Sunday, March 2, 2014
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Friday, February 7, 2014
Monday, January 6, 2014
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
|Visit ReThink911.org | Canada Campaign Details (December 2013)|
|NOVEMBER 25, 2013|
Tell the NY TImes:
The Evidence Isn't Hard to Find...
If You Just Look
Yesterday New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent was the guest on CSPAN’s Washington Journal, where he had this to say about :
“We have not found any evidence so far – that doesn’t mean there’s none there – but we’ve not found any evidence so far to suggest that the building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes that flew into them.”
Sanger was responding to a question from a caller who wanted to know why, despite the massive billboard standing right outside the New York Times Building, the paper of record had failed to “fairly and objectively cover this crucial issue.”
Now with a senior representative of the New York Times on the record saying, “We’ve not found any evidence so far,” it is time to let Sanger and the editors know that the evidence is there. All they need to do is look and they’ll easily find it. Contact the NY Times Today!
Contact the NY Times Today
Last week over 1,000 people contacted the BBC in response to our action alert regarding the BBC’s one-sided article on the ReThink911 campaign. Let’s surpass that level of support today. Please take 2 minutes right now to contact David Sanger and the NY Times editors. Just copy-paste the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Dear Mr. Sanger and Editors of the New York Times,
On Sunday, December 23, 2013, you, Mr. Sanger, told a caller on CSPAN’s Washington Journal that the New York Times had not found any evidence so far to suggest that the collapse of WTC Building 7 was caused by anything other than an indirect result of the airplanes flying into the Twin Towers. I am writing to tell you that the evidence is indeed there, and I urge you to look into it. 2,100 architects and engineers have signed a petition at AE911Truth.org calling for a new investigation based on this evidence. The following points are just a few from among the growing body of evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Building 7 came down by controlled demolition.
As you well understand, the implications of the controlled demolition of Building 7 are extraordinary, since it is integral to the 9/11 events, and therefore the question of what happened to Building 7 is of the greatest importance. I thank you in advance for taking the time to seriously examine this crucial issue.
Thank you as always for your tremendous support.!
The BBC recently published an article on the ReThink911.org campaign entitled, "Canadians wary of 9/11 explanations - and of US officials," which trotted out several debunked sources that we're very familiar with around here, so for anyone who might find their piece here is some further reading.
"Frank Greening, a nuclear scientist who lives in Hamilton, Ontario, knows the people behind the organisation - truthers, as they are known - well. He first met them years ago."- BBC
From blog contributor Scootle Royale's Top 10 Debunker Fails:
1) Frank Greening's 'Intelligent Thermite'"His research was hardly shocking. It has been backed up by plenty of other experts, including those at Popular Mechanics who published a special report called Debunking the 9/11 Myths." - BBC
In an attempt to reconcile the thermite evidence with the official story, debunker Frank Greening once proposed that aluminium from the planes reacted with rust on the steel structures, "inducing violent thermite explosions", and that this "repeated in a rapidly accelerating, and increasingly violent cascade of destruction", resulting in the global collapse of the towers. In other words, he proposed that the twin towers were destroyed by thermite ... naturally!
In 2006, Gordon Ross responded to Greening's thesis in a hilarious essay entitled Sorry Dr. Greening et al ...
Dr. Greening is, I believe, a chemist so it is only fair to look at this field of study first of all. One of his most well known arguments is that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken place. Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble. The mechanism must have some order. Dr. Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes. It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers' collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or intelligent malevolent thermite.As both a 9/11 truther and a Darwinism heretic, I find the fruit crumble analogy and 'intelligent malevolent thermite' designation doubly scrumptious. It is hard to believe anyone with the slightest semblance of rationality, never mind a professional chemist, would seriously suggest such a thing, but what do you expect from someone who denies Newton's third law?!
Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality
Posted by Adam Taylor
Download Part 1 now at: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/604-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-1.html
Part 2: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/612-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-2.html
Part 3: http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/622-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-3.html
Part 5: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/653-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-5-nanothermite-in-the-towers.html
Part 6: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/668-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality.html
Part 7: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/683%20%20-debunking-the-real-911-myths-.html
Part 8: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/683%20%20-debunking-the-real-911-myths-.html
Part 9: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/748-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality.html
NEW! Part 10: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/766-debunking-the-real-911-myths-part-10.html
Editor’s note: This is Part 10 of 10 (see Part 9), the conclusion of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the writers and editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold. (Quotes from PM are shown in red and with page numbers.)"Jonathan Kay, an editor at the National Post and author of Among the Truthers, said 9/11 conspiracy theories resonate for a reason." - BBC
Debunking Jonathan Kay, his book Among the Truthers, and Other 'Debunkers'
ReThink911 Keeps Building 7 in the Headlines
Let the BBC Editor Know the Public Doesn’t Buy Their One-Sided Coverage
Plus: NY Times Billboard Continues through December!
Yesterday the BBC published an article about the ongoing ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa. Featured on the BBC’s News homepage still today, the article has been seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.
This piece marks the fifth mainstream news article about ReThink911’s Ottawa campaign since the announcement of the campaign on November 20. But unlike its Canadian counterparts, the BBC has a tendency for falseness and one-sidedness rivaled only by the likes of Fox News.
Tell the BBC Editor Their Reporting Is a Journalistic Disgrace
Please take 2 minutes right now to let the Editor of the BBC’s North America edition know how you feel about their reporting. Just copy-paste the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.
Dear Ms. Milne,
The BBC’s article on the ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa is a journalistic disgrace. The number of false claims and one-sided maneuvers is simply astounding.
Most disturbing is how the article falsely labeled Jonathan Kay and Popular Mechanics “experts,” while neglecting to quote a single one of the 2,100 engineering and architecture experts who are so critical of the official account that they are demanding a new World Trade Center investigation. In addition, the article provides links to every source it references that supports the official account of 9/11, but not a single link to a source critiquing the official account.
With regard to the poll commissioned by ReThink911 and conducted by the polling firm YouGov, the article falsely, groundlessly calls it “unscientific,” and then conveniently neglects to embed or link to the 30-second video shown to the poll respondents. It seems rather obvious the video would be of interest to your readers.
The article disrespectfully caricatures 9/11 activists by likening the group in Hamilton, Ontario to terrorists belonging to a “cell,” and the article does not mention even once the name of the ad campaign – or its website ReThink911.org.
If your goal was to mislead the public about the very serious pursuit of truth regarding the events of 9/11, congratulations, I would say you succeeded admirably – except I think most people can see through this atrocious, unabashedly one-sided “reporting.”
If you care at all about preserving the BBC’s journalistic integrity, I would suggest you make up for this horrible disservice to the public with an article that gives equal and unbiased attention to the more than 2,100 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation into the destruction of Building 7.
NY Times Billboard to Continue through December
Finally, we are thrilled to inform you that we have extended our NY Times billboard through the end of December for an absolutely rock bottom price. Our audacious billboard continues to greet reporters and editors on the way to work everyday. Soon we will be announcing new actions to hold the NY Times accountable for its lack of coverage of Building 7. Stay tuned!
Thank you as always for your tremendous support!