1. “Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001 seems des­tined to be the water­shed event of our lives and the great­est test for our democ­racy in our life­times. The evi­dence of gov­ern­ment com­plic­ity in the lead-up to the events, the fail­ure to respond dur­ing the event, and the astound­ing lack of any mean­ing­ful inves­ti­ga­tion after­wards, as well as the ignor­ing of evi­dence turned up by oth­ers that ren­ders the offi­cial expla­na­tion impos­si­ble, may sig­nal the end of the Amer­i­can exper­i­ment.” — Lt. Col. Shel­ton F. Lank­ford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) [1]

2. “I have watched the con­struc­tion of many large build­ings and also have per­son­ally wit­nessed 5 con­trolled demo­li­tions in Kansas City. When I saw the tow­ers fall on 9/11, I knew some­thing was wrong and my first instinct was that it was impos­si­ble. When I saw build­ing 7 fall, I knew it was a CD [con­trolled demo­li­tion].” — Chester Gearhart, Civil Engi­neer (ret), pg.xiii in [2].

3. “It’s rem­i­nis­cent of those pic­tures we’ve all seen too much on tele­vi­sion where a build­ing was delib­er­ately destroyed by well-placed dyna­mite to knock it down.” — Dan Rather, CBS News, report­ing Build­ing 7 col­lapse on Sept. 11, 2001

4. “This is con­trolled demo­li­tion … A team of experts did this … This is pro­fes­sional work, with­out any doubt.” — Danny Jowenko, Con­trolled Demo­li­tions Expert, view­ing Build­ing 7 col­lapse, @0:54:20 in [3]

5. “Faced with a court order and unyield­ing demands from the fam­i­lies of vic­tims, the city of New York yes­ter­day opened part of its archive of records from Sept. 11, releas­ing a dig­i­tal avalanche of oral his­to­ries … The oral his­to­ries were gath­ered in 2001 on the instruc­tions of Thomas Von Essen, who was fire com­mis­sioner on Sept. 11. The New York Times sought copies under the free­dom of infor­ma­tion law in early 2002, but Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s admin­is­tra­tion refused, lead­ing to lit­i­ga­tion. Ear­lier this year, the state Court of Appeals ordered the release of most of the mate­ri­als.” — NY Times [4]

6. “It actu­ally gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we orig­i­nally had thought there was like an inter­nal det­o­na­tion explo­sives because it went in suc­ces­sion, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.” — Fire­fighter Ed Cachia, in oral his­to­ries, pg. 12 in [5]

7. “I thought that when I looked in the direc­tion of the Trade Cen­ter before it came down, before Num­ber Two came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my con­ver­sa­tion with Lieu­tenant Evan­ge­lista, never men­tion­ing this to him, he ques­tioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the build­ing, and I agreed with him … I saw a flash-flash-flash, and then it looked like the build­ing came down. … No, the lower level of the build­ing. You know like when they demol­ish a build­ing, how they blow up a build­ing, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw.” — F.D.N.Y Assis­tant Com­mis­sioner Stephen Gre­gory, in oral his­to­ries, pg. 10 in [5]

8. “We have 118 wit­nesses out of a pool of 503. Over 23 per cent of our group are explo­sion wit­nesses.” — Prof. Graeme Mac­Queen, on the oral his­to­ries [6]

9. Ques­tion: “Why did NIST not con­sider a ‘con­trolled demo­li­tion’ hypoth­e­sis with match­ing com­puter mod­el­ing and expla­na­tion as it did for the ‘pan­cake the­ory’ hypoth­e­sis?”
NIST response: “… there is con­clu­sive evi­dence that: the col­lapse was ini­ti­ated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC tow­ers and nowhere else, … there was no evi­dence (col­lected by … Fire Depart­ment of New York) of any blast or explo­sions in the region below the impact and fire floors …” — NIST in [7]

10. “Well, here’s a 3-story top-down con­trolled demo­li­tion. … Here’s a 20-story middle-down con­trolled demo­li­tion. You can start demo­li­tions from wher­ever you would like.” — @1:15:45 in [3].

11. “Here a chunk of steel was blown 400 feet, wedg­ing itself deep into 3 World Finan­cial Cen­ter on Vesey Street. A FEMA pho­tog­ra­pher tak­ing pic­tures of ground zero won­dered why so many steel beams were jut­ting from neigh­bor­ing build­ings. … The por­tions of the tower that had the great­est struc­tural mem­bers, the sky lob­bies and the mechan­i­cal floors, had the perime­ter units thrown far­ther … These perime­ter units landed on the Win­ter Gar­den, 600 feet away.” — @1:28:10 in [3]

12. “About a year after the offi­cial pro­gram to iden­tify vic­tims had ended, more human remains turned up on top of the Deutsche Bank Build­ing, which stands about 400 feet to the south of the loca­tion of the for­mer South Tower. Accord­ing to the Asso­ci­ated Press, more than 300 human bone frag­ments were recov­ered from the roof of the 43-story sky­scraper … Most frag­ments were less than 1/16th inch in length.” — [8]

13. “You have two 110-story office build­ings. You don’t find a desk. You don’t find a chair. You don’t find a tele­phone, a com­puter. The biggest piece of a tele­phone I found was half of the key­pad … The build­ing col­lapsed to dust.” — Fire­fighter Joe Casaliggi @1:32:35 in [3].

14. “Con­crete and other build­ing mate­ri­als were lit­er­ally reduced to pow­der before hit­ting the ground, which is con­sis­tent only with demo­li­tion. If a build­ing col­lapses due to fire or other haz­ards, con­crete and other heavy mate­ri­als are not reduced to pow­der.” — Jeff King, Engineer/Scientist, MIT, pg. 31 in [5]

15. “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC tow­ers melted due to the fires. The melt­ing point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Cel­sius (2,800 degrees Fahren­heit). Nor­mal build­ing fires and hydro­car­bon (e.g., jet fuel) fires gen­er­ate tem­per­a­tures up to about 1,100 degrees Cel­sius (2,000 degrees Fahren­heit). — NIST in [7]

16. “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, run­ning down the chan­nel lengths, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.” — Fire­fighter Ruvolo @0:33:45 in [3]

17. “In the base­ments of the col­lapsed tow­ers, where the 47 cen­tral sup­port columns con­nected with the bedrock, hot spots of ‘lit­er­ally molten steel’ were dis­cov­ered more than a month after the col­lapse. Such per­sis­tent and intense resid­ual heat, 70 feet below the sur­face, in an oxy­gen starved envi­ron­ment, could explain how these cru­cial struc­tural sup­ports failed.” — Mark Loizeaux, Con­trolled Demo­li­tion Inc. @0:30:10 in [3]

18. Ques­tion: “Why did the NIST inves­ti­ga­tion not con­sider reports of molten steel in the wreck­age from the WTC tow­ers?”
NIST answer: “… The con­di­tion of the steel in the wreck­age of the WTC tow­ers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrel­e­vant to the inves­ti­ga­tion of the col­lapse since it does not pro­vide any con­clu­sive infor­ma­tion on the con­di­tion of the steel when the WTC tow­ers were stand­ing.” — [7]

19. “The char­ac­ter­is­tics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been ade­quately explained as the results of a nor­mal struc­ture fire, even one accel­er­ated by jet fuel. Con­versely, such fires are bet­ter explained given the pres­ence of chem­i­cal ener­getic mate­ri­als, which pro­vide their own fuel and oxi­dant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chem­i­cal sup­pres­sants.” — Kevin Ryan, Chemist, et. al. [9]

20. “Keep your eye on that build­ing, it’ll be com­ing down. … The build­ing is about to blow up. Move it back. … We are walk­ing back. … Cause the building’s about to blow up. … Flame and debris com­ing down.” — Uniden­ti­fied Ground Zero work­ers at Build­ing 7, @0:56:20 in [3]

21. “He came back over with his hand over the radio and what sounded like a count­down. And at the last few sec­onds he took his hand off and you heard, ‘three, two, one,’ and he was just say­ing ‘just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three sec­onds, you heard explo­sions.” — Kevin McPad­den, for­mer Air Force spe­cial oper­a­tions search & res­cue, at Build­ing 7, @0:26:00 in [3]

22. “Yes, so basi­cally they mea­sured out how far the build­ing was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand .… 5 blocks away. We could still see. Exactly right on point, the cloud stopped right there.’ ” — EMT DeCosta Wright, on prepar­ing to watch Build­ing 7 col­lapse, pg. 35 in [5]

23. “This is directly from the 2001 Edi­tion of the National Fire Pro­tec­tion Asso­ci­a­tion NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explo­sion Inves­ti­ga­tions. … ‘Ther­mite mix­tures also pro­duce exceed­ingly hot fires. Such accel­er­ants gen­er­ally leave residues that may be visu­ally or chem­i­cally iden­ti­fi­able. … As a result, the entire fire scene should be con­sid­ered phys­i­cal evi­dence and should be pro­tected and pre­served.’ ” – http://firefightersfor911truth.org

24. “For more than three months, struc­tural steel from the World Trade Cen­ter has been and con­tin­ues to be cut up and sold for scrap. … Such destruc­tion of evi­dence shows the astound­ing igno­rance of gov­ern­ment offi­cials to the value of a thor­ough, sci­en­tific inves­ti­ga­tion of the largest fire-induced col­lapse in world his­tory. … Fire Engi­neer­ing has good rea­son to believe that the ‘offi­cial inves­ti­ga­tion’ blessed by FEMA and run by the Amer­i­can Soci­ety of Civil Engi­neers is a half-baked farce that may have been com­man­deered by polit­i­cal forces whose pri­mary inter­ests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full dis­clo­sure. … The destruc­tion and removal of evi­dence must stop imme­di­ately.” — Bill Man­ning, Edi­tor Fire Engi­neer­ing [10]

25. “Ther­mite is a pyrotech­nic com­po­si­tion of a metal pow­der and a metal oxide, which pro­duces an alu­minother­mic reac­tion known as a ther­mite reac­tion. … The prod­ucts are alu­minum oxide, free ele­men­tal iron, and a large amount of heat. … Nano-thermite or ‘super ther­mite’ is classed as an explo­sive.”
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

26. “Micro-spheroidal par­ti­cles in WTC dust con­sist­ing mostly of iron were doc­u­mented in at least two sci­en­tific reports by 2005. … Molten iron is one of the two prin­ci­pal prod­ucts of the ther­mite reac­tion, the other being alu­minum oxide, which tends to dis­si­pate as an aerosol. … Fast-acting super-thermites pro­duce tiny droplets that become very nearly spher­i­cal due to sur­face ten­sion. … Ele­men­tal analy­sis of these droplets described below would show that they are dead ringers for known alu­minother­mic residues.” — Jim Hoff­man, Engi­neer [11]

27. “We have dis­cov­ered dis­tinc­tive red/gray chips in all the sam­ples we have stud­ied of the dust pro­duced by the destruc­tion of the World Trade Cen­ter. … The red por­tion of these chips is found to be an unre­acted ther­mitic mate­r­ial and highly ener­getic.” — Neils Har­rit, Prof. Chem­istry, et. al. [12]

28. Ques­tion: “Did the NIST inves­ti­ga­tion look for evi­dence of the WTC tow­ers being brought down by con­trolled demo­li­tion?  Was the steel tested for explo­sives or ther­mite residues.“
NIST response: “NIST did not test for the residue of these com­pounds in the steel.” — NIST in [7]

29. “No steel framed high-rise build­ing has ever col­lapsed due to fire — due to the high tem­per­a­tures that would be required to weaken struc­tural steel past its crit­i­cal safety mar­gin — even though very large, very hot, and very long-lasting fires have rav­aged many steel-structure high-rise build­ings.” — [13]

30. “We had designed the project for the impact of the largest air­plane of its time, the Boe­ing 707. That is, to take this jet air­plane, run it into the build­ing, destroy a lot of struc­ture, and still have it stand up.” — John Skilling, WTC Struc­tural Engi­neer, @1:03:00 in [3]

31. “I believe that the build­ing prob­a­bly could sus­tain mul­ti­ple impacts of jet­lin­ers, because this struc­ture is like the mos­quito net­ting on your screen door — this intense grid. And the jet plane is just a pen­cil punc­tur­ing that screen net­ting.” — Frank DeMar­tini, Man­ager WTC Con­struc­tion @1:03:15 in [3]

32. “Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were sta­ble after the air­craft impact, stand­ing for 102 min and 56 min, respec­tively. The global analy­ses with struc­tural impact dam­age showed that both tow­ers had con­sid­er­able reserve capac­ity.” — NIST, pg. 144 in [14]

33. “The ini­tial jet fuel fires them­selves lasted at most a few min­utes. … The prin­ci­pal com­bustibles on the fire floors were work­sta­tions. … Con­ven­tional office work­sta­tions reached a peak burn­ing rate in about 10 min and con­tin­ued burn­ing for a total of about a half hour.” — NIST, pg. 179, 180 in [14]

34. “Accord­ingly, NIST con­tracted with Under­writ­ers Lab­o­ra­to­ries, Inc. to con­duct tests to obtain infor­ma­tion on the fire endurance of truses like those in the WTC tow­ers. … All four test spec­i­mens sus­tained the max­i­mum design load for approx­i­mately 2 hours with­out col­laps­ing.” — NIST, pg 140, 141 in [14]

35. Ques­tion: “How could the WTC tow­ers col­lapse in only 11 sec­onds (WTC 1) and 9 sec­onds (WTC 2) — speeds that approx­i­mate that of a ball dropped from sim­i­lar height in a vac­uum (with no air resis­tance)?”
NIST response: “… In other words, the momen­tum (which equals mass times veloc­ity) of the 12 to 28 sto­ries (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respec­tively) falling on the sup­port­ing struc­ture below (which was designed to sup­port only the sta­tic weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to down­ward momen­tum) so greatly exceeded the strength capac­ity of the struc­ture below that it (the struc­ture below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.” — [7]

36. “We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approx­i­mately 9 sto­ries) and we have found that it did not suf­fer severe and sud­den impact or abrupt decel­er­a­tion. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any ampli­fied load. In the absence of an ampli­fied load there is no mech­a­nism to explain the col­lapse of the lower por­tion of the build­ing, which was undam­aged by fire.” — Prof. Graeme Mac­Queen, et. al. [15]

37. “The fact that the roof line of the upper sec­tion of the North Tower con­tin­ued to accel­er­ate down­ward through the col­li­sion with the lower sec­tion of the build­ing indi­cates that the upper sec­tion could not have been act­ing as a pile dri­ver. As long as the roof line was accel­er­at­ing down­ward, the upper block, exerted a force less than its own sta­tic weight on the lower sec­tion of the build­ing. … The per­sis­tent accel­er­a­tion of the top sec­tion is strong con­fir­ma­tion that some other source of energy was used to remove the struc­ture below it.” — David Chan­dler, High School Physics Teacher [16]

38. “Shyam Sun­der is the lead inves­ti­ga­tor for the NIST analy­sis of the col­lapse of World Trade Cen­ter Build­ing 7. In a tech­ni­cal brief­ing on August 26, Dr. Sun­der clearly explained why freefall for World Trade Cen­ter 7 was impos­si­ble. … That was before they were forced to acknowl­edge that freefall actu­ally occurred. … The onset of freefall was not only sud­den, it extended across the whole width of the build­ing. … All 24 inte­rior columns and 58 perime­ter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the build­ing simul­ta­ne­ously … Explo­sive demo­li­tion is the only sce­nario put for­ward that could actu­ally account for the obser­va­tions. … After all, as Shyam Sun­der put it him­self, freefall hap­pens only when there are no struc­tural com­po­nents below the falling sec­tion of the build­ing. Any nat­ural sce­nario is going to involve a pro­gres­sion of fail­ures and these don’t hap­pen instan­ta­neously.” — David Chan­dler [17] (note: NIST admits 2.25 sec of pure freefall. Build­ing 7 was not hit by an airplane.)

39. “NIST’s so-called inves­ti­ga­tion actu­ally con­sists of find­ing a way to repro­duce the mys­te­ri­ous col­lapse of the build­ing using a com­puter model. The assump­tion is if the com­puter model can be made to repro­duce the observed col­lapse pat­tern, that must be how it hap­pened. The prob­lem is if some­thing unex­pected was going on, like explo­sives for instance, you’re not going to dis­cover it in a com­puter model. For that you need to look at the actual evi­dence.” — David Chan­dler [17]

40. “Let’s look at NIST’s model, except, we can’t. The soft­ware they use in the model is avail­able. But their model actu­ally con­sists of all the num­bers and mea­sure­ments and assump­tions together with any tweaks to the sys­tem … If that infor­ma­tion were released their results could be checked … But NIST has not released the num­bers. … Is their model real­is­tic? We don’t know. … We can’t know with­out inde­pen­dent test­ing.” — David Chan­dler [17]

41. “… I hereby find that the dis­clo­sure of the infor­ma­tion described below, received by the National Insti­tute of Stan­dards and Tech­nol­ogy (“NIST”), in con­nec­tion with its inves­ti­ga­tion of the tech­ni­cal causes of the col­lapse of the World Trade Cen­ter Tow­ers and World Trade Cen­ter Build­ing 7 on Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001, might jeop­ar­dize pub­lic safety. There­fore, NIST shall not release the fol­low­ing infor­ma­tion:
1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story col­lapse ini­ti­a­tion model …
2. All input files with con­nec­tion mate­r­ial prop­er­ties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global col­lapse model…” — Patrick Gal­lagher, NIST Direc­tor, July 9, 2009 [18]

42. “The archi­tec­tural draw­ings of the WTC North Tower have been leaked from an indi­vid­ual asso­ci­ated with the Silverstein-Weidinger Report. … They also indi­cate that most of the core columns would be eas­ily accessed from the ele­va­tor shafts in order to plant explo­sives.” — [13]

43. “ACE Ele­va­tor Co. pro­vided ele­va­tor main­te­nance for the WTC. They were in the mid­dle of a mod­ern­iza­tion project and were work­ing out of an office located on the 35th floor in the South Tower when the tragedy occurred” — Ele­va­tor World [19]

44. “Mar­vin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a prin­ci­pal in a com­pany called Secu­ra­com that pro­vided secu­rity for the World Trade Cen­ter … Accord­ing to the present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the com­pany had an ongo­ing con­tract to han­dle secu­rity at the World Trade Cen­ter ‘up to the day the build­ings fell down.’ “ — [20]

45. “The World Trade Cen­ter was destroyed just days after a height­ened secu­rity alert was lifted at the land­mark 110-story tow­ers, secu­rity per­son­nel said yes­ter­day [Sept. 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the secu­rity detail had been work­ing 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks.” — Cur­tis Tay­lor, Sean Gar­diner, News­day [21]

46. “Over the past few weeks we’d been evac­u­ated a num­ber of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling some­thing was going on.” — Bob Foun­tain, Fin. Ana­lyst [22]

47. “In the early 1960s, America’s top mil­i­tary lead­ers drafted plans to kill inno­cent peo­ple and com­mit acts of ter­ror­ism in U.S. cities to cre­ate pub­lic sup­port for a war against Cuba. Code named Oper­a­tion North­woods … The plans had the writ­ten approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were pre­sented to Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s defense sec­re­tary, Robert McNa­mara, in March 1962. But they appar­ently were rejected by the civil­ian lead­er­ship and have gone undis­closed for nearly 40 years.” — David Ruppe, ABC News [23]

48. “The largest U.S. intel­li­gence agency, the National Secu­rity Agency, today declas­si­fied over 140 for­merly top secret doc­u­ments … on the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin inci­dent. … which con­firms what his­to­ri­ans have long argued: that there was no sec­ond attack on U.S. ships in Tonkin on August 4, 1964. … Pres­i­dent John­son … used this claim to sup­port retal­ia­tory air strikes and to but­tress the administration’s request for a Con­gres­sional res­o­lu­tion that would give the White House free­dom of action in Viet­nam.” — [24]

49. “On Sept. 10, Sec­re­tary of Defense Don­ald Rums­feld declared war. Not on for­eign ter­ror­ists, ‘the adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pen­ta­gon bureau­cracy,’ he said. … ‘Accord­ing to some esti­mates we can­not track $2.3 tril­lion in trans­ac­tions,’ … but the next day — Sept. 11 — the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on ter­ror­ism, the war on waste seems to have been for­got­ten. Just last week Pres­i­dent Bush announced, ‘my 2003 bud­get calls for more than $48 bil­lion in new defense spend­ing.’ ” — CBS News [25]

50. “The 9/11 Com­mis­sion now tells us that the offi­cial ver­sion of 9/11 was based on false tes­ti­mony and doc­u­ments and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this mas­sive cover-up are care­fully out­lined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Coun­sel for the 9/11 Com­mis­sion. … 9/11 Com­mis­sion mem­ber and for­mer US Sen­a­tor, Bob Ker­rey, says, ‘No one is more qual­i­fied to write the defin­i­tive book about the tra­jedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. For­tu­nately, he has done so.’ ” — Gor­don Duff, Salem-News.com [26]

51. “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9–11 issue is so impor­tant to Amer­ica …” — Max Cle­land, 9/11 Com­mi­sioner resigned in Dec. 2003 [1]

52. “Attacks directed at the 9/11 Truth Move­ment are on the increase as the Move­ment grows glob­ally, draw­ing ever more from tech­ni­cal, sci­en­tific, intel­li­gence, and mil­i­tary com­mu­ni­ties. While ear­lier crit­i­cism aimed only to insult and triv­i­al­ize, more recent attacks have sug­gested stronger, even mil­i­tant reac­tion.” — Bill Willers, Prof. Biol­ogy (ret) [27]

53. “… titled ‘Inter­net: Incu­ba­tor of 9/11 Con­spir­a­cies and Dis­in­for­ma­tion’ showed a video of build­ing 7 col­laps­ing as well as a screen­shot of Archi­tects and Engi­neers for 9/11 Truth’s web­site in between web­sites which fea­tured bomb-making tech­niques and a terrorist’s train­ing man­ual.” — [28]

54. “Par­tic­u­larly omi­nous is that the authors, who use ‘the­o­rists’ and ‘extrem­ists’ inter­change­ably, limit their focus to ‘poten­tially harm­ful the­o­ries’ … And why do the authors con­sider the 9/11 Truth Move­ment such a ‘seri­ous threat’ that it should be ‘bro­ken up or at least muted by gov­ern­ment action’? (pg 21)” — Bill Willers, Prof. Biol­ogy (ret) [29]

55. “Pres­i­dent Bush signed a secret order in 2002 autho­riz­ing the National Secu­rity Agency to eaves­drop on U.S. cit­i­zens and for­eign nation­als in the United States, despite pre­vi­ous legal pro­hi­bi­tions against such domes­tic spy­ing …” — Dan Eggen, Wash­ing­ton Post Staff Writer [30]

56. “The direc­tor of national intel­li­gence affirmed rather bluntly today that the U.S. intel­li­gence com­mu­nity has author­ity to tar­get Amer­i­can cit­i­zens for assas­si­na­tion …” — Jason Ryan, ABC News [31]

57. “A new U.S. Sen­ate bill would grant the pres­i­dent far-reaching emer­gency pow­ers to seize con­trol of or even shut down por­tions of the Inter­net.” — [32]

58. “Pro­tect­ing democ­racy requires that the gen­eral pub­lic be edu­cated on how peo­ple can be manip­u­lated by gov­ern­ment and media into for­feit­ing their civil lib­er­ties and duties. This arti­cle reviews research on cog­ni­tive con­structs that can pre­vent peo­ple from pro­cess­ing infor­ma­tion that chal­lenges pre­ex­ist­ing assump­tions about gov­ern­ment, dis­sent, and pub­lic dis­course in demo­c­ra­tic soci­eties. Ter­ror man­age­ment the­ory and sys­tem jus­ti­fi­ca­tion the­ory are used to explain how pre­ex­ist­ing beliefs can inter­fere with people’s exam­i­na­tion of evi­dence for state crimes against democ­racy (SCADs), specif­i­cally in rela­tion to the events of Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001…” — Lau­rie Man­well, Uni­ver­sity of Guelph, Ontario [33]

59. “It has been used to jus­tify all man­ners of mea­sures to legal­ize repres­sion at home and as a pre­text for behav­ing as an aggres­sive empire abroad. Until we demand an inde­pen­dent, hon­est, and thor­ough inves­ti­ga­tion and account­abil­ity for those whose action and inac­tion led to those events and the cover-up, our repub­lic and our Con­sti­tu­tion remain in the gravest dan­ger.” — Lt. Col. Shel­ton F. Lank­ford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) [1]

60. “On Behalf of the Peo­ple of the United States of Amer­ica, the under­signed Archi­tects and Engi­neers for 9/11 Truth and affil­i­ates hereby peti­tion for, and demand, a truly inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tion with sub­poena power in order to uncover the full truth sur­round­ing the events of 9/11/01 — specif­i­cally the col­lapse of the World Trade Cen­ter Tow­ers and Build­ing 7. We believe that there is suf­fi­cient doubt about the offi­cial story and there­fore that the 9/11 inves­ti­ga­tion must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the pos­si­ble use of explo­sives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruc­tion of the World Trade Cen­ter Tow­ers and WTC Build­ing 7.” – http://www.ae911truth.org/ (peti­tion open to all)

61. “We must applaud Mr. Richard Gage and his col­leagues, Archi­tects and Engi­neers for 9/11 Truth, for their tenac­ity in seek­ing to answer lin­ger­ing ques­tions con­cern­ing the total destruc­tion of the World Trade Cen­ter com­plex, in par­tic­u­lar build­ings 1, 2, and 7. … As fam­ily mem­bers of 9/11 vic­tims, we have been seek­ing truth and trans­parency since 2001! Almost nine years later, in spite of the NIST Inves­ti­ga­tion and the 9/11 Inde­pen­dent Com­mis­sion, a vast major­ity of our ques­tions remain unan­swered.” — Patty Casazza, et. al. of the ‘Jer­sey Girls’ (and ae911truth peti­tion sig­na­to­ries) whose early calls for an inves­ti­ga­tion forced the Bush Admin­is­tra­tion to cre­ate the 9/11 Com­mis­sion [34]

62. “Patri­o­tism is sup­port­ing your coun­try all the time, and your gov­ern­ment when it deserves it.” — Mark Twain

63. “… I will sup­port and defend the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States against all ene­mies, for­eign and domes­tic …” — U.S. Mil­i­tary Oath of Office

64. “If a nation expects to be igno­rant and free, in a state of civ­i­liza­tion, it expects what never was and never will be.” — Thomas Jefferson

The fol­low­ing evi­dence is con­sis­tent with explo­sive demo­li­tion and incon­sis­tent with air­craft and fire-caused WTC col­lapse:
a. Witness/audio/video reports of explo­sions
b. Ther­mite explo­sives in dust (peer-reviewed sci­en­tific paper)
c. Unusual iron-rich spheres in dust (ther­mite fin­ger­print)
d. Vio­lent ejec­tion and pul­ver­iza­tion of con­crete and steel
e. Molten metal temps (themite: yes, jet fuel/office fires: no)
f. Wit­ness pre-knowledge of Build­ing 7 col­lapse
g. Build­ing 7 freefall accel­er­a­tion (sup­port columns do noth­ing)
h. Build­ing 7 level descent (82 columns syn­chro­nous removal)
i. Twin tower per­sis­tent accel­er­a­tion (no floor col­li­sions)
j. Low twin tower crush­ing forces (upper mass blasted away)
k. Sym­met­ric col­lapses, asym­met­ric dam­age and fires
The offi­cial govt. reports ignore/downplay all of this evidence.

Twelve steps to 9/11 Truth and Action:
a. No attackng those ques­tion­ing the govt.’s con­spir­acy the­ory
b. No assum­ing news media and insid­ers expose all govt. lies
c. No assum­ing ‘the experts’ will or should take care of you
d. No assum­ing ques­tion­ing your govt. is ‘un-American’
e. No assum­ing you don’t have time to make a dif­fer­ence
f. Exam­in­ing evi­dence that explo­sives were used on 9/11
g. Learn­ing the govt. inves­ti­ga­tions were inadequate/coverups
h. Learn­ing it’s possible/certain that explo­sives were used
i. Con­sid­er­ing it impor­tant to expose the full 9/11 truth
j. Demand­ing an inves­ti­ga­tion meet­ing pro­fes­sional stan­dards
k. Sign­ing the peti­tion at www.ae911truth.org
l. Con­vinc­ing friends, neigh­bors, cowork­ers to do the same

Get­ting through these steps is a process. Main­tain an open mind, sep­a­rate facts from assump­tions, think log­i­cally, love your coun­try and the rule of law. Make some progress every month so we can achieve crit­i­cal mass while the Inter­net is still open. Above all, do act in a pos­i­tive, peace­ful man­ner. You can take great pride in help­ing to revive a comatose Amer­ica and restor­ing ‘gov­ern­ment by the peo­ple, for the people.’

65. “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win” — Mahatma Gandhi

[1] http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

[2] “The Mys­te­ri­ous Col­lapse of World Trade Cen­ter 7: Why the Final Offi­cial Report about 9/11 is Unsci­en­tific and False,” David Ray Grif­fin, Olive Branch Press http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/product-rev…

[3] “9/11: Blue­print for Truth: The Archi­tec­ture of Destruc­tion”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314#
link from: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

[4] “Vast Archive Yields New View of 9/11,” August 13, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13records.html

[5] “Sum­mary of Evi­dence of Con­trolled Demo­li­tion at the World Trade Cen­ter” http://firefightersfor911truth.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/revised2su…

[6] “118 Wit­nesses: The fire­fight­ers’ Tes­ti­mony to Explo­sions in the Twin Tow­ers,” Vol­ume 3 – August 2006
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_World…

[7] “Answers to Fre­quently Asked Ques­tions (August 30, 2006),” http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[8] “Miss­ing Bod­ies: More Than 1000 Bod­ies Are Unac­counted for,” http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.html

[9] “Envi­ron­men­tal Anom­alies at the World Trade Cen­ter: Evi­dence for Ener­getic Mate­ri­als,” The Envi­ron­men­tal­ist, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 2009 http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
link from:
http://911blogger.com/node/16945

[10] “$elling out the Inves­ti­ga­tion,” Jan. 1, 2002, archived in http://www.fireengineering.com/index.html (free registration)

[11] “Explo­sives Found in the World Trade Cen­ter Dust,” Decem­ber 7, 2009 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

[12] “Active Ther­mitic Mate­r­ial Dis­cov­ered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Cen­ter Cat­a­stro­phe,” The Open Chem­i­cal Physics Jour­nal, 2009, 2, 7–31
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000000…
link from:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence/35-key-facts/73-technical-articles…

[13] “The Twin Tow­ers Gallery of Evi­dence”
http://www2.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php

[14] “Final Report of the National Con­struc­tion Safety Team on the Col­lapses of the World Trade Cen­ter Tow­ers (Draft)
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf

[15] “The Miss­ing Jolt: A Sim­ple Refu­ta­tion of the NIST-Bazant Col­lapse Hypoth­e­sis,” Vol­ume 24 – Jan­u­ary 2009 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

[16] “Destruc­tion of the World Trade Cen­ter North Tower and Fun­da­men­tal Physics,” Vol­ume 28 – Feb­ru­ary 2010 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerat…

[17] “WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
link from:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freef…

[18] “NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data”, July 12, 2010
http://911blogger.com/news/2010–07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data

[19] “The Ele­va­tor Indus­try Reflects on Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001″,
http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/0111–005.html-ssi

[20] “9/11 Secu­rity Cour­tesy of Mar­vin Bush” http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html?q=911security…

[21] “Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001: Height­ened Secu­rity Alert Had Just Been Lifted”, Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001
http://www.newsday.com/news/september-11–2001-heightened-security-alert-…

[22] “United in Courage,” Peo­ple Mag­a­zine, Sep­tem­ber 12, 2001, http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/people.html

[23] “U.S. Mil­i­tary Wanted to Pro­voke War With Cuba,” May 1, 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

[24] “Newly Declas­si­fied National Secu­rity Agency Doc­u­ments Show Ana­lysts Made ‘SIGINT fit the claim’ of North Viet­namese Attack,” John Pra­dos, Decem­ber 1, 2005
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm

[25] “The War on Waste,” Jan­u­ary 29, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

[26] “The 9/11 Com­mis­sion Rejects own Report as Based on Gov­ern­ment Lies,” Sep­tem­ber 11, 2009
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11–09.php

[27] “Increas­ing Threats To The 9/11 Truth Move­ment,” June 16, 2010 http://www.opednews.com/articles/Increasing-Threats-To-The-by-Bill-Wille…

[28] “The New Inqui­si­tion Against 9/11 Truth,” Novem­ber 22, 2007 http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=19

[29] “An Attack from Har­vard Law on the Esca­lat­ing 9/11 Truth­Move­ment,” Feb­ru­ary 4, 2010
http://www.opednews.com/articles/AN-ATTACK-FROM-HARVARD-LAW-by-Bill-Will…

[30] “Bush Autho­rized Domes­tic Spy­ing,” Decem­ber 16, 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR200512…

[31] “License to Kill? Intel­li­gence Chief Says U.S. Can Take Out Amer­i­can Ter­ror­ists,” Feb­ru­ary 3, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-americ…

[32] “Sen­a­tors Pro­pose Grant­ing Pres­i­dent Emer­gency Inter­net Power,” June 10, 2010
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418–38.html

[33] “In Denial of Democ­racy: Social Psy­cho­log­i­cal Impli­ca­tions for Pub­lic Dis­course on State Crimes Against Democ­racy Post-9/11,” Amer­i­can Behav­ioral Sci­en­tist, 53(6), Feb­ru­ary 2010
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/53/6/848.abstract

[34] “The ‘Jer­sey Girls’ Sup­port Archi­tects and Engi­neers for 9/11 Truth” Feb­ru­ary 27, 1010
http://911blogger.com/node/22725

From a guy named Joe
Ver­sion 1

Sep­tem­ber 26, 2010