Fri, 11 March 2011
On Sunday afternoon, March 6th, at the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado, Colorado 9/11 Visibility hosted a debate between Richard Gage, AIA (American Institute of Architects), and Chris Mohr, Denver investigative journalist and nondenominational minister. This is the audo of that historic debate.
The question: What brought down the three World Trade Center skyscrapers?
Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He has been an architect for over 23 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. His quest for the truth about 9/11 began in 2006, and he subsequently founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Chris Mohr, investigative journalist and advocate of the “natural collapse” theory, is a sincere seeker of the truth who has extensively researched the collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings, consulted with independent physicists and engineers, and passionately argues that the buildings collapsed due to the plane impacts and fires.
In November 2010 at Denver’s Mercury Cafe, Mohr debated attorney Earl Staelin on the collapse of the twin towers. This debate was unprecedented in its civility and professionalism.
During this debate between Chris Mohr and Richard Gage, the discussion explored not only the collapse of the twin towers, but also that of 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed completely at 5:21 pm on 9/11/01. For those of you not familiar with the collapse of WTC7, this is a riveting, don’t-miss controversy. We look forward to a dynamic, respectful, and thoroughly informative exploration of these topics.
Special thanks to Colorado 9-11 Visibility and all the volunteers and donors that made this event possible.
Direct download: gage_mohr_debate.mp3
-- posted at: 2:09 PM
Sun, 13 February 2011
Soon after the September 11th attacks, the US government actively tried to minimize and oppress information relating to a possible role in the attacks by Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, the 9-11 Commission cleared Saudi Arabia of any role in the terrorist attacks despite many anomalies including the fact that 15 of the 19 high jackers were actually from Saudi Arabia.
In December 2002 Congress released its’ Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into the 9-11 terrorist attacks. When released, this document contained 28 pages of redacted information that allegedly pointed to foreign state-sponsorship of the attacks, specifically Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 Commission Report failed to ascertain the contents of the censored 28-pages of the report.
Victims family members asked President Bush why he refused to release this information and got no answer.
Years earlier, in August 2002, victim family members publically announced a $1 trillion lawsuit against alleged Saudi bank rollers of Osama Bin Laden. This lawsuit has been stalled and defeated at every turn. In November 2002, the lawsuit became even bigger and costlier at $15 trillion dollars as more than three-dozen new defendants were added, including members of the Saudi Royal Family. Interestingly, three members of the Saudi royal family have since been given legal immunity from prosecution. Attorneys for the victims' families told the Staten Island Advance in 2006, that it could be "another several years before the lawsuit goes to trial. "
In July of 2003 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland was interviewed by Frank Sesno of PBS. In that interview, he stated: "You can read between the lines and see that there were foreign governments that were much more involved in the 9/11 attack than just supporting Islamic fundamentalist teachings and schools. Now, that has been redacted. A whole 28 page section."
The 2008 book “The Commission”, by New York Times reporter Philip Shennon revealed that 9/11 Commission Executive Director, Phillip Zelikow blocked other 9/11 commissioners who were working on the Saudi connections from accessing the 28-page redacted section.
In August 2003, an anonymous official told New Republic magazine that the 28-page redacted section outlines “connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family.”
In September of 2004, a month after the official close of the 9/11 Commission, Senator Bob Graham accused the White House of covering-up the involvement of Saudi government officials in the 9/11 plot.
Despite attempts by family members to get this information made public and promises from the Obama administration to do so, the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into 9-11 remain secret and are likely to remain so. In May of 2010, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan refused to give the victims' families’ lawsuit a hearing. Her argument was that US foreign policy would be interfered with if the lawsuit was allowed to go ahead.
Secrecy continues to cloud the possible role of Saudi Arabia in the events of September 11th. Despite calls from members of Congress, victims family members, and even one of the 9-11 Commissioners to dig deeper into the role of Saudi Arabia, no such inquiry has yet to take place. Why would the US government and the 9-11 Commission protect Saudi Arabia?
Sat, 5 February 2011
In this podcast, Dr Frank Legge discusses his new paper which was co-authored with Warren Stutt and has been published at the The Journal of 9/11 Studies, titled Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon ( http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf ).
In this lengthy and detailed discussion, Dr Legge is careful to lay out his way of thinking on the Pentagon issue and why it is so important to the 9/11 Truth Movement to not make unsupported claims about the events there. Legge looks at this issue from a purely scientific perspective and is only interested in what he can prove to be true based on hard evidence. It is clear to Legge and to the vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue, that while the Pentagon is a mystery to a degree, it is most likely that AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 did hit the building based on the physical evidence available.
We now have the correctly decoded digital flight data from Flight 77 and it's time for more people to get behind the call to reason on the Pentagon issue leading up to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks! There is nothing wrong with supporting the parts of the "official story" of 9/11 that are most likely true. The team at Visibility 9-11 believe, as does Dr legge that it actually helps the interested public and especially the scientific community to see us as reasoned and balanced truth advocates when we do exactly that.
Lets stop being what we are labeled as "conspiracy theorist's" and become "conspiracy factulist's"!
For other instructive reading on the Pentagon please see related items below-
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
Music by Root1 also known as Three Shoes Posse.
Direct download: visibility911_bursill_legge.mp3
-- posted at: 5:23 PM
Sat, 15 January 2011
Show notes and interview by: John Bursill
This timely and important Podcast is a MUST listen!
David who describes himself as a "pacifist" talks in great depth about his journey on the campaign for 9/11 Truth and Justice which he is passionately dedicated. Many of you may be aware it was David who is credited with getting NIST to admit WTC Building 7 fell at a an acceleration consistent with free-fall due to gravity; which I and many others view as the single most powerful debating tool for us as 9/11 Truth advocates! David disputes he is solely responsible for this and says that Jones, Ryan and others were central to this achievement but it was his question that drew the answer in the end so it seems. David also talks about the highly political timing and nature of the NIST Building 7 report.
We then move on to talk about David's his new DVD "9/11 Analysis" which is comprised of a compilation of his powerful work to date and some new material into one concise resource. This DVD is available for sale now and can be purchased here.
From the site:
"The 9/11 Analysis DVD project is a compilation of the many short analysis videos David Chandler has produced and uploaded to the internet over the last few years, woven together with an interpretive narrative. The current release is in English, but the plan is to follow this with a multilingual release. We need to raise funds to cover the production costs to make Phase II a reality. Please order your copy now and/or help out with a donation."
In the second part of this frank and informative interview David talks about his strong stance on the Pentagon fiasco that is now threatening the whole credible body of 9-11 research. The aggressive nature of the advocates of "no plane hit the Pentagon" has lead to a situation that is already out of control as has been seen by Ventura's terrible error of judgement with his episode of "Conspiracy Theory" for True TV on this subject. The case made by David for us not to be seen as a "Pentagon Movement" for it could mean our destruction is the best I've heard to date!
For David's analysis of the Pentagon Debate please see his and Jon Cole's web page dedicated to the issue:
Here is an exert: "The Honey Pot - On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories. (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.) This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited. There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at
all: they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?"
NOTE: You may have seen or heard on the net that CIT has said that I John Bursill made a commitment to them to leave this issue alone in a discussion had with Craig Ranke, this is true. I changed my mind many months back after the work Dr Frank Legge was doing around the Digital Flight Data Recorder data re-analysis of which I was involved. This and the aggressive moves by CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth to convince the 9/11 Truth Movement that the "fly over" was a proven fact has forced me back to this issue. I apologise for my back flip but I feel it is that important that I speak out and support those that do the same for the survival of the 9/11 Truth Movements credibility.
Direct download: visibility911_bursill_chandler.mp3
-- posted at: 4:27 PM
Tue, 7 December 2010
An In Depth Interview with Bob McIlvaine - Visibility 9-11
Notes by John Bursill
In this in depth interview with tireless 9/11 Truth campaigner Bob McIlvaine, we look at 9/11 in its historical context. We also hear about Bob's detailed research into what happened to his son Bobby on 9/11 and the evidence an explosion other than the planes killed his son.
As a long term 9/11 Truth researcher (2001) , an ex-history teacher and someone who has worked in mental health, Bob has a unique perspective on society and it's drives. In this interview Bob gives us a insight into how he sees the world and it's working's and why 9/11 Truth should be seen as possibly the best chance we've had at bringing peace to our world. Bob believes that we may have already been successful at preventing other wars with our exposure of the 9/11 fraud; I totally agree.
Bob says he is "always ready to go!" when he is called to speak about the 9/11 tragedy and uses every opportunity to educate the population about the lies they have been told and to celebrate his sons short but exceptional life. Thank you Bob for your tenacity, drive and absolute commitment to expose the criminal's responsible for your sons death and all those that perished on that terrible day. You are a great inspiration for us all!
About Bob: Bob Mcilvaine is the father of Bobby McIlvaine, a victim from the 9/11 attacks. Bobby graduated from Princeton University, and managed to get a job at Merrill Lynch as “Assistant Vice President For Media Relations.” He was also engaged to be married for a 2002 wedding. On 9/11/2001, he was on his way to banking conference on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center North Tower, and was killed as a result of what happened that day. From the evidence Bob has gathered it is apparent he was killed by an explosion, likely in the lobby. Bob has been one of the most outspoken 9/11 Family Members with regards to seeking truth, accountability, and justice for what happened that day. He is one of the family members that attended every 9/11 Commission hearing and has attended numerous 9/11 truth conferences around the world. He has appeared in several TV, radio, and newspaper interviews, as well as the documentary, 9/11: Press For Truth.
Music by Benedict Arnold and the Traitors.
Direct download: visibility911_bursill_mcilvaine.mp3
-- posted at: 2:51 PM
Thu, 2 December 2010
Despite the 9-11 Commission's mandate to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, many key points were omitted from the final report. One of these important omissions attempted to cover up the role of Pakistan and whether or not Pakistani intelligence helped to fund the 9-11 attacks.
Ties between Washington DC and the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI have been documented in media reports before and after the September 11th attacks. In March 2001, Pakistani regional expert and member of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Selig Harrisson, said “the CIA still has close links with the Pakistani intelligence service ISI.” Just one day before the attacks, a Pakistani newspaper in Islamabad reported that the head of the ISI was meeting with unspecified members of the Pentagon, National Security Council, and CIA Director George Tenet.
On May 18th, 2002 the Washington Post reported that:
"On the morning of Sept. 11, Porter Goss and Bob Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmed -- the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan's intelligence service. Ahmed ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban."
Specific details of that meeting have still not been released and may never have been recorded.
In 2001, various media outlets (CNN, Fox News, ABC, and AP) reported that $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta, the 9-11 lead hijacker. A "senior law enforcement source" told CNN that the paymaster was believed to be Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was working for the Pakistani ISI at the time.
Several media outlets reported in 2002 that the US government believed Saeed Sheikh to be an asset of the ISI, and that senior ISI officers knew him well. Also reported was the allegation by Indian intelligence that General Mahmud Ahmed ordered the wire transfer and that Indian intelligence claimed they had assisted the FBI during the investigation. Various mainstream Indian papers reported this in 2001 along with a mainstream Pakistani newspaper. In the West - the Wall Street Journal and Agence France Press picked up on the story in October.
On October 7th 2001, Mahmood Ahmed was fired from his role at the ISI. The official explanation was because he was too close to the Taliban. This claim has been met with criticism by some analysts given the fact that there were several pro-Taliban officers that kept their jobs.
During the 9/11 Commission hearings, the Family Steering Committee asked the Commissioners to investigate the ISI connection. However, the commission did little to "follow the money" and the 9/11 Commission Report made no mention of these allegations. Furthermore, the commission made the absurd statement that the question of who financed the terrorist attacks was "of little practical significance" [and that it had] "seen no evidence that any foreign government--or foreign government official--supplied any funding."
Mon, 15 November 2010
Most people don’t realize that on September 11th, planes were known to be high jacked and flying around the Eastern US for over 70 minutes. After September 11th, many wondered why our air force was unable to stop the high jacked aircraft, especially American Airlines Flight 77 which struck the Pentagon. American Airlines Flight 11 was high jacked at 8:14. By 8:25 Boston air traffic controllers confirmed that the flight was indeed high jacked and the aircraft struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46. At 9:03, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower and at that time, the whole world knew that America was under attack. It was not until 9:37 that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Therefore, it was a full hour and 10 minutes between the time the FAA knew that Flight 11 was high jacked and the time Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. How could this happen? The area around the Pentagon and Washington D.C. is some of the most heavily defended airspace in the World. This fact led many to believe there had to be a stand down order issued which would have prevented Standard Operating Procedures from allowing these aircraft to be intercepted. A stand-down is defined as “a relaxation from a state of readiness or alert”. This certainly took place regarding air defenses on 9/11.
One explanation offered was that the terrorists turned off the electronic device known as a transponder, which helps identify aircraft on radar. As stated by the 9/11 Commission, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns without the transponder. However, unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft’s identity and altitude.
The 9-11 commission failed to consider the fact that the US military has more than just ground radar at their disposal. In 2006 a golf ball was hit off the International Space Station. New Scientist magazine reported that the ball was too small to be tracked by ground radar, but noted that,
“US military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimeters across, and can sometimes see things as small as 5 cm wide if it is in just the right orbit.”
There are 35 USAF bases within range of the 9/11 flights, which included the restricted airspace surrounding the Pentagon, Capitol Hill and the White House. It is hard to believe that a military which possesses such a highly-sophisticated radar system would not have been able to track the high jacked aircraft without a transponder signal.
Commercial airliners do not need their transponders on in order to be tracked by the FAA and NORAD. If America was being attacked by aircraft belonging to a foreign power, it is ridiculous to think these enemy aircraft would have transponders installed to help the US Air Force shoot them down. It is equally ridiculous to believe the FAA and NORAD lack the technology to track aircraft without a transponder signal.
Mon, 15 November 2010
On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge of the military response to the attacks while the President flew around the country in Air Force One. The 9-11 Commission failed to follow up on the nature of and order the Vice President had given which related to American Airlines Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon at 9:36. Many have wondered if these orders were NOT to shoot down Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon.
We know about this order because on May 23, 2003, then Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the 9-11 Commission. Secretary Mineta testified that he was present at the Presidential Emergency Operating Center (PEOC) in a bunker below the White House on the morning of September 11th under the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney. During questioning by Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton, Mineta was asked if he was in the PEOC when the Presidential order was given to shoot down suspected hijacked commercial airliners.
During the time that Secretary Mineta testified about, Flight 77 had already been severely off course for over an hour and it was thought that the flight was being controlled by terrorists. Flight 77 was also being tracked by the FAA and NORAD and according to Secretary Mineta’s testimony it was even being tracked for at least 50 miles from the PEOC.
Secretary Mineta’s testimony has raised many questions. The most obvious question is, what were the orders that Vice-President Cheney had issued to the young man? When asked by Mr. Hamilton during testimony if the order was a shoot down order, Secretary Mineta could not confirm that it was. Is it reasonable to assume that this was a shoot down order?
During this same hearing, Secretary Mineta also testified that aircraft had been scrambled from nearby Langley Air Force Base and were only 10 miles away from the Washington D.C. area. If the orders Secretary Mineta spoke of was a shoot down order, then why was this plane not shot down before it hit the Pentagon? Our modern fighters are the most sophisticated in the world and can shoot down multiple targets from many miles away. The question begs to be asked, were these orders the young man spoke of orders NOT to shoot down Flight 77?
We now know that Naval Officer Douglas F. Cochrane is the young man Mineta was referring to in his testimony. When questioned about the day, Mr. Cochrane has refused to answer questions about what happened and repeatedly refers to the 9-11 Commission as the definitive report on the terrorist attacks.
It is another failure of the 9-11 Commission that this testimony by Secretary Mineta was not followed up on. Today, important questions still persist about what these orders were and why the 9-11 Commission failed to dig deeper and ask questions of how Flight 77 could have possibly been allowed to strike the heart of the US Military.
Mon, 15 November 2010
The Bush administration fought hard against the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11. The families who fought for the creation of such a commission, wanted full accountability concerning the event that led to the deaths of their loved ones. Yet, the administration resisted this. Why?
On the 29th of January 2002 – CNN reported that,
“President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11″.
Daschle told reporters that an investigation,
“…would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism”.
On May 23rd 2002, CBS News reported that,
“President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.”
The excuses for the opposition to the Commission often given were alleged fears of national security compromises and claims that those involved in the “war on terrorism” would have their jobs hampered. Yet, clearly national security had been compromised as a result of the attacks. If there were such failings and if people did not do their jobs, then they needed to be held accountable.
In September 2002, under pressure from victims’ family members, CBS reported that,
“President Bush told Congress he now supports creation of an independent commission to probe the September eleventh attacks.”
The victims’ families “fought the Bush administration tooth and nail for a commission to investigate the September 11th terrorist attacks — and won”. Yet, why did they even have to fight them for one in the first place?
In total, the Bush administration fought off an investigation for 441 days before the mandate was finally passed into law on November 27, 2002.
During the 9/11 Commission hearings – the Family Steering Committee requested Commissioners to ask Bush and Cheney to,
“explain your 14 month opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request to Senator Daschle to quash such an investigation”. Yet, no answer is forthcoming.
The Bush administration actively opposed any formal investigation into the attacks of September 11th. If it were not for the determination of victims’ family members and a budding 9-11 Truth Movement, there would have never been any inquiry beyond the heavily redacted Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry from 2002. Why did President Bush not want the American public to know exactly what happened before, during, and after September 11th?
Mon, 15 November 2010
Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton , the Chair and Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, made an astonishing admission in their book, Without Precedent – The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission. They said,
“It appeared to both of us that the [9-11] commission was set up to fail”.
In an interview with the CBC, Lee Hamilton said he thought they were “reasonably successful in telling the story,” although he also acknowledged, “I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right.” However, that the Commission was set up to fail at all is a big Red Flag. Why was the Commission set up to fail, and who did it?
Kean and Hamilton, in the first chapter of the book titled, “Set Up to Fail,” explain their reason for thinking this.
1) The late establishment and start of the commission itself. In fact, it took 441 days after the attacks and a Congressional mandate to force the Bush administration into a formal investigation.
2) There were numerous complications in obtaining security clearances for Commissioners and staff.
3) There was a deadline for completion which did not allow the proper time to fulfill their mandate.
4) The commission was severely underfunded. Only $3 million dollars was initially allocated, though two months later the Bush Administration reluctantly increased the total to $12 million.
5) The commission had restricted access to important documents and witnesses. According to Hamilton, “… we were fighting the question of access right up to the end of the Commission’s work.”
6) False testimony was given by NORAD officials, and
7) The commission encountered obstruction by the CIA, and possibly the White House, over access to prisoners accused of having a role in the 9/11 plot.
One might reasonably ask; if they’ve got nothing to hide, why are they acting as if they do? When Hamilton was asked by the CBC interviewer about why he thought they were set up to fail, he laughed, and said, “I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign.”
The 9-11 Commission was mandated by law to “provide a full and complete accounting” of the tragic events of September 11th. How on earth were they able to carry out this mandate if they were “set up to fail”? The answer is, they couldn’t.