes, there are issues with 9/11!!!http://www.drjudywood.com/wtc/
- · It’s Official: European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 Was A Controlled Demolition
- 3,000 architects and engineers... And counting. https://www.ae911truth.org/
- · Retired Expert Pilot John Lear - No Planes Hit the Towers on 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQBlv7sZGVE
- · 5,400 diagnosed with cancers linked to September 11 attacks https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/15/health/september-11-cancer-diagnoses/index.html
“There were reports of health problems — asthmatic problems, lung problems, and so on — and so I said there’s something more going on here,” he recounts. In fact, it was in part his concern about these illnesses, he explains, that led him to form Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth.
Weisbuch asserts that the failure of authorities to properly investigate the real cause of the high-rise buildings' fall has had direct health consequences for both those who are already sick and those who will become sick in the future. If investigators were to look beyond the official explanation of plane impacts, he says, they might better understand some of the direct causes of illness — causes they have thus far been unwilling to consider.
For example, says Weisbuch, the iron microspheres that have been identified by a team of scientists in the Ground Zero dust had to have been created by the use of thermite or nano-thermite in the controlled demolition of the towers — and possibly led to the symptoms found in many victims of 9/11-related illnesses.
The Top Ten Unanswered Questions About 9-11
By Tony Brasunas
Garlic & Grass hereby calls on all patriotic Americans to examine the unanswered questions about 9-11. The time is now. The 9-11 Commission has declared its work done without even asking some of the most important questions about 9-11.
As you may recall, G&G began looking at 9-11 in March of 2003. Our Did Bush Know? issue quickly became our most popular issue ever. People were hungry for the story.
In the time since publication of "Did Bush Know?," unfortunately, the holes in the official story have only grown. And now we can ignore them no longer. First and foremost, we American citizens are left utterly without proven answers on: who actually did 9-11 (with evidence), why they did it (including underlying motives), and how they got away with it (if there was such catastrophic incompetence, why wasn't anyone in the US government reprimanded or fired?). What we have, in essence, is an unsolved crime. But because 9-11 continues to serve as the political, philosophical, and emotional bases for many of our government's ongoing actions, we absolutely need – and deserve – nothing less than an immediate open inquiry into how 9-11 occurred.
For the consideration of all Americans, G&G submits "The Top Ten Unanswered Questions About 9-11," below.
It may feel unsettling to examine these unanswered questions, but please take a minute to do so, if you haven't already. This is an exceptionally important time for this country, perhaps the most serious of our lifetimes. It may very well be that the challenge of our era is to cut through the shadows of these dark days and learn the truth about 9-11. Other generations have faced colonialism, slavery, Nazism. Let not our descendants' question be: "Why didn't you take a moment to really think about 9-11?"
Should we never discover the true perpetrators, the obvious danger is that there might be more massacres of American citizens. One thing we know for sure is that the FBI's list of alleged hijackers was wrong. Many of the people named turned out either to have died long before 9-11, or still to be alive after 9-11. No alternate list of hijackers has ever been put forward.
So, to safeguard our country from future attacks, let us be willing to open our minds, descend into the shadows, and find the true light.
The free man is he who does not fear to go to the end of his thought.
- Leon Blum
Before we examine the questions, know that in doing so we are far from alone. Today millions of Americans are already questioning the official story. Indeed, according to the first-ever poll on people's beliefs about 9-11, which came out in August 2004, two-thirds of New Yorkers think the Commission didn't answer the biggest questions about 9-11 and desire an open investigation. Fully half believe some leaders in the federal government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and consciously failed to act."
Fahrenheit 9-11 has opened millions of eyes. And of course once the reasons for the Iraq War were mostly exposed as lies, it is growing harder for people to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on 9-11. Indeed, one wonders, why an administration who lied to start a war which has killed thousands and which may kill thousands more, deserves the benefit of the doubt on anything.
...it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds...
- Samuel Adams
For most of you who are open-minded, the questions raised elsewhere in Celsius 9-11 have already been sufficient for demanding a full and open inquiry into 9-11 that would consider all possible motives and suspects.
For those of you who feel convinced by the administration's declarations, and don't need credible evidence that it was al Qaeda, consider the ten unanswered questions below. If you have, say, a 50% open mind on the matter, the first three of the questions will probably be sufficient for you to decide that a full inquiry is in fact warranted. Even if you're a diehard skeptic, with a mere 25% open mind, it's still unlikely the remaining seven would not be enough to convince you. If your mind is less than 25% open, well, you will probably remain that way until you see Cheney on the stand, under oath, confessing foreknowledge.
THE TOP TEN UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT 9-11
- NONEXISTENT AIR DEFENSE.
Why weren't Air Force planes sent up to intercept the hijacked planes? In the year before 9-11, jet fighters were sent up routinely (at least 67 times) whenever, according to the FAA's own standard operating procedure manuals, an airliner went off course by two miles or by 15 degrees. The mainstream media has never highlighted this. Routine FAA and military procedures should've intercepted the first plane before it struck the World Trade Center. Remember, this is interception, not shooting down. Interception happens all the time, like a cop pulling over a speeding motorist on the highway. On 9-11, the FAA was notified by a frantic stewardess that the plane was hijacked fully 25 minutes before it crashed. Usually it only takes 10-12 minutes for jet fighters to go from stationary to 29,000 feet and 1850 mph. Jets should have intercepted that first plane. But for the second plane, which crashed 15 minutes later and which was known to be hijacked 20 minutes before it crashed, the failure to intercept strains credulity. Fighter jets should already have been in the air above Manhattan. And then the plane that supposedly struck the Pentagon was known to be hijacked a full 45 minutes before it crashed – after two other planes had already been hijacked – yet it flew unchallenged over the most protected airspace in the world. That this last plane was not intercepted is simply incredible. The Pentagon has the most advanced radar and air defense in the world, and Andrews Air Force base, which is charged with defending the Pentagon and always has fighter jets on ready alert, lies a mere 11 miles away (1 minute flying time).
More at: www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline
- BUSH'S REACTIONS ON 9-11.
Why did George Bush go into a meaningless photo op in an elementary school after hearing that an airliner had crashed into the World Trade Center? He was briefed by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice before entering the classroom. She must've told him that the plane had been hijacked, since the FAA and NORAD had known it had been hijacked for 45 minutes by this point. She also must've told him that another plane was hijacked, since it had been known of for 20 minutes by this point. Finally, while listening to 2nd graders read, why does Bush merely nod calmly when told about the second plane smashing into the WTC? He gazes off into space for whole minutes while the towers burn, looking conflicted and worried.
More at: www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
- THE COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS.
Why did the towers collapse? No steel skyscraper had ever collapsed because of fire. Repeat: In the 100-year history of steel skyscrapers, none had ever collapsed because of fire. The steel used in skyscrapers doesn't melt at temperatures that fire can attain when burning in open air. Jet fuel is essentially refined kerosene, which burns at around 700 C in optimal, perfectly-aerated conditions. Even if the fires did get this hot, it's not nearly hot enough to melt (or even significantly weaken) structural steel, which melts around 1,535 C. Also, given the shocking speed and neatness with which both towers fell, and the seismic evidence of small earthquakes moments before they fell, and the fact the buildings were pulverized instead of falling in chunks, it appears that the towers actually fell due to a controlled demolition rather than fire. It's imperative that an investigation into what happened on 9-11 examine the readily available evidence and this unsettling possibility.
More at: 911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/introduction.html
- THE COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7.
Don't forget about this building. Yet another steel skyscraper collapsed from fire that day. None ever, and then three, in one day. WTC 7 was another building in the World Trade Center complex, but it was the furthest of the buildings from the Twin Towers. It was located on the next block. Little debris struck it, and there were no large fires burning inside of it. Yet, as that horrendous day was ending, at 5:20 pm, WTC 7 collapsed in a remarkable 7 seconds. Nearly the speed of freefall. It fell in what appeared to be a perfect implosion-style demolition. Yet the official story is that it collapsed because a diesel generator located in its basement exploded, causing the whole building to 'pancake' neatly, floor by floor, to the ground. This seems impossible both because an explosion in the basement wouldn't cause a neat implosion – but rather a toppling – and because the 57 floors of the building couldn't have 'pancaked' individually and still reached the ground at freefall speed.
More at: www.wtc7.net/videos.html
- ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON.
Why won't the Pentagon release their video footage of this event? The event was perhaps the most bizarre of all. Consider Question #1 again. The plane that supposedly struck the Pentagon was known to have been hijacked for 45 minutes – after two other planes had already been hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center. Yet this plane supposedly flew unchallenged over the most protected airspace in the world, and then crashed into the headquarters of our trillion-dollar military. While footage of both WTC crashes has surfaced and been shown ad infinitum on television, no footage of the Pentagon explosion has ever been released. The Pentagon oddly chose only to release five still-frames from their security cameras' footage. One of these five frames shows something that might be a plane or a missile or a gray smear. The other four show an exploding fireball on the side of the Pentagon. There was barely any debris from whatever caused the explosion, and yet supposedly the remains of the passengers were all physically identified by the FBI. So the explosion completely vaporized tons of steel, yet didn't destroy human remains? Also, the hole in the side of the Pentagon was too small for a 757 to fit into. Why won't the Pentagon release the rest of the footage?
More at: 911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/video.html
- CRASH IN PENNSYLVANIA.
Why was the debris from this plane spread out over eight miles? The official story is that the plane crashed after the passengers stormed the cockpit. But normally when planes crash into the ground the debris ends up in a relatively small area. Often the fuselage and wings remain near each other. The debris scattering over eight miles is very odd. Is the official story believable? Numerous eyewitness accounts suggest the plane was shot down by another, unmarked plane.
More at: www.rense.com/general54/ccover.htm; and http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93.html
- THE CLEANUP LOOKED LIKE A COVERUP.
Why was the debris from the Pentagon and the World Trade Center destroyed immediately after 9-11? Normally forensic teams examine all evidence from a crime scene. Yet the steel from the collapsed WTC was immediately shipped to Korea and China, where it was melted down within days. That steel would've indicated whether the buildings collapsed due to fire, something that has never happened and that would mandate drastic redesign of tall buildings. That steel also would've told the tale if the buildings had collapsed, instead, due to another cause – like an explosive demolition. It was the same at the Pentagon: the surprisingly small amount of debris was swiftly whisked away to an undisclosed location.
More at: www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg; and 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
- INSIDER TRADING.
Who were the big investors who knew 9-11 was about to happen? Although the stock trading on American and United Airlines was up by 1200% the day before 9-11, no public investigations into who profited were undertaken. Hundreds of Arab-looking Americans were rounded up and interrogated for little apparent reason, but neither the SEC nor the FBI arrested any of those who made millions from uncanny 9-11 stock trading. The FBI's reason? They say they know who made those trades, and the traders "had no conceivable connection to Al Qaeda."
More at: www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html; and http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121901.html
- THE FEDERAL COMMISSION.
Why did Bush block the formation of the 9-11 Commission? Why did it take 411 days to finally form the commission, when other commissions have been formed in less than a week? It took six days to form the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If it hadn't been for the insistent demands of the widows of 9-11 (and just four of them led the way), there never would have been any 9-11 Commission at all. When the 9-11 Commission was finally formed, why did Bush withhold funding from it? The commission to investigate the crash of the Space Shuttle Columbia, which killed seven people, received fifty million. Bush only allocated three million to the 9-11 Commission. He later, after much prodding, acceded to eleven million. Opposing and resisting an investigation of 9-11 looks ridiculously bad from a political standpoint, so why has Bush done it? As with all of this, the corporate media apparently has no desire to investigate. Perhaps most damning of all is that the 9-11 Commission's chairman and director were both selected by the Bush Administration. Six of the commission's other nine members also had deep, longstanding ties to the administration and to the intelligence, petroleum, and military industrial complexes they were charged with investigating. Normally, a suspect does not get to select his judge or jury, even if he's innocent. While we consider independence to be a hallmark of the American judicial system, unfortunately nothing about the 9-11 Commission was independent.
More at: www.joycelynn.com
- LARGER MOTIVES.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Abrams – are all connected to a group called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In fact, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush are a few of PNAC's original founders. The manifesto of PNAC, written in the late 1990's, calls for the establishment of an American empire to ensure, in their words, "political and economic freedom abroad...and an international order friendly to American security, prosperity, and principles." The document boldly called for: a 40% increase in the military budget, the formation of a Space Force (in addition to the Air Force) to patrol and control outer space, a "Star Wars" missile-to-missile defense system, a fiercer and more potent global CIA "attack matrix," and an aggressive policy of "pre-emptive war" to defeat enemies before they become strong. In essence, PNAC advocates ruling the world. PNAC's documents sadly acknowledge that the majority of Americans do not want an American empire and would not support the formation of one, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Nine months after these people came to power, strangely enough, they got their "new Pearl Harbor." And since 9-11, they've got their 40% increase in the military budget (exactly 40%, in fact). They've got the beginnings of a Space Force, "Star Wars" is fully funded, as is the CIA's "Total Attack Matrix." And they clearly got their first pre-emptive war. These coincidences at least merit some investigation.
More at: www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity2000.htm
These questions are wide-ranging. They even seem overwhelming. What's more, I don't know the answers to them. In fact, I honestly don't know anyone who can definitively say exactly what conspiracy happened on 9-11. It may have partially involved Arabs and Osama bin Laden. It may not have. I just know the official story can't be right. We absolutely need a full and open inquiry that will ask all of the questions. Then, and only then, will this nation of ours be safe, secure, and at peace.
·The 10 unanswered questions of 9/11
· Building 7 - Never Forget: No Plane Hit WTC7 on 9/11
· September 11: The footage that 'proves bombs were planted in Twin Towers'
· Ken O'Keefe Commentary - 9/11 Truth vs Washington Mouthpiece - 'The Debate'
G2Church Upcoming Seminars
August 17th & 18th
Eden, New York
Tune in this week!
G2Voice Broadcast #143 : Crimes against Humanity from Governments of the world - Part Two!
Sunday, June 9th, 2019
10 AM CST
Let's change the world together!
Bishop Mark S. Grenon
- Mark Grenon