Winter Patriot Community Blog

The Top Educational Non-Profit for Your Year-End Giving

Dear Friends,

I hope that the New Year brings into reality your passionate dreams for our country. Along with that hope, I invite you to make the very most of your 2014 year-end tax-deductible charitable contributions and thereby help us achieve a breakthrough 2015.

We do need your support at this time, for we are planning to make 2015 the most ambitious year of 9/11 Truth projects ever.

Please donate to AE911Truth today.

Our valuable work is funded only by the community of 9/11 Truth supporters. No one helps us but you. Your generosity so far this year has empowered us to achieve numerous important accomplishments, including the following:

ReThink911 Canada Holds Parliamentary Press Conference

An historic milestone in the 9/11 Truth Movement has been achieved by a dedicated group of activists in Ottawa, Ontario, with the presentation of a petition in the House of Commons requesting a "parliamentary review of the omissions and inconsistencies in the official United States of America 9/11 Commission Report."

This is not the first time that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has published news on the three-year effort to present this petition to the Canadian government. Back in February 2012, we reported that the petition for a parliamentary review of the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, had been given to members of Parliament in the hope that they would formally present the petition in the House of Commons. However, officials were not yet ready to tackle the numerous unanswered questions about 9/11. Again, in March 2013, we reported that a renewed effort to have the petition read in the House of Commons was impeded by Ottawa MP and foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar, because he "did not agree with it." Still not ready.

A major development finally unfolded on December 3, 2014 when a Member of Parliament rose in the House of Commons "to present a petition, from petitioners in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and particularly in the Ottawa area, calling on the government of Canada to conduct a parliamentary review into the events that occurred in the United States on September 11."

Prominent Illustrator's Work Now in Permanent Collection

To call it unlikely would be an understatement.

A work of art that challenges the official account of 9/11 has been accepted into the permanent collection of the 9/11 Museum in New York City. And surprisingly, the piece was created by an artist who is best known for his illustrations in the mainstream media.

Anthony Freda — who has contributed provocative political art to publications like The New York Times, Time, Rolling Stone, Esquire, The New Yorker, and Playboy — says he has no idea why the museum would accept his painting, titled "9-11 Questions."

The original "9-11 Questions" by artist Anthony Freda is now owned by the 9/11 Museum, though it is not clear whether its curators intend to ever display it in public.

"I still can't figure out what is in the museum's mind letting me in there, because literally every part of my being is fighting against the official narrative that they are trying to promote," he said in an interview. "The thing that fascinates me, and they admitted this, is that this is the only piece in the entire collection that questions the official narrative in any way."

Freda met with museum staff for 90 minutes to donate the art and to answer questions about the images it contains. The entire exchange was filmed for a documentary called Behind Truth Art, which is planned for release in 2015. (This 30-minute preview shows highlights of the meeting.)

Museum officials told Freda that "9-11 Questions" will rotate with other works on display and that it may also be included in traveling 9/11 art shows organized by the museum. But he concedes that museum officials, now that they own it, can do whatever they want with the piece — including locking it in a vault forever.

Freda created the work eight years ago, when The Village Voice commissioned him to illustrate its article "Fakes on a Plane," which was intended to "gently make fun" of online 9/11 documentaries like Loose Change and the people who believe them.

Why 2,300 Architects & Engineers Demand Independent Investigation PART 1: NIST and Popular Mechanics Fabricate Myth of WTC 7's "Scooped-Out" 10 Stories

Editor's Note: This fascinating and provocative technical piece on NIST's manipulation of the WTC 7 evidence is broken down into a series of six articles. The second installment (below) is PART 1: NIST and Popular Mechanics Fabricate Myth About WTC 7's "Scooped-Out" 10 Stories. The first installment was the INTRODUCTION. Stand by for the next four installments, to be published monthly.

A
Figure 2. We will be showing this "Plan View of Collapse Progression" graphic in three installments of this series of articles, starting with this installment, where we have labeled it "A." The identical graphic will be labeled "B" and "C" in the next two installments. NIST's 2004 Progress Report depicts a mythical hole supposedly "scooped out" of the center of the bottom 10 floors of Building 7. Figure L-31 in Appendix L of the report refers to the hole as the "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris." Since this damage did not exist in reality, NIST backpedaled and did not include its discredited Figure L-31 in the final 2008 report.

In its infamous 2005 article, "Debunking the 9/11 Myths," Popular Mechanics quoted NIST director Shyam Sunder asserting that falling debris from the North Tower poked a huge "gouge" in the front of WTC 7: "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7." Sunder went on to say, "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom ― approximately 10 stories ― about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." [Emphasis added]

Remarkably, Sunder made this definitive statement despite having no solid evidence to back it up. In fact, a careful reading of its 2004 preliminary report reveals that NIST simply cherry-picked one eyewitness statement, even though other witnesses refute this dramatic, specific, and provably false claim of damage.

Specifically, the statement about the 10-story gouge appears on page 18 of NIST's 2004 report, but NIST conveniently ignored two other comments on the same page that are in conflict with its conclusion:

Part 13: Prior Knowledge of State Crimes Against Democracy and Deep Politics © by Frances T. Shure, 2014

Editor's Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: "Why Do Good People Become Silent — or Worse — About 9/11?" The resulting essay, being presented here as a series, is a synthesis of both academic research and clinical observations.

In answering the question in the title of this essay, the November segment — Signal Detection Theory — examined how the "signal" of 9/11 Truth can be drowned out by excessive "noise" that comes from our information-overloaded world, our prior beliefs, and our psychological state of being.

Here, in the December installment, we continue Ms. Shure's analysis with Part 13: Prior Knowledge of State Crimes Against Democracy and Deep Politics, which explores how our prior knowledge of state crimes by governments, as well as our knowledge of the deep state — as opposed to the visible public state in which we participate as citizens — affects our reception of evidence that indicates we have been lied to about 9/11.

People with prior knowledge of corporate and governmental malfeasance, but especially of State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs), have an increased capacity to accept evidence that contradicts the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Lance deHaven-Smith What are SCADs, and how do they differ from other political crimes? Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University, coined the term “state crimes against democracy” to distinguish them as the illegal or extralegal actions of public officials or elites who manipulate or subvert democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty. In other words, State Crimes Against Democracy are high crimes that attack not only people, but democracy itself.1

Therefore, according to deHaven-Smith, "election tampering, political assassinations, voter fraud, government graft, non-governmental rogue operations, state counter-democratic actions, and corporate collusion with extralegal initiatives can be classified as SCADs."2

Before September 11, 2001, each of us had varying degrees of knowledge about political intrigue. If, for example, we had already read professor Peter Dale Scott’s Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, or if we already had a solid understanding of known SCADs, such as Iran-Contra,3 the Gulf of Tonkin,4 and especially Operation Northwoods,5 then we likely had minimal resistance to the evidence pointing to 9/11 as a false-flag operation. On the other hand, those of us who possessed none of this knowledge before 9/11 would have been challenged by a huge paradigm shift when we awoke to the facts that contradicted the official storyline regarding that terrible day.

Video game blogger beats NASA engineer in TV physics contest

Sometimes the truth about 9/11 shows up in the oddest places.

On a recent episode of the TBS reality show King of the Nerds, a bubbly, pink-haired video game blogger named Danielle was the unlikely winner of one phase of a science-related competition that pitted her against a NASA engineer and three other contenders. The most intriguing aspect of her upset win was that Danielle used "9/11 conspiracy" websites to outsmart her rivals.

How did physics-deprived Danielle excel in a physics competition? For the answer, read the article!

Hosted by the stars of the Revenge of the Nerds movies, Robert Carradine and Curtis Armstrong, King of the Nerds features a group of contestants who compete in a series of challenges called "nerd wars" in a location called "Nerdvana." The challenge on this episode involved predicting how many panes of glass — spaced apart vertically in much the same way floors in a high-rise office building are — would be broken when balls of various weights were dropped from a tower.

Why 2,300 Architects & Engineers Demand Independent Investigation INTRODUCTION

Editor's Note: This fascinating and provocative technical piece on NIST’s manipulation of the WTC 7 evidence is broken down into a series of six articles. The first installment (below) is the INTRODUCTION to the whole series. Stand by for the next five installments in subsequent articles, to be published monthly.

The United States government's official investigator of the destruction of the three skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an arm of the Department of Commerce. The agency became highly politicized during a Clinton-era restructuring. "In essence," recalls a NIST whistleblower, "we lost our scientific independence, and became little more than 'hired guns.'"

NIST has made many false written and oral statements about the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 — statements that have now caused 2,300 architects and engineers to question the government investigator's credibility and veracity. One of its most implausible claims is that a high-rise steel structure in New York City was destroyed by fire alone.

Figure 1. NIST's final report states that random office fires alone brought down Building 7. However, the collapse of WTC 7 compared, side by side, with an acknowledged professional controlled demolition reveals an entirely different story. Only a handful of companies have the ability to neatly implode a steel-framed skyscraper into its own footprint like this. Click on this video to see WTC 7 fall next to three acknowledged professional CDs.

Indeed, the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 is the third of the three only known "global collapses" of high-rise, steel-framed buildings ever recorded, and all three incredibly took place in one day: September 11, 2001.

NIST contends that the Twin Towers were brought down by the impact damage and consequent fires from the large airliner jets that hit them. But no jet struck WTC 7, and NIST claims that office fires alone demolished that building. The agency does admit that, if true, this would be the first and only time that an office fire brought down a steel skyscraper.

Ultimately, we are asked to accept on faith NIST's ever-changing, remarkable, and, frankly, suspect explanations for WTC 7's destruction.

AE911Truth's Report to the Public

Cyrus Vance, Jr., Manhattan D.A.For eight years, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has sought an impartial, subpoena-powered investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001.

On February 14, 2013, AE911Truth petitioned the office of Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., district attorney in and for New York County, asking Vance for a confidential meeting with him and/or with any members of his staff he chose to designate. Our purpose in requesting this meeting was to discuss the appointment of a special prosecutor, and the calling of a grand jury, to investigate the explosive 12-second destruction of each of the Twin Towers, and the unprecedented free-fall "collapse" of Building 7 on 9/11.

We made a formal offer of proof based on the evidence — forensic evidence that overwhelmingly and irrefutably shows, by itemization of the key facts and by supplemental video of important witnesses, that the three skyscrapers at the World Trade Center were destroyed on 9/11 as a result of professionally engineered controlled demolition, not by office fires and/or aircraft collision.

A White Paper on NIST's Omissions, Distortions, and Fraud

Editor's Note: In recent years, various members of the AE911Truth team have been working on a white paper titled “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports.” Last month they finally completed the document. Its 25 concise points offer the most convincing proof that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the September 11, 2001, destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings were unscientific and fraudulent. The authors of "The 25 Points" designed the document to provide material that would compel the convening of a grand jury. Whether or not a grand jury is ever impaneled in any jurisdiction, though, readers of this white paper have the duty and privilege of acting as a virtual grand jury in all jurisdictions. After weighing the evidence meticulously laid out in "The 25 Points," readers can, by their resulting actions, help determine whether there will one day be a new, fully funded, truly independent, wholly transparent, and unimpeachably honest investigation of 9/11.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself – including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross - should be investigated.

Part 12: Signal Detection Theory © by Frances T. Shure, 2014

Editor’s Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: “Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?” The resulting essay, being presented here as a series, is a synthesis of both academic research and clinical observations.

In answering the question in the title of this essay, the two October segments — Part 10: Terror Management Theory, and Part 11: Systems Justification Theory — examined, respectively, how the fear of our own death, and the need to feel good about the cultural system in which we live, can create resistance to the evidence indicating that the official story about 9/11 is a lie. Research shows that even though the educational efforts of 9/11 skeptics may be resisted, there is a delayed impact upon the listener, resulting in later attitude shifts in favor of the facts about 9/11.

We continue Ms. Shure's analysis in November with Part 12: Signal Detection Theory, which reports on whether or not people perceive information amid external and internal distractions, and how this perception may effect their receptivity to the educational efforts of 9/11 skeptics.

The study of how acutely individuals discriminate when making decisions, including psychological factors that bias those decisions, has resulted in the Signal Detection Theory.1

Nearly all human decisions are made in an environment of uncertainty. All of the stimuli, both external and internal, that create this uncertainty are called “noise.” To perceive reality accurately, we must be able to detect a “signal” amid the distracting noise. The more noise there is, the harder it is to detect the signal.

Example: You are looking for a person (signal) in a crowded room. If there are 100 people (external noise) in the room, your likelihood of spotting her is much greater than if there are 1,000 people (more external noise) in the room. If you are exhausted (internal noise) or you view the person as disagreeable (internal noise), you will have a harder time finding her.

How does this theory apply to why people are silent, or worse, about the information provided to them by 9/11 skeptics?

Let's assume you're a believer in the official 9/11 story. You meet a friend at a crowded party. The music is loud. Over the din, he tells you he thinks 9/11 was a false flag operation. He pulls his smart phone from his pocket and shows you World Trade Center Building 7 falling into its own footprint. He tells you that 2.25 seconds of this collapse (eight floors’ worth) was at free-fall acceleration, and that this can only be explained if explosives cut through the steel columns. You like and respect this friend, so you are open to his signal. But can you hear it clearly enough to make a decision about reality?

Editor's Note: Our September newsletter introduced readers to Australian 9/11 blogger Dahlia Mae Lachlan, who, in this AE911Truth article republished from her blog site GumshoeNews.com, called on Sir Isaac Newton's scientific discoveries to make the case that the three toppled towers were subjected not to gravitational collapses but to controlled demolitions.

In one of her more recent blogs, Lachlan wishes she could tap the skills of a modern-day scientist — forensic anthropologist Dr. Temperance Brennan of the TV crime show "Bones" — to prove that the bone fragments found on World Trade Center neighbor Deutsche Bank in the days and years after 9/11 indicate pre-planted explosives. To see how this evidence is "the smoking gun — the bullet that blasts holes right through the official story" — read on.

BONES — The Forensic Evidence of Explosives

You know Bones — the American television crime series? It is a pity they didn't do an episode where Dr. "Bones" Brennan investigates "Cold Case — Deutsche Bank 9/11." Anyway, it would be too easily solved. Because the abundance of bone fragments from the World Trade Center's Twin Towers on 9/11 is the smoking gun — the bullet that blasts holes right through the official story.

You see, just like the impossibility of Building 7 being brought down by fires — a fire has never caused the total destruction of a steel skyscraper (as discussed on ae911truth.org) — so is it equally impossible that fires and collapsing buildings have ever pulverized people like those who were killed in the Twin Towers. EVER. Those who try to confuse the 9/11 Truth Movement with bunkum about structural abnormalities, no planes, whistle-blowers on meds, or who twist words and theories to suit the official theory — go ahead. It doesn't count here. Supported by evidence of Nano-thermite, people were turned to dust — pieces 1/16-inch small, thousands of pieces — including firefighters (most likely inside stairwells). The forensic logic of the "9/11 bone fragments" is the DNA bullet in the official story, making a mockery of NIST's document. These bone fragments from the firefighters burn any official theory to ash — and make the entire concealment of all the other evidence a fraud.

Read more...

Huge Video Billboard Shows Thousands the Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7

The idea of having a 9/11 Truth billboard in Times Square was once just “pie in the sky,” says Les Jamieson, New York City's point man for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. But today it’s a reality that Jamieson believes is bigger and more significant than anyone could have predicted.

“It’s unbelievably dramatic when you see it and read it,” he marvels. “The whole message is powerful.

“In the past two years we’ve thought, ‘Wouldn’t it be fantastic if we made a billboard in Times Square where there’s all this commercialism, showing the collapse of Building 7, never thinking it could ever happen.’”

The 89-foot-wide and 45-foot-high video screen in Times Square will show passersby — both pedestrians and motorists — the 9/11 demolition of World Trade Center 7 every three minutes from now through early October. AE911Truth raised the funds from hundreds of supporters to pay for the ad space. The advertising agent estimates that 100,000 people will see it each day. That's a total of 3 million between the September 8 start date and the October 8 end date. The ambitious project is a continuation of last year's Rethink911 campaign, with its massive billboards and other public ad formats in cities all around the world.

The Anatomy of a Great Deception Screens Countrywide

It's about being willing to step out of your safety zone and rethink how the world really works.

That's the essence of David Hooper's new documentary, The Anatomy of a Great Deception, which kicked off this year's 13th anniversary commemoration of 9/11 in several cities.

The film, which has the backing of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, premiered September 5 in Detroit and drew an impressive crowd of 375. Other screenings followed on or after September 11 in New York, Houston, Oakland, San Diego, and many other cities.

DETROIT, MICHIGAN

Anatomy chronicles Hooper's personal struggle as he reconstructs a world view that had been shattered when he began to research what really happened on September 11, 2001. At the Detroit kick-off, Hooper and his film were introduced by AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, who described the documentary as being Hooper's journey of awakening.

"David is a businessman-turned-filmmaker, a regular family man who unwittingly stumbles into the 9/11 debate, leading to his own investigation and to many life-changing conclusions he reached after he researched the evidence for himself," Gage noted.

"I'm inspired by the open mind David exhibited in his quest for the truth when he found himself retreating behind the 'arbitrary line in the sand' that he had drawn, for his own psychological safety, in the beginning of his journey."

AE911Truth All-Out Effort to Wake Up NYC Activists Take on 13 Years of Denial in 5 Major Actions

It has been 13 years since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, spawned the rebirth of what has become America's guiding mantra — "Never Forget." But to faithfully heed its message, mustn't we, in addition to remembering the fatal day called 9/11, also remember the spheres of molten iron, the melting of steel, the free-fall of a skyscraper not hit by an airplane, and a host of other physical laws that prove the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center skyscrapers? The answer to this question is where the mainstream media and the 9/11 Truth movement depart. It also explains why, on the 13th anniversary of 9/11, hundreds of supporters of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth descended upon the World Trade Center in New York.

AE911Truth is just as at-home and productive in the streets educating New Yorkers as it is educating students and faculty in universities and building and design experts in professional settings. The non-profit group's three-day outreach began on Thursday morning, September 11, with a milestone press conference held at the corner of Vesey and Church right in front of the Liberty Tower. AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, opened the press conference to a dozen cameras. "We are here to tell the truth to the American people about that day, because they have not received the truth, the evidence. There are very serious problems with the official story, which has become the official myth." Gage proceeded to announce the upcoming New York City premiere of The Anatomy of a Great Deception and the symposium "The 9/11 Awakening Goes Mainstream," as well as the concurrent giant video billboard in Times Square.

Gage highlighted the five key benefits of 9/11 Truth to the 100 or so intrigued onlookers who had gathered on the street, starting with his own personal favorite, "9/11 Truth is Good for America because it restores our country's moral foundation and our faith in government."

Part 10: Terror Management Theory and Part 11: Systems Justification Theory © by Frances T. Shure, 2014

Editor’s Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: “Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?” The resulting essay, being presented here as a series, is a synthesis of both academic research and clinical observations.

In answering the question in the title of this essay, the August segment, Part 9, reported on the interface between brain research and the study of moral psychology, and how this research demonstrates that some moral convictions are innate and thus hardwired in the human nervous system. Additionally, we learned that some of these innate brain structures make it difficult for 9/11 Truth activists to present their evidence, as well as for listeners to receive this evidence openly.

We continue Ms. Shure’s analysis in October with a dual offering — Part 10: Terror Management Theory, and Part 11: Systems Justification Theory. They examine, respectively, how the fear of our own death and the need to feel good about the cultural system in which we live create resistance to the evidence presented by 9/11 skeptics.

Part 10: Terror Management Theory

Terror Management Theory postulates that whenever we are introduced to information that reminds us of death — such as simply the mention of 9/11 — our anxiety increases, since we are reminded of our own inevitable death. This anxiety is called “mortality salience.” Studies show that our behavior immediately becomes more defensive when we are reminded of death. In turn, we become increasingly insecure. This normally causes us to show increased preference for members of our own group (the "in group") over out-group members; to show more “consensus bias,” or favoritism toward those who hold beliefs similar to our own; and to develop “compensatory conviction,” an inflated faith in our personal worldview, such as a bias toward our own country and religion.

Therefore, when we skeptics try to educate people about 9/11, we provoke anxiety in our listeners since, unconsciously, we are reminding them of their own death. More defensive behaviors then ensue.

In addition, if our listeners view us as members of a minority group, they usually resist what we are saying — at least initially. If, on the other hand, they view us as members of the majority group, they are more likely to accept our information. In other words, people like to be on the winning side, or in the middle of the bell curve, as we saw in Part 6: Conformity.

As of this writing, skeptics of the official account of 9/11 are generally viewed as holding a minority opinion, but this need not remain the case. The good news is that research shows that information coming from a perceived minority group, although initially resisted, often exerts a hidden or delayed impact. When listeners hear dissenting views repeated, those views become more familiar. Thus, resistant individuals, when interviewed later, often show shifts in favor of the new information.1

German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer intuitively understood this delayed impact when he wrote,

Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, famous for defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, would have a battle royale on his hands were he alive today to defend his army against the persistent 9/11 Truth activists in his namesake city of Wellington, New Zealand.

This handful of patriots from Down Under presented their fourth annual "9/11—See the Evidence" Exhibition on September 13 and 14 at the Boat Café, a multi-level café and event space that overlooks Wellington Harbour and Oriental Bay. Read about the public's encouraging response here.