Friday, February 26, 2010

YouTube Harassment as Cyberwarfare

As I reported in yesterday's blog "Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile", I received an email stating I was going to die last night--you can see two graphics of the email plus the likely suspect, a FBI informant! It was my webmaster's opinion that my support for Judyth had something to do with it and Judyth seems to agree. This is an email I received from her:

Death threats are part of the campaign. If you are dealing with anything to do with me, sorry to say, this happens.

Today I have found out that my comments in YouTube are being deleted "immediately". I tried four times to put a comment in Nufff's channel thanking him for explaining in his blog how YouTube censor videos, and in each instance it was deleted immediately. Lola, my webmaster, also tried and got the same treatment. And the same thing happened when we tried to reply to a comment to a video that I myself uploaded to my channel last week, see blog "The Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement: The Media's Response". A comment on the excellent video "Gaza in Plain Language" was also promptly deleted.

Click the images to get bigger versions:

Comment on Nufff's channel:

Comment on Kevin Barrett's video:

Comment on "Gaza in Plain Language":

Comment on "The Men Who Killed Kennedy Episode 8 (2-5)":

And since I can't comment in YouTube, I posted a comment on Nufff's blog:

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Judyth and a friend

Judyth Vary Baker, with whom I and others within the JFK community are in contact, has sent Google an email about the outrageous actions to which she has been subjected. A rather substantial number of references to her have been disappearing from the Internet since the History Channel broadcast a documentary, "The Love Affair", about her relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald. Originally shown in 2003, it would be banned along with two other segments, "The Smoking Guns" and "The Guilty Men".

My webmaster, Lola Heavey, like many others, has archived that segment as part of the complete 9-part video documentary series, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". "The Love Affair" focuses on revealing interviews with Judyth, who was at the time a cancer-research specialist in New Orleans who was also having an extramarital affair with Lee prior to the assassination of JFK. Judyth has substantiated aspects of her story with official records that she worked with Oswald, and others, on a classified project.


"The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Love Affair"

Anyone who does a Google search for "Judyth Vary Baker" will realize that very little information about her is available on the internet. That was not always the case. Thousands of references have been removed in what appears to be a systematic effort to nullify her as an historical personality. Not even her Wikipedia page has been left standing.

It has the features of a cyber war. Positive posts by her supporters have been erased, while negative ones, especially highly denigrating ones--such as those by David Von Pein, which are particularly nasty--have been left intact.

This covert operation against Judyth is very serious and takes its toll upon her. She is now 66 years of age and has been forced to live in exile in Europe, where she resides in virtual poverty, even though she is a talented artist who has sold her paintings around the world for more than thirty years. The objective of this campaign appears to be to minimize awareness of her existence as a link to the alleged assassin.


Debbee Reynolds and Judyth, 2003, Dallas

If anybody has doubts on what Google can do with its search facilities, they should read NufffRespect Blog. NufffRespect, who runs a YouTube channel with 73,429 subscribers, has explained that significant censorship is taking place in relation to YouTube. Indeed, the evidence strongly suggests that YouTube, which is a branch of Google, is deliberately stopping the counters at 300 views to control information about which videos are most popular and which are not.

How does YouTube know which videos should be suppressed when there are so many uploaded every minute? According to NufffRespect, all the processing is carried out automatically by algorithms that search through video titles, descriptions, and tags to find specific keywords YouTube deems to be "controversial". And a search can also be conducted through the audio of videos themselves in order to screen for controversial subjects.


Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

Based upon my interactions with Judyth, I and several others within the JFK research community, including Jim Marrs, the author of CROSSFIRE (1989), one of the bases of Oliver Stone's "JFK", are convinced that she is "the real deal". In protest of this form of abuse, which clearly violates the principles of freedom of speech and of freedom of the press, Judyth has sent an email to Google under the heading, "REFERENCES BEING ERASED AGAIN":

To Whom It May Concern:

References to me have been constantly disappearing on the Internet ever since the History Channel ran a documentary on me that was eventually banned due to pressure by special interests.

Last year, 15,000 references, which direct people to my books, paintings and writings, were erased.

Over 250,000 newsgroup references were also erased.

Then my Wikipedia biography, which had been in Wikipedia over five years, was erased. One reason given was that I only had 1,700 references on google ([where] 48,000 had been erased overnight).

I was told by one person that the erasure was accomplished by a group with Usenet who had also erased over 250,000 newsgroup posts that I and my supporters had made after spurious and unfair attacks were made against me by these newsgroups, leaving mostly their pejorative and nasty posts about me. The 'nice' ones vanished.

It is interesting to see that, in these newsgroups, there is nothing about me there between 2009 and 2004: all that was in between was removed. Between 2004-2009, we established that I was a witness who was telling the truth. Now all that is left is that I am a witness who has been telling lies that "have not been answered." This was not the case.

Nevertheless, as people learned about my book and my status as a controversial witness, the number of references shot up this year again, on the Internet search, to 24,000 for "Judyth Vary Baker."

Then, the day before yesterday, 20,000 references to "Judyth Vary Baker" vanished from the Internet.

Today, with about 3,300 remaining, another 50 vanished. I have seen this pattern before. Every day, about 50-100 references will vanish. Only writing to you has been able to restore the references.

Understand that there were over 45,000 references three years ago.

Generally, a group from Marquette University has actively been deleting all references to me on newsgroups: one member was on the board of Usenet before Google took over DejaVu....He has set up several large websites against me, as my witness statements have gone against what he teaches at his university. His websites include many false statements about me that he has refused to correct.

I have had no ability to save all the "good" references to me, once again...

I am asking that they be restored. We're talking about some 21,000 references that are no longer available when people search for "Judyth Vary Baker."

I am a witness who now has to live overseas due to persecution in the US. At age 66, this is not my desire.

Google, please restore my livelihood, as the loss of the sites on the search engine make it hard for people to find me unless they already know my name.

NOTE: I AM BLIND ccING A NUMBER OF PEOPLE CONCERNING THIS PROBLEM. I WILL SEND ALL OF THEM YOUR RESPONSE.

Thank you.


Judyth has also written to my webmaster, Lola, and has given me permission to publish her email here:

Dear Lola:

In 2003, a controversial 3-part addition to the History Channel's popular "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" series--episodes 7, 8 and 9--was banned after strident objections by LBJ's widow, Disney executives, Jack Valenti, and others. A board of historians whose writings were favorable to Lyndon Johnson was hastily assembled to discredit the veracity of the episodes, though none of the witnesses, including myself, were ever interviewed. It was a hatchet job.

Over 300,000 references using my name, by this time, were on the Internet. I had also published poetry, was a professional artist, had published short stories and writings, and had participated in newsgroups explaining in great detail what I knew as a witness concerning Lee Harvey Oswald.

I was shocked and concerned when I was misquoted and mocked; furthermore, I found my posts were being misquoted, out of context. "Witnesses" who had never met me or scarcely knew me came out of the woodwork, saying I was a poor teacher. I and my friends defended me on the Internet. One important website "crashed" and "lost" hundreds of posts and supporting statements. When it was restored, all the posts but mine had been saved. The webmaster said I was "paranoid" to think it was personal.

Between 2003 and 2008, over 400,000 references to my name and my history, good and bad, existed in newsgroups and the Internet. Though many were attack sites, the truth was "out there."

Then a newsgroup that had collected about a hundred of my posts suddenly erased them all. A webmaster of some very large websites that attacked me personally on the Internet was also the moderator of an important newsgroup.

In 2008, this moderator erased 250,000 newsgroup references to my name. A gap between 2009 and 2004 exists. At the same time, the most damning posts were kept online, as if they had never been answered with defenses.

The labor of years had been erased over a period of about two months.

By 2008, the number of references on the Internet itself had risen to some 30,000.

My biography on Wikipedia had been created by the hostile moderator of the newsgroup previously mentioned, but because I had many friends, some were editors who added ameliorating comments, references and statements to balance the Wikipedia biography.

Visitors to the Wikipedia biography saw references to online resources that supported conspiracy theories, even though some references also mentioned hostile attack sites against me.

Throughout this time period, I had been harrassed, threatened, robbed, burglarized, hit on the head, had my car's brake lines severed, and had been forced twice overseas for my safety.

My family suffered, too. Nevertheless, the Wikipedia biography at least provided somewhat of a balanced assessment of who I was and what I stood for.

Due to death threats, in 2007 I had to leave my teaching position in Hungary. I entered the EU political asylum program. As an American, this was a desperate measure: I was an ordinary American, not someone trying to find refuge as a soldier escaping war in Iraq, for example. In fact, I was the first American woman in decades to enter the system seeking protection. I was also the first person in the EU political asylum system to enter with a service dog. I had to have a service dog to help me due to vision and memory problems after having been in two "accidents" in Dallas that gave me concussions and hospitalized me.

They were going to deport me at once to the US, but after investigating the situation, and finding threats to have me arrested, and my name linked viciously to the Taliban shortly after 9/11, they did more investigating.

I was not deported. Though I was told it was impossible to "keep" me permanently, since the US is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, I could stay as long as it took for my family to find safe places for me.

At great sacrifice (my son even gave up his very nice apartment and moved into a single room), my parents, sister, and two of my children, were able to arrange safe accommodations. But it took all of our resources. I consequently live in poverty.

The newsgroup mocked me for the fact that I was "turned down" for political asylum. I was not turned down. I was granted protection as long as the system dared to keep me on--for over ten months I was housed, fed and given medical care, until I could get to safety on my own. There was never a chance that I could get permanent status as a political asylum refugee, since I was a non-combatant form the USA.

Now living overseas in exile--the third time, due to death threats; and I have not gone into detail as to all that has happened to me, by any means--my swedish friend Allan Mattsson had been doing some editorial work for Wikipedia, and I told him about the highly biased anti-Oswald Wikipedia biography on Oswald. He isn't that good in English writing, so I worked with him, and we added a few statements--all of them true--such as the fact that Oswald received his GED, because the Wikipedia biography only mentioned that he was a high school dropout.

It was immediately erased. We added a statement that the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) had been formed--never mentioned in the biography of Oswald--that collected evidence and testimonies.

This, too, was erased.

Then came a flood of complaints against my Wikipedia biography, as my identity was linked to Allan Mattsson's through my email account. This special email account serves as an interface between me and hackers, etc. to protect my own computer.

The next thing I knew, the Wikipedia biography--after five years online--was slated for elimination as the biography of a non-existing person as a hoax biography!

Then, suddenly, the google search engine revealed that instead of some 40,000 references on the Internet (not newsgroups), there were now only some 1,700 left.

At the same time, Wikipedia editors decided to erase my biography, claiming that I did not exist. After I proved that I existed, by then the number of references to me had dropped to some 1,300 online. Now they stated that I was not important enough to be included in a biography, as all I had was a "claim" that John McAdams said was phony. I was a 'one-note' person whose art, writings, poetry, etc. was not world class (though I've sold my paintings worldwide for thirty years) and that, furthermore, McAdams assured them that my "claims" were fictitious.

Friends tried to protest, but in mid-2009, their Wikipedia biography, with its references to more online resouces about Lee Oswald than any other online source, was erased. Away went mention of Fetzer, Groden, Livingstone, Haslam, the Men Who Killed Kennedy series, the banned History Channel documentary links, other documentary links where I appeared in their films on TV, or in magazines from sea to shining sea, and overseas.

The many protests that were lodged were supposed to be kept in an archive, but they, too, vanished (I did save some of them). I later discovered that this removal was led by "Shutterbun 2" who posts on the McAdams newsgroup that ended up erasing over 250,000 references there.

CNN late in 2009 noted that Michelle Obama's picture as a female gorilla had somehow gone to the top in search engine photos. I knew such was no "accident" after what had gone to the top about me. However, after the CNN report, suddenly 18,000 references to me popped up again.

These were in place until one of my friends, Marha Rose Crow, who collects evidence of ponerology--evil in government affairs--and archives them online in her blogs, made what I consider the error of adding my website to her sidebar.

Before long, Martha's 105 blogs got erased. They were restored, but the 22,500 references I had, some helped along by Martha's blogs, vanished. I am now represented by only 3,200 references. As for Martha, though most of her blogs were restored, some 35,000 of her references vanished.

Therefore, I wrote Google security about the problem.

And I responded, as well, to your kind inquiry.

Please fix any typos, as I have double vision and desperately need new glasses. Though I will never stop fighting for Lee Oswald's exoneration, to see the labors of a decade erased not once but several times, in every possible way, does bring tears to my eyes.

I have lost my home, employment, my health, my reputation and family members who are ashamed of me for speaking out. At nearly 67, my grandchildren have forgotten me. I yearn for books in English. I'd love to have some nice warm socks, as I live in one of the coldest places in one of the coldest countries half the time. The other half of the time, for my protection, I dress in a burka and live in Turkey. You could make a movie out of all that's happened.

What's important is that Lee Harvey Oswald's exoneration means that the US government carried out a coup d'etat. If we want our country back, we need to remove all questions about, "Did Oswald do it?"

He tried to save the president, as I dare to testify anytime, any place.

God bless America. Truth alone will get us back on our feet. Destroying witnesses and all mention of them on the Internet--these dirty tricks are not going to stop me as long as I have breath left in my body and people of good will pay attention.

Judyth Vary Baker
http://www.judythvarybaker.com

Some further reflections . . .

One incident happened when I opened the trunk of my car with groceries...the trunk was slammed down on my head. I was knocked unconscious. No, they didn't take the car, just my purse...but I had to go to the hospital for a concussion.

In Dallas, I was struck from behind by a white van that I had complained to friends had been following me for months. It came full speed as I sat at a red light only blocks from my home, with lanes on each side of me empty, as witnesses testified. I sustained a concussion. The man who did it tried, in perfect English, to get me to leave the car. I wanted to prove that my seat belt was on and refused to move. The car was dripping gas and could have turned to a fireball. When the police and firemen arrived, the man said--and my sister will testify, as she was there and heard him talking in good English to me--the guy said, "No speak English, need translator." He gave false information. The van had no known owner. He vanished. On the police report, his line of work was "driver." I went to the hospital, but my nice Taurus was totalled.

A few months later, having recovered, and had just sent my book to an interested publisher, I received a phone call about 5:30 AM saying, "Want to have another accident today?" Then hung up. I wrote emails at 6:00 AM telling of the threat, to friends as well as to the publisher, and said to forget it, no book!

My friend, Dr. Platzman, wrote that it was just a crank call. That night, leaving my classroom where I taught English and computer science, it was raining. As I drove, a black van pulled out and began following me. I went some five or six miles trying to evade it, but finally, the van forced another car against me just as we were going under a cement-walled underpass. I could have been killed, but a wall of water from the rain pushed up between me and the car that was forced against mine, which saved me from crashing into the cement wall there.

The car received little damage, but I sustained my third concussion from this event, as well as a neck injury, back injury and a problem with double vision, which I apparently will have for the rest of my life. The insurance company hated to pay me for this second event, but finally did so. They photographed and had analyzed the scraped fender and marred paint that proved the other car had hit me and not the other way around, as the driver tried to claim to get insurance money for herself.

I moved to Orlando, Florida, after that, having sustained more threats and worried about the safety of my sister, who lives in Texas.

Six weeks after being hired as a teacher at a Christian academy there, the son of an FBI employee in my English class sent around a petition to have me fired because I was "notorious" as "Oswald's lover"--I was shown the petition and the letter from the FBI employee and was fired. How did he find out?

I did tell friends before it happened that I saw the letter and would be fired within days, but was not allowed a copy of the letter. The son of the FBI employee went on the Internet saying I was a terrible teacher who also taught that the moon landing was a hoax. (Actually, I used the moon landing hoax as a possible idea to write about, as a class writing assignment challenging my high school students to take an unpopular position needing research and to try to defend it.)

At this time, Nigel Turner filmed me for THE LOVE AFFAIR. I could hardly walk and sometimes wore a body brace, but did my best not to show it. I received more death threats right after that. Nevertheless, I went back to Texas to be filmed by Wim Dankbaar and Jim Marrs. I did all of this for free, just for travel expenses, refusing to sell the story to a tabloid.

The tabloid ran the story anyway, by the way, infuriating my family. They wanted to run a photo of me that I had shown them in a swimsuit. I was offered quite a chunk of money to do that--this has been turned into a ridiculously high sum on the Internet--but because it was so tempting, I cut the legs off the photo.

By the time I was filmed in Dallas, I had experienced flat tires, and on the last day I was there, all four of my tires were slashed. I had visited Mary Ferrell, and she was so sorry that they were slashed outside of her home on Holland--as she was about to move to an assisted living facility--that she gave me two $100 checks to help replace them. She said she thought it was just a prank the first time, but it happened twice.

Back in Orlando, I was in two "accidents" in two days. Going to traffic court, I brought documents showing my brake line had been cut and the brake's fluid in the master cylinder had been replaced--I had a mechanic's letter--but the next day all the fluid was gone again, and we found the severed line. I ran into two cars both days at intersections.

Again, the insurance company paid the damages, but then they cancelled my insurance coverage after I went overseas and never allowed me to come near their company again. Can't say that I blame them. Each time, the insurance replaced the ruined car, but each time, of course, it was worth much less, so by this time I was driving an old car. All my savings were now gone due to hospital bills.

Without going into many other details, upon returning to Orlando and going through the "accidents" there, while out job hunting, my apartment was broken into and vandalized. Because nothing was stolen, the police refused to do anything about it. Then a truck began parking up against my window with the lights on, motor running, at night. It was frightening, because I would go out to try to get the license and it would take off before I could get it.

The man in the apartment next to mine became hostile toward me and told me he wanted me to move because the truck's harassment of me kept him awake at night! At the same time, I received hang-up calls at 2 or 3 AM. Because my mother was ill at the time, I had to answer, as she was in the hospital.

The last straw was after I made a few phone calls to get my service dog certified by a vet. It was the last step for certification--her health certificate. I now needed a service dog due to memory problems after the concussions. My long-term memory was fine, but now I could no longer recognize my surroundings while walking. (I was okay standing still.) My service dog was trained by Canine Companions in Orlando. My children and I had been raising service dogs and guide dogs for some time, so it was a thrill to get one of my own trained puppies back, for myself.

As I finished making phone calls to locate the cheapest vet, I did not replace the receiver correctly on the phone cradle and heard some clicks. Curious, I picked up the phone and heard a conversation going on about me--that they would have to get rid of me! I gasped, and one person said, "Hang up! She can hear us!"

Whether this was done purposely to frighten me or not, that was it.

With the last of my now pitiful funds, and not wanting my children harmed or involved, or my family, I asked Wim Dankbaar to find a safe place for me to live in Holland, his home country.

Finally, Wim arranged to have me run a museum about Lee Oswald (it was 2003, the 40th anniversary) for six months, which gave me a special permit, but I would have to pay all expenses if I did so. (He would get paperwork done for it, and he did find me a room for a month, as well, and paid for that.) But I was now afraid to leave my apartment. Nor could I get a job in Orlando after the FBI incident.

I had already lost my teaching job at the University after speaking out, after a bomb threat to the English building where my office and classrooms were, after dozens of computers were stolen there and after a half-gallon of hydrochloric acid was thrown at me. That's why I got a job teaching in Dallas, and after those incidents, in Orlando.

Having to leave seriously interfered with my doctoral program, and though I had passed all my comps, oral exam, and all courses with a 3.99, they would not allow me, as a "notorious person", to be on a graduate committee, or to present more papers at conferences. I had been editor of a journal there, and they removed me and placed another person, Jessica, as editor instead. I had used the name "Avary Baker" because I'd been fearful due to the past, but had wanted to find witnesses, if any were still alive. I did eventually find five of them.

Meanwhile, after speaking out, my classes to teach were cut drastically. I had to leave and find work elsewhere. Nor could I get enough people to sit on my dissertation committee; and even though I had health issues and had a "handicapped" status that allowed me more time to take my comps after my injuries in Dallas, they would not grant me a time extension to get together the committee. I was not someone they wanted on their graduation list. And so it was that I am not "Dr. Baker." Nor would I be able to become a professor. But I still had student loan payments to make.

When I first spoke out, I had plenty of savings, employment at a university, security, nice car, good health insurance. All of that was now gone. Soon, my student loans went bad. As of now, they have ballooned to triple the original amount and they will take money out of my Social Security to pay on them for the rest of my life. I felt horrible. I never believed I could become so poor so quickly.

I actually was hired several times, but as if somebody had kept tracing my calls, I would receive calls back that they had changed their minds! Some of my friends can testify that they were aware, as I would tell them I was hired--they had sent recommendations--but then the job vanished.

I had had enough with the phone call incident--little did I know I'd get much worse phone call shocks in the future! I called my son to tell him I was going to move overseas, and we had dinner together at a restaurant. When we came back to my car, inside was a note from the police. They had found both car doors wide open, had closed and locked them and put the note inside.

My car was for sale to raise money to move overseas, but the title had been stolen.

My son now realized what I had been going through to a greater extent.

Unable to sell the car, I asked my son to sell it. I had an emergency credit card, which I decided to use, and then pay it off when the car sold.

Imagine my horror, newly arrived in Holland, when I found that my credit card "changed" my $90 a month automatic payment to $900 a month! I learned this when my daughter sent the statement to me. Wim Dankbaar let me use his phone because no 800 number works overseas and I had no phone of my own yet.

I was told that was "too bad about the $1580 overcharge." Furthermore, since I was complaining and was overseas and still "owed" $200 on the card, they were going to cancel my $5000 credit card! And they did. Wim was there and took this as an indication of harassment, because I had informed them before leaving that I would be using the card overseas.

I was forced to borrow money from Mr. Dankbaar and paid over half of it back to him, with a painting to make up for the rest.

My health was still not very good (I was wearing a body brace in the Nigel Turner film) and I had slipped and fallen in Orlando due to dizzy spells and double vision from the two "accidents" in Houston and the other two in Orlando.

I had struck my head this fourth time around and was hospitalized, but my insurance with the school that had fired me, now a COBRA, was going to run out, so the doctors refused to do a recommended operation on my neck. My friends will testify that they were outraged that the operation was refused.

I have lived with chronic neck pain ever since, which became a "pre-existing condition" in the future, whenever I tried to get health insurance again.

Living with chronic pain has turned out to be the least of my troubles overseas. What happened overseas and how I then returned to the US twice, trying to stay safely in my own country is an absolutely incredible story that included at one point being held against my will in Holland--after being threatened and stalked in Hungary (on my first trip, not second trip, to Hungary--the second time was even worse) ... I was compromised there by thieves who claimed to have Mafia connections, who wanted to get their hands on my screenplay. One of these characters was a bona fide sniper for NATO. He was a dangerous man with a short fuse of a temper.

It was difficult for Wim Dankbaar, who lived in the same country, to believe aspects of this until he went with me back to their house himself. Angry at how they refused to even open the door--though they spotted us and had been informed that we were coming, and seeing the condition of the place, and knowing they had stolen almost all my possessions--Wim took his fist and crashed it through their door's window, so I could get inside to get some of my things back. They had disposed of much of my valuables by then--TV sets, computer, my stereo, big CD collection, some of my evidence, even a baby book of one of my children--was gone.

Wim went on tape to describe what had happened, and Sydney Wilkinson heard part of that tape before it, too, was stolen in yet another incident.

The thieves, after sending threats in big red letters with a clock ticking "24 hours" to my friends, demanding to know my location, went through with their threats to discredit me and took portions of my book and published it on the Internet.

This was an unfinished manuscript written via emails with Dr. Howard Platzman. Portions had been altered, of course, and the sad part was that if those portions were corrected, my enemies were ready to say I was "changing my story." In fact, quotations are used by Dave Reitzes, John McAdams, and others from "Deadly Alliance" to "prove" I "evolve" my story. Martin Shackelford wrote many posts asserting that this was not true, as he had been a close associate from the beginning up to this time.

All those posts were erased.

Shackelford in 2009 finally gave up posting on the newsgroup that made these accusations. He had endured incredible amounts of abuse for supporting me, such as, "You used to be a good researcher before you fell for Judyth's scams", and similar abuse.

All of the labor on "Deadly Alliance" had to be shelved and a new book written, which was very unfair to Dr. Platzman. At the same time, McAdams & Co. published an outline Platzman had worked on, based on emails between us, that had quite a few problems needing to be fixed, intended for publishers who had shown interest in "Deadly Alliance".

But this outline was prettied up and then published by McAdams & Co., after making it look as if it were some kind of official document. The various errors they introduced, such as that I was recruited by the CIA while in high school, are used on the Internet to "prove" how ridiculous my story is.

I successfully got a copy of that document removed from SCRIBD.com after I had proven it had been stolen from me and was being presented as a finished document, but it still appears as "Deadly Alliance" in Internet clones elsewhere. An example of an error that Dr. Platzman made that is easy to prove is his stating that Lee and I wrote the science fiction piece, "Her Story", together. The name of the science fiction story Lee and I wrote together in 1963 was actually called, "Her Way", and I have about half of it. The other half was destroyed by vandals, but Nigel Turner and other researchers had seen all 16 pages.

Typos, etc. were mostly left intact in this so-called "finished" document.

Through such means, McAdams & Co. try to convince the public that my story has evolved over time. Of course, my testimony gained more detail as people asked more specific questions. For example, I did not offer information on Clinton and Jackson to Platzman and Shackelford for months, until they asked me about it--we just didn't get to that item. When I immediately responded to their emails on the subject, they were shocked and pleased, because I was the "unknown woman" Jim Garrison had sought. I had information that, for the first time showed that two different trips were involved and why Clay Shaw, Dave Ferrie, and Lee had had to be there in that car together in Clinton. The documentary by Nigel Turner did not have time for much in the way of detail.

But all of that is another story.

Those who doubt the truth of Judyth's words about the innocence of Lee and the occurrence of a coup d'etat need to learn more about the death of JFK. Beyond the blogs found here, the books I have edited and the articles I have published about the assassination, I have interviewed many experts on my own radio program, which are archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

Two of those are of special interest here, both with Doug Horne, the author of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), who was its former Senior Analyst for Military Affairs. One focuses on the recreation of the Zapruder film to create a false record of the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza, the other about the medical cover-up in excruciating detail.

John McAdams, by the way, is a notorious "lone-nutter" who supports the official account of the assassination, which is refutable on elementary grounds. (See, for example, "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published in a peer-reviewed journal.)

Dave von Pein, moreover, is an especially vicious attack dog who goes after anyone who contests the government's position, as anyone can readily verify by tracing the comments for INSIDE THE ARRB, where he has gone after Doug Horne tooth and claw and I have rebutted many of his assaults, which will continue.

Not the least of my reasons for posting this blog is that I received a death threat today for my work on JFK and 9/11. Lola, however, suspects that it is directly related to my support for Judyth, where she may well be right. She has done a nice piece of detective work in identifying the person she suspects sent this threat to me, which I received just this morning. Here is the threat and the identity of the person who may well have sent it. He seems to fit.

Click for the complete threat:

Click for the likely suspect:

Monday, February 22, 2010

The Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement: The Media's Response

Kevin Barrett is back to my YouTube channel JamesFetzerNews to talk about his trip to the first-floor rotunda of the state capitol on Friday, where degreed architect and AE911truth board member Tom Spellman read the AE911truth prepared statement citing overwhelming evidence that the three WTC skyscrapers were demolished with explosives and demanding an investigation of these events as well as a grand jury investigation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology cover-up. No "professional" media showed up, even though two separate press releases had been sent to all local media outlets. The independent media was there, however, in the form of Mark and Josh of We Are Change Oshkosh among others.


AE 9/11 Truth Press Conference - February 19, 2010

This was a parallel press conference to the one being held by Richard Gage, architect and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in California. Gage was joined in San Francisco by signers of the AE911Truth Petition, including 9/11 author David Ray Griffin, Ph.D., and nuclear physicist and 9/11 researcher Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., to discuss the organization’s findings. A copy of the petition, along with AE911Truth literature and DVDs, was presented to every Member of Congress on Friday by the 14,000 active supporters of AE911Truth. As of January 2010, over 1,000 architects and engineers have signed an AE911Truth petition demanding a truly independent investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.


Kevin Barrett on the A&E9/11Truth Petition for Reinvestigation

In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account. Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a "conspiracy theory" ignoring science and common sense. This is a most welcome development, which suggests that we are making inroads with the public in spite of the massive disinformation campaign arrayed against us. This essay, by Elizabeth Woodworth, presents these media analyses in the form of 18 case studies.

The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement
Part II: A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010
Elizabeth Woodworth / 15 February 2010

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

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

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

I. Introduction

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

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

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


Alex Jones Debunks the So-Called 9/11 Debunkers

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

Observations on the Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Interview With Steven Jones, 9\11 Truth Now

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

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

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

The article’s first-named author, Dr. Niels Harrit – a University of Copenhagen chemistry professor who specializes in nano-chemistry[5] –explained on Danish TV2 News:

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

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

"You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite."[6]


Dr. Harrit talks about the findings of explosives in
dust from World Trade Center. (6 April 2009)

What was the significance of this sophisticated material?

Reported Evidence that Nano-thermite is a Military Substance

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

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

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

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


Kevin Ryan interview (6 April 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Dr. Harrit on Russia Today

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News was somewhat less constrained, saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


911 Devil's Advocate - English subs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


In the 2008 Edition of this stunning multimedia presentation, filmed professionally in a studio before a live audience, San Francisco Bay Area architect, Richard Gage, AIA, provides the myth-shattering scientific forensic evidence of the explosive controlled demolition of all 3 WTC high-rise buildings on September 11, 2001.

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

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

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

Gage’s presentation was also described as "effective":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What produced all that molten iron?" he asked.

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

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


Richard Gage on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Independent article – entitled "Twin Towers, Twin Myths?" – begins:

"One of the crucial technical disputes in American history, perhaps second only to global warming, is underway. It pits hundreds of government technicians who say the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by airplane impact against hundreds of professional architects and building engineers who insist that the Twin Towers could never have collapsed solely due to the planes and are calling for a new independent investigation. It is a fight that is not going away and is likely to get louder as more building trade professionals sign on to one side or the other."[33]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Norwegian TV examines 911

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Jean-Marie Bigard: New 9/11 Investigation Needed

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

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

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

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

On November 26, 2009, Canada’s largest newspaper, The Globe and Mail, noting in an objective review[42] that the 9/11 truth movement is "gathering steam," reported that a documentary airing that evening "follows up on some fairly startling public-opinion polls of late."

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


CBC - The Fifth Estate - The Unofficial Story

Host Bob McKeown, himself a recipient of multiple awards[45], opened by saying that eight years after the "most scrutinized day in history", there may be "more questions than ever", and that an increasing number of people now believe the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. "Incredibly", he adds, "public opinion polls now show that a majority of Americans believe the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of those attacks, and one way or another allowed them to happen, and polls show that one Canadian in three believes that, too."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Richard Gage on TVNZ, on 27 November 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ventura made the 9/11 documentary after being approached by Donna March O’Connor, whose daughter died in the World Trade Center and wanted "every American exposed to the questions" about 9/11.[50]

Ventura’s documentary contained interviews with the following people:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Conspiracy theory with Jesse Ventura - 9/11

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

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

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

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

In his response, Deiseroth made the following points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


WTC7 Survivor Barry Jennings Account

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


BBC: Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


"Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup" first examines mysterious and infamous events that reshaped world history from the Reichstag Fire in 1933 that catapulted Hitler to dictatorship to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 that led to the Vietnam War, and then takes viewers on a turbulent journey through several pivotal moments in history before delving into the most significant catastrophe in recent memory, 9/11.

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

IV. Summary and Concluding Observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

[1] "The 50 People Who Matter Today," New Statesman, September 24, 2009. Note that Part I of this series, entitled "The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9 /11 Truth Movement: Reflections on a Recent Evaluation of Dr. David Ray Griffin," was published by Global Research, December 12, 2009.

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

[3] Ibid., p. 29.

[4] Ibid., p. 29.

[5] Dr. Harrit is Associate Professor of the Department of Chemistry, and has been a faculty member at the Nano-Science Center at the University of Copenhagen since this Center started in 2001.

[6] "Danish Scientist Niels Harrit on Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust" (English subtitles), TV2 News, Denmark, April 6, 2009.

[7] By Lars Sobiraj, May 24, 2009, "Germany’s gulli.com (link obsolete now) Interviews Dr. Niels Harrit on Nanothermite at the WTC," Sunday May 24th, 2009 1:28 PM,

[8] Kevin R. Ryan, "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermite", July 2, 2008.

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

[10] See the IoN Advisory Group.

[11] My italics. [News]: "Active Thermitic Material Confirmed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," June 15, 2009.

[12] Thomas Hoffmann, "Danish scientist: an explosive nano material found in dust from the World Trade Center", Videnskab.dk, April 3, 2009.

[13] Thomas Hoffmann, "Niels Harrit: Scientific evidence of long-time knowledge of 9/11", Videnskab.dk, April 3, 2009.

[14] Milla Mølgaard, April 4, 2009.

[15] "Niels Harrit presents evidence for nano-thermite in WTC, on Good Morning Denmark".

[16] Posted at: http://www.javno.com/en-world/video...

[17] "Did nano-thermite take down the WTC?". Also available on youtube as "Dr. Niels Harrit on Russia Today – We need a real 9/11 investigation".

[18] Brian Stelter, "The Political Suspicions of 9/11", New York Times, February 1, 2009.

[19] Fox News, "’Rescue Me’ From 9/11 Conspiracy Theories," February 4, 2009.

[20] The mock trial is available on youtube in 4 parts: "911 Devil’s Advocate – English subs – Part 1 of 4".

[21] This is said at the beginning of "911 Devil’s Advocate – English subs – Part 2 of 4". See also, Craig Morris, "Mistranslated Osama bin Laden Video – the German Press Investigates", December 23, 2001.

[22] Joshua Rhett Miller, "Dutch TV Show Feeds Conspiracy Theories on Bin Laden’s Role in 9/11," Fox News, April 25, 2009.

[23] Johanthan Kay, "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire," Financial Post, Saturday, April 25, 2009.

[24] The radio program may be heard at this link, in Norwegian, without subtitles.

[25] Norwegian State Radio initiates public debate on 9/11 Truth (update).

[26] Richard Gage interviewed by Kim Stephens and Kopi Sotiropulos on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA, May 28, 2009.

[27] "9/11: Science and Conspiracy". National Geographic Channel is a joint venture of National Geographic Television & Film and Fox Cable Networks.

[28] Tom Conroy. "’9/11: Science and Conspiracy’ not quite," Media Life Magazine, August 31, 2009.

[29] Maxine Shen, "The Story Behind 9/11: Hit or Myth? Taking on the Truthers", New York Post, September 2, 2009.

[30] The website for this publication.

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

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

[33] Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, "Twin Towers, Twin Myths?" Santa Barbara Independent, September 17, 2009.

[34] Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, "Explosive Theory", MetroActive, September 9, 2009.

[35] "Is conspiracy behind the World Trade Center’s collapse?".

[36] "Norwegian TV examines 911 part 1," September 10, 2009. The TV program was followed by a written account of it: Lars Ole Skjønberg, "World Trade Center ble sprengt" ("World Trade Center was Blown Up,") September 10, 2009. Further information and partial transcripts are available at "Norwegian State Television presents 9/11 Truth (en subs), (update).

[37] Sue Reid, "Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years – and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?", Daily Mail, September 11, 2009.

[38] New Statesman, "The 50 People who Matter Today", op. cit.

[39] "French comedian apolgises for claiming 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government," Belfast Telegraph, September 10, 2008.

[40] "L’objet du scandale, 11 septembre, Bigard, Kassovitz". The program is also available with English subtitles. The debate was originally intended to include journalist Éric Laurent and Prof. Niels Harrit, but apparently France 2 could not find anyone to debate them. See "France 2 backs away from real debate, censors Niels Harrit and Éric Laurent", October 24, 2009.

[41] Hervé de Saint Hilaire, «L’objet du scandale» : sophismes bruyants, Le Figaro, 30 octobre 2009.

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

[43] CBC. The Fifth Estate. "The Unofficial Story", November 27, 2009.

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

[45] McKeown’s awards include two Emmys, two Geminis, two Edward R. Murrow awards, two Gracies, two National Headliner awards and a National Press Club award.

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

[47] The Fifth Estate.

[48] "Richard Gage AIA on New Zealand National Television", November 27, 2009.

[49] "Conspiracy Theory Episode 4 Big Brother with Jesse Ventura", December 29, 2009.

[50] "9/11 Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura", TruTV, Premiere Wed, December 9 at 10PM. Also at "Conspiracy theory with Jesse Ventura – 9/11 part 1".

[51] Marcus Klöckner, "Das schreit geradezu nach Aufklärung", December 15, 2009. Link for the English Google translation.

[52] Oliver Janich, Focus Money, No. 2/2010, January 8, 2010. Link for English Google translation. Link for English introduction and commentary.

[53] Mike Rudin, "The Conspiracy Files", BBC News, January 9, 2009.

[54] David Ray Griffin, "Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?" Interlink Books, 2009. The documentary, "The BBC’s Conspiracy Files: Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive?" January 10, 2010, is now periodically available on BBC stations throughout the world, and presently available on youtube:
"BBC: Osama Bin Laden; Dead or Alive (1/6)".

[55] A Wikipedia article lists 34 videos of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri that have been released since May 2003.

[56] Frames from the 2004 and 2007 videos may be seen side by side in the online article: David Ray Griffin, "Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?" Global Research, October 9, 2009.

[57] Tom Sutcliffe, "Last Night’s Television: By The People: The Election of Barack Obama, Sat, BBC2; Conspiracy Files: Osama Bin Laden – Dead or Alive?, Sun, BBC2", The Independent, January 11, 2010.

[58] Beth Lamontagne Hall, "NH group cites need for new 9/11 probe", New Hampshire Union Leader, February 1, 2010.

More 9/11 Rubbish: This time from National Geographic, no less
Jim Fetzer / 7 September 2009

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) September 7, 2009 – Another study intended to suppress and distort objective evidence that refutes the official account of 9/11, ironically entitled, “9/11: Science and Conspiracy”, has now appeared on The National Geographic Channel, one more in an ongoing series of propagandistic documentaries posing as “news”. This pseudo-documentary was broadcast on August 31, 2009. The abuse of the good name of “National Geographic” has its precursor in the take-over of POPULAR MECHANICS to abuse its good name for the same purpose, exposed by David Ray Griffin in DEBUNKING 9/11 DEBUNKING (2007). My purpose is to perform a similar critique of this misleading program.


Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's Get Empirical.
A talk by Dr. David Ray Griffin.

Having taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning during 35-years of college teaching, it was not difficult to discern the techniques of disinformation that were the core of the program. The fallacy of ambiguity (in which a phrase is used in a different sense to debunk the original), the straw man fallacy (by posing an exaggerated version of a position to make it easier to debunk) and of special pleading (by citing only the evidence favorable to your side) fallacies were supplemented by the appearance of two pseudo-experts—Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone and David Aaronovitch, author of VOODOO HISTORIES—who were featured as “useful idiots” by lending their names and reputations to the project of deceiving the American public about 9/11.

(1) The fires were hot enough to weaken or melt the steel.

Those who want to confirm the description I am providing of the four central tenets of this “documentary” are welcome to visit the National Geographic's own web site, "9/11: Science vs. Conspiracy". They begin with the “conspiracy theorist” claim that the (jet-fuel based) fires could not have burned hot enough to harm the steel, which is essential to the official account. It maintains the fires were hot enough to weaken or to melt the steel and to have brought about the buildings' collapse. This was alleged to have been debunked by taking a single beam and heating it to 1,800-2,000*F. It weakened and bent.


9/11: Science vs. Conspiracy

EXCEPT that the steel in these 500,000 ton buildings was interconnected with other steel, which functioned as an enormous heat sink, which drew it away from its heated segments and dissipated it throughout the structure. By taking a lone piece of steel, the producers employed a straw man fallacy. In fact, most of the jet fuel was consumed in the first ten to fifteen seconds after impact in those spectacular fire-balls. Even NIST has acknowledged that it has studied 236 pieces of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F, which is that of ordinary office fires, and the other three not above 1,200*F. The experiment was not conducted in a manner that would test the claim.

Underwriters Laboratory had in fact certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for three or four hours with no significant effects. The fires in the South Tower lasted about an hour and in the North about an hour and a half. That means these fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500*F—to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. The fires could have burned forever and not damaged the steel. By creating a gross distortion of the objection that has been raised to this aspect of the official account, the public was misled.

(2) Their collapse was not caused by controlled demolition.

The producers went to great lengths in discussing the time and the extent of the technical preparation that would have been required and the kinds of residue—in the form of wires and detonators, for example—that would have been expected to have been found in the debris. They point out that the Twin Towers had 47 massive core columns that were linked by steel trusses to the 240 external support columns. Indeed, the trusses were filled with 4” of concrete and welded at both ends, creating an intricate lattice structure that was all but impervious to hurricane-force winds and, as Frank De Martini, the project manager, observed in an interview archived on YouTube, to even multiple impacts by aircraft.

This was a nice example of the fallacy of ambiguity, which would have had force, had the Twin Towers been brought down by a classic controlled demolition. Indeed, they were taken out by a demolition that was under control, but it was not a “classic” controlled demolition, which, however, was the case for WTC-7, a 47-story building, which was brought down at 5:20 PM, about 7 hours after the destruction of the Twin Towers. Compare these events by viewing the brief videos, “This is an Orange” and “9/11: The Towers of Dust”, and in less than 5 minutes you will understand the deception. The two cases were entirely different in modes of destruction:

Buildings: WTC-1 & WTC-2 / WTC-7

Sequence: Top down / Bottom up

Floor motion: Stationary / Falling together

Mechanism: Pulverization / Controlled Demolition

Time/Speed: About 10 secs. / About 6.5 secs.

Equivalent: = free fall / = free fall

Remnants: No pancakes / Pancakes

Debris: Below ground level / 5-7 floors


Dr. Fetzer explains that the plane crashes causing
fires causing steel to melt and floors to collapse
violates laws of physics and engineering and cannot
possibly be correct.

These cases display substantial difference even in their gross appearance. Their modes of destruction must have been different. If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition—as virtually all sides agree—then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not. But the phrase "controlled demolition" still applies, since they were brought down by a demolition that was under control. By trading upon the ambiguity of the phrase, the producers deceived the public.

(3) Thermite was not used in these controlled demolitions.

Steven Jones, Ph.D., a physicist formerly on the faculty at BYU, has done extensive research on the possible use of the incendiary known as “thermite” for cutting the steel in the Twin Towers and contributing to their collapse. National Geographic took a section of a steel beam and surrounded it with thermite to demonstrate that thermite could not have done what it is alleged to have done. This, however, was conducted with the simplest and the least effective form of thermite, which also comes in forms called “thermate” and, more importantly, in a highly explosive form called “nano-thermite”, which makes this an example of special pleading, where only evidence favorable to your side is presented. A new study demonstrating the discovery of thermitic material in four samples of dust from the WTC was not mentioned, but was ignored by using another fallacy of ambiguity.

The misleading assertions made here illustrate a variety of fallacies in a single argument. The Twin Towers, in fact, did not “collapse” but were turned into very fine particles of dust. Unlike WTC-7, which did collapse as the result of a classic controlled demolition, the Twin Towers were taken out using completely different causal mechanisms, as I have explained above. Not only did the producers employ a weak and less likely form of thermite for their experiment, but it appears virtually certain that even nano-thermite would not have been enough to turn the towers into dust. The alternatives include mini-nukes, 3rd and 4th generation weapons, lasers, masers, or plasmoids. The fallacy that occurred here is that, by demonstrating that the weakest version of the thermite hypothesis was not enough, the producers did not thereby show that stronger versions were not used, especially in possible combinations with other causal mechanisms.

(4) The Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

The producers introduced yet another fallacy in attempting to demonstrate that the official account of the Pentagon—which maintains that a Boeing 757 flying at over 500 mph just above ground level—impacted with the ground floor of the building and brought about the death of 125 personnel, excluding any that might have been aboard the plane. This theory is massively contradicted from scratch, insofar as a Boeing at that speed could not get closer than 60 feet to the ground because of the accumulation of a pocket of air beneath the plane. Moreover, were it skimming the ground as the government claims, its massive engines would have plowed furrows in the lawn. But it is perfectly smooth, green, and unblemished as two civilian fire trucks put out the very modest fires that were present there. I recently addressed all this in “What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon”.

The producers attempted to demonstrate that such a plane could have disappeared into the building by launching a projectile into a simulated structure. It was a round, hard tube that had no wings. While it created a hole the same size as the projectile, such an experiment could not possibly vindicate the official account. A Boeing 757 runs about 100 tons with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail standing 44-feet above the ground. There were no wings, no tail, no bodies, no seats, and no luggage at the hit point. Neither of the two massive engines was recovered. The “experiment” had more differences than similarities to the actual event, which means they were using another common fallacy, the faulty analogy, to deceive the American people once again.

As though to round out their purported refutations of these four “conspiracy hypotheses”, they featured Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, who offered reassuring platitudes—that if something had been wrong, the media would have seized upon it—as though he himself were not a walking contradiction of such a naïve proposition. I had engaged Matt years ago and even published a piece that enumerated point after point in relation to which the official account has been found to be indefensible, “9/11: The Massive Ignorance of Matt Taibbi”, October 30, 2006, where the only argument of mine that he seems to have absorbed is that the debris found on the lawn of the Pentagon may have been dropped from a C-130 circling the building, which he mentions in THE GREAT DERANGEMENT (2009), which only becomes intelligible if you understand that it was not there at the time of the alleged impact, a point he somehow neglects to mention in his book (p. 257).

As if that were not a nice example of citing only evidence favorable to one side, David Aaronovitch, VOODOO HISTORIES: THE ROLE OF CONSPIRACY THEORY IN SHAPING MODERN HISTORY (forthcoming), goes even further, suggesting that the mind of those who find conspiracy theories so appealing do this because of their abnormal need to “connect the dots”, where the case of JFK illustrates the point: conspiracy theorists cannot accept that a lone, demented gunman could have taken out JFK. The problem with his example is that, as Michael Baden, M.D., who chaired the medical panel during the HSCA reinvestigation of 1977-78 recently observed, if the “magic bullet” theory is false, there have to have been at least six shots from three different directions. A study that I first presented at Cambridge, which has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, “Reasoning about Assassinations”, alas, proves exactly that, which means that this documentary was rounded out by “experts” who were unqualified to address the issues, no matter whether they involved 9/11 or JFK.


Real 9/11 experts—David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, and Dylan Avery—were featured but basically ignored. And the producers neglected to mention that over 1,500 authorities across every discipline now support the search for 9/11 truth by joining together at patriotsquestion911.com, which includes more than 200 senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials, 700 architects and engineers, 200 pilots and aviation professionals, 400 professors (across the disciplines), 230 survivors and family member, and 200 artists and entertainers. That, after all, would not have served their purpose, which was to mislead the American people about what is known and who was involved in 9/11—something the producers did very well.