9/11: Decade of Deception | Full Movie

(soft rumbling music) (air whooshing) (somber thoughtful music) - Group of skeptics are meeting in Toronto next month to question the events of 9/11. The meeting comes as thousands are set to gather to remember the lives lost on this, the 10-year anniversary of those attacks. The conspiracy theory meetings are set to take place at Ryerson University. - Why are you having this on September 11th, the 10th anniversary? - Well, I think the 10th anniversary is the appropriate occasion to sum up all the research that's been done over 10 years, which suggests that the story we've been given about 9/11 is not true. We are actually researchers, in my case, university professor for 30 years, doing my best research on this, and we're trying to determine what happened, why it happened, and who did it, those kinds of questions, and we're saying the official story is wrong. I think if you open your mind to the possibility that we're right, it's not insensitive, it's actually crucial. Why would Canadians want to build their foreign policy and their domestic policy on a lie? Anniversaries are important, and we knew that the 10th anniversary of 9/11 would be important one way or another, whether we did anything or not, and I had some fears about how it would be used. It would be used to promote myth and lie and deception. It might be used to reinvigorate the flagging War on Terror. There's always Syria, there's always Iran, and so on, left to go. But there's another way that it also could be used that I worried about, and that is to put the whole thing to bed, so to speak. To say, "This is now part of history. "This is not the present anymore, this is the past." And because it's the past, it'll be in the history books, and the kids will read it... That is the official narrative, the lie about 9/11. And I thought, "In order to try and prevent that, "we've gotta have an event on the 10th anniversary "which will say, 'This isn't over. This is just beginning. "'This is just beginning.'" The events of 9/11 have served as a cause or pretext for two major wars, producing incalculable suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan, and increasing instability throughout the Middle East. - Two dozen Canadians were among the direct victims of the 9/11 attacks. Six times that number of Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan in the longest running of the 9/11 wars. And the kettling and mass arrests of more than 1,000 peaceful demonstrators at last year's G-20 protests in Toronto, while the police made no attempt to interfere with the actions of the disorderly minority, was one sign of the extent to which civil liberties have declined in post-9/11 Canada. The importance of 9/11 as a historic turning point, then, is not in doubt, but much of what happened on that day, in the period leading up to it, and in its immediate aftermath, remains in doubt, in terms most particularly of the agencies and causalities involved in that sequence of events. Our four-day hearings, then, will thus have a quasi-judicial structure. The presentations of the expert witnesses will be evidence-based rather than speculative. The methodologies involved, whether those of the physical or the social sciences, will be rigorous, and the information that the witnesses present will receive a further critical sifting at the hands of the panelists, both in the questions that they put to witnesses and also, subsequently in their final report. - The hearings are not a new investigation in themselves. The hearings will provide a succinct summary of the strongest evidence that a new investigation is immediately warranted, and that the international community cannot advocate this responsibility any longer. Instead of convening a traditional jury panel, we decided to gather together an international panel of prominent individuals who have agreed to do what governments and major media outlets around the world have so far refused to do: look at the evidence objectively and decide whether it deserves wider attention. In selecting panelists, we looked for two qualifications in an individual: Someone who is, one, highly credible, and two, open to objectively assessing the evidence. - Ferdinando Imposimato is the honorary president of the Supreme Court of Italy. As a former senior investigative judge, he presided over major terrorism-related cases, including political assassination. A former senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations, a former legal consultant to the United Nations on drug trafficking, and the author or co-author of seven books on international terrorism, state corruption, and related matters. He is also a Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy. Herbert Jenkins, a professor emeritus of Psychology at McMaster University, worked in major research laboratories before coming to McMaster in 1963. An influential figure, both in the psychology of learning and judgment, and also in the development of new forms of interdisciplinary curricula that have been widely imitated in other Canadian universities. He was awarded an honorary doctorate by McMaster University in 2009 in recognition of his impact in both fields. David Johnson is a professor emeritus of urban and regional planning at the University of Tennessee. A fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners, he served on the staffs of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the Washington National Capital Planning Commission, and the Regional Plan Association of New York. A former chair of the planning departments at Syracuse University and at Ball State University, he is also a past president of the Fulbright Association of the United States. Richard B. Lee, our fourth panelist, is a distinguished professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Toronto, a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a foreign honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a foreign associate of the National Academy of Sciences. He has served as president of the Canadian Anthropology Society and the Canadian Ethnology Society and holds honorary doctorates from the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, and the University of Guelph. - Over the course of four days, the panel will listen to evidence that has been collected over the last 10 years that contradicts the official government version of events. Each witness will present an opening statement and then answer questions posed by the panel. The panel has been given considerable latitude in the subject and nature of the questions they may ask, and we expect the witnesses to answer every question to the best of their knowledge. After the hearings have adjourned on the fourth day, the panel will reconvene over the following weeks and months and make a decision on which aspects, if any, of the evidence presented deserves further investigation by governments with subpoena and political power. The panel will then publish a final report, which I will help draft and edit, setting forth a recitation of the evidence presented and the panel's conclusions regarding the strength of the evidence and recommendations on how to proceed. - Thank you for continuing on the path to seeking the truth on this 10th anniversary of 9/11 and for inviting me to speak to you. My name is Lorie Van Auken. On September 11th, 2001, my husband, Kenneth, went to work at Cantor Fitzgerald in the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Ken was on the 105th floor of Tower 1 when American Airlines Flight 11 hit his building. Soon we would learn that there would be only a congressional investigation and only into the intelligence failures that led to 9/11, but by then we knew that every governmental agency had failed us on September 11th. NORAD, the FAA, DOJ, in addition to the FBI, CIA, and NSA. We wanted an investigation into all of the actions and failures that had led to the deaths of our loved ones and so many others on that horrible September day. The four of us, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, Kristen Breitweiser, and I became the September 11th Advocates. Soon other victims' family members from other states began referring to us as the "Jersey Girls." We wanted two years to the investigation but got only 18 months. Initially, only $3 million was allotted, compared to with $50 million allotted to investigating the Challenger explosion. We wanted subpoena power for each commissioner, but with pressure from the Bush/Cheney White House there was an agreement made that would allow subpoena power only if the chair and vice chair or, at least, six commissioners voted for it. The first commission hearing was in March of 2003. Unbeknownst to us, our real work was just beginning. As watchdogs of the commission, the next two years of our lives were exhausting and exasperating as we battled the White House, Congress, the commission's executive director, Philip Zelikow, and at various times both with and against the 9/11 commissioners themselves on the various issues that arose. We fought along with the commissioners to get more money for the commission, to get an extension of time, to get access to important White House documents, and to get Condoleezza Rice to testify. We battled against the commissioners, trying to get them to subpoena recalcitrant witnesses and agencies, and were outraged when we learned they were using minders in interviews. We tried in vain to get them to fire their conflict-laden executive director, Philip Zelikow and fought against allowing Bush and Cheney to testify together in a void with no transcript and no press. The 9/11 families, or at least, some of us, were hoping for a real investigation, with scholars and experts in the appropriate fields and evidence to back up the work. We had wanted true independence from politics. We had fought so hard to get this commission and did not want someone who clearly had huge conflicts of interest to be running the investigation. But unfortunately, that's what we got. 10 years after the 9/11 attacks, the old questions still linger and new ones have arisen. A real investigation into 9/11 has never been done. This is incredible, considering the direction that we have taken as a country. The passing of the Patriot Act, entering two wars, and our entire foreign policy has all been based on the official account of 9/11. The proper place for the 9/11 proceedings would be a courtroom with subpoena power, rules for swearing in witnesses, and established protocols for handling questioning, cross-examination, and evidence. And ultimately, one would hope, real accountability for the actions that led to the deaths of so many. (somber thoughtful music) - I represent 1,550 architects and engineers who are calling for a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11. We are gathering together to demand a real investigation that accounts for all of this evidence, that uses the scientific method relative to its examination, that uses immunity to bring forth witnesses, and takes testimony under oath. That'll be a real investigation, and we don't know who is capable of performing that yet, that's beyond our area of expertise, but we hope the Toronto Hearings will aid us toward that end. - Building 7, which was across the street from the main towers, also collapsed and provided us with the first example that we recognized of a building collapsing as a result of fire. - Up until 9/11, we had never had a collapse of a protected steel building. But we've now had one. We now need to look and see what occurred. - Fire's an organic process. It moves through a building every 20 minutes or so. Burns out one area, looking for fresh, new fuel sources. So, when a building falls due to a fire... And, by the way, you'll note, that never before in the history of skyscrapers have we lost one due to fire. But say in a wood frame building, the building will begin to fall over, asymmetrically, not straight down through the path of what was the greatest resistance. We have over 100 examples of very hot, large, and long-lasting fires in steel-frame skyscrapers. Not one of them has ever collapsed. For instance, the six-hour fire over five floors in New York, in LA 3 1/2 hours over five floors, in Philadelphia 18 hours over eight floors, and in Caracas, Venezuela, 17 hours over 26 floors, not one of these has ever collapsed. Now, here is some mid-rise buildings that have collapsed due to earthquakes. In this case, we have the building falling over to the path of least resistance, it's a chaotic process. Note that you can see at the bottom, on the ground, what was a building. It's recognizable as a building. The structural steel components have not dismembered from each other. The concrete is not pulverized to powder. This is really important because when we look at the three high-rises on 9/11, we see something quite different. Prepare yourself. These buildings were blown up with explosions. There's thick, billowing, enormous clouds of pyroclastic-like smoke with suspended solids from the pulverized building materials and concrete. Let's take a look at controlled demolitions, where explosions can be harnessed quite efficiently. We have hundreds of examples from all across the country from which to make our comparison because this is how we use explosives to demolish high-rises. So, this is what a high-rise looks like while it's being demolished with explosives. Controlled demolitions can be engineered in many different ways. Normally, the purpose is to bring a structure down while avoiding damage to adjacent structures and to do so quite efficiently, economically, too. Typically, a tall building, like these, are demolished by placing thousands of cutter charges throughout the columns and beams in the building, and then detonating them in a very precise order: Progressing outward and upward, synchronistically timed floor by floor. Destroying the inner columns allows the weight of the building to pull the exterior inward. And destroying the building from the bottom up allows the weight of the building to be harnessed to do some of the destruction. So, the result is an implosion, like you see here, producing a vertical, symmetrical collapse at nearly free-fall acceleration into a consolidated rubble pile that's broken up and ready for loading and shipment. Let's listen to Dan Rather narrate this as we take, what may be, our first look at World Trade Center 7's collapse. - [Dan] Now, here, we're gonna show you a videotape of the collapse itself. Now we go to videotape of the collapse of this building. (tense music) - [Commentator] It's amazing. - [Dan] Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today. It's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down. - Is there a straight down, symmetrical collapse of this building into its own footprint? Let's look from West Street. (building crashing) I'm not quite convinced yet, though. Let's look at side by side comparison here. On the left is World Trade Center 7, on the right is a known controlled demolition. Is there any similarity? (audience laughing) Is there enough similarity to warrant an investigation into the possible use of explosives? Particularly given that every high-rise that has come down, has come down with explosives, and that no high-rise has ever come down due to fires. - They claim that they considered explosions and they ruled them out based on the fact that they were not credible because they weren't loud enough. And that was their justification for not looking at data about explosions. Well, there's lots of evidence of explosions. And if you think about it, there's lots of ways that explosives could be used to take out a building. Instead of completely cutting a column, they might have cut the joints, they might have blown the bolts. They could have done all kinds of things as methods of taking out a column. They could have used incendiaries to take out the column more slowly and weaken the building, and so any last-minute blast was just a minimal thing to do the final breakage and so forth. But there's a lot of ways that you could tailor how noisy the actual process ends up being. So they're using a very high threshold of sound as their criterion for what's even gonna be considered in their research. And so they just flat out did not look at explosives, period. There is really no question, it's a classic demolition. All support has been removed, and the building falls straight down. We've seen it many times, always and only as a result of demolition. This is a profile of World Trade Center Building 7. It was a tall trapezoidal-shaped building. It's situated a little more than 100 meters north of the North Tower across Vesey Street. It's 47 stories, or 174 meters, or 571 feet tall. Its footprint was basically the size of an American football field. It has 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. It was a massive building. The 23rd floor housed a specially reinforced bunker for the New York City Office of Emergency Management. The tenants of the building in 2001 included" Salomon Smith Barney, the IRS Regional Council, the U.S. Secret Service, DOD, CIA, New York City Office of Emergency Management, Security Exchange Commission, and several banks and insurance companies. Needless to say, it was a very security-minded place. A student took a video of me dropping a soccer ball from a ladder. I imported the video into Tracker, then marked the position of the ball in each frame. Tracker captures the position and time data, from which it can compute velocity and acceleration and graph anything versus anything else, basically. This a graph of velocity versus time for that soccer ball as it's dropped. And notice that the slope... That this basically is a linear graph. When you take velocity versus time when there's a constant acceleration. So, note here the slope is nearly constant at about 9.8 meters per second squared. Notice how in the end it deviates from a straight line because as the speed builds up the drag increases. And so you're actually getting a little bit of a noticeable effect due to air resistance, even just from a ball dropping a few meters like that, okay? So air resistance, as subtle a force as it is, is detectable. This is a graph for the roofline of WTC 7. Note that for well over two seconds the graph is linear, so, similar to the soccer ball, the acceleration is constant. The slope of the linear portion of the graph is essentially equal to the acceleration of gravity within the margin of error of the measurements. In other words, for this building, even though it is falling straight down through its own supporting structure, free fall actually happened. Notice also, that there is a sharp onset of free fall. The building is holding steady, then it simply lets go. In approximately 2 1/2 seconds of free fall, it falls over 100 feet, the equivalent of about eight stories. Free fall is motion under the influence of gravity alone. All resistance must be removed. Some people argue that the resistance in the case of WTC 7 was not significant because the falling mass was so great. It's true the falling mass was great, but the strength of the supporting structure was even greater. The structure was built to support three to five times the actual load. When it does eventually engage the structure, the rate of acceleration slows then actually decelerates. And that's what you'd expect when you actually have engagement between the falling mass and the structure. As NIST is basically saying that the top part is crushing the structure, it should've been looking like that all along. The building has the strength to decelerate this falling mass, it's just that it wasn't happening. During free fall, all of the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. But if any of the energy is used for other purposes along the way, such as crushing the concrete or deforming the steel, or throwing things around, there will be less energy available to be transformed into kinetic energy because some of that energy was getting siphoned off for other purposes. In the case of WTC 7, all of the energy was transformed into kinetic energy, so therefore, the work needed to destroy the structure was not available. It had to come from some other source. The fact of free fall is, literally, proof of demolition. NIST desperately wanted to claim the free fall did not occur because they knew that actual free fall would be a smoking gun for demolition. So, instead of a head-on comparison of the acceleration of the building to the acceleration of gravity, they focused on the completely meaningless notion of free fall time. They said that the fall of the building took longer than free fall time. And to make even this work, they had to falsify their time measurement. Here is the 5.4-second interval they measured. (tense thoughtful music) I put a clock on the screen. There's the fall of the building. That's 5.4 seconds. Now, here it is backward in slow motion. And see if you can tell when the clock should've started to be a fair timing of the fall. That's when they started the clock. Then they put their graph in a box which they divided into three stages. The real fall of the buildings starts in stage two and continues in stage three. However, they tack on the erroneous early measurements as stage one. They put a smooth curve through the data which has absolutely no physical significance except to spin their results to look like a single smooth continuous process. The overall time for their three stages is, as you guessed it, 5.4 seconds. But they did one more thing: Amazingly, someone at NIST added a nice straight red regression line through their stage two data. They even gave the equation of the line. It shows that the slope is exactly equal to the acceleration of gravity. So, that red line is a flat-out absolute admission of... They're even closer to the acceleration of gravity than my measurement. They were right smack on the money. They're on that number for the accepted as acceleration of gravity in feet units. Okay? 32. The red line on this graph means that NIST acknowledges WTC 7 came down without resistance and without doing any work for over 100 feet. It means all support for eight stories was suddenly removed by something other than the falling mass. It literally means that NIST's final report confirms WTC 7 had to have been a demolition. The NIST WTC 7 report has never been peer-reviewed. There has been no forum for critiquing or correcting the final report. This does not constitute science. It is instead an authoritarian declaration by a government agency that demonstrated repeatedly its unwillingness to consider the one hypothesis that could actually account for their observations. - [News Reporter] This was a 40-story building they've been watching all day. This is like watching the collapse of an active volcano. And the dust from it is not unlike that from a volcano. We are on the phone with New York Fire Department Lieutenant David Restuccio. Can you confirm it was number seven that just went in? - [David] Yes, sir. - [News Reporter] And you guys knew this was coming all day? - [David] We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that it eventually would either come down on its own or it would be taken down. - "Conspiracy theory" is a way of trying to discredit inquiry. I mean, it's perfectly legitimate to say, "Here is a very, very serious event that occurred. "It killed thousands of people right off the bat. "It's killing firefighters still today. "It's used to justify war. "It's killed thousands of American soldiers. "It's killed millions of Iraqis and Afghanis. "It's literally in the millions." And to consider that investigating the roots of that is somehow not legitimate, or that you have to be somehow psychologically impaired, some sort of conspiratorial thinking, they're trying to psychologize all this to where people can dismiss people who even ask these questions. I think it's being a responsible citizen to ask questions of your government and to not just take what they say without any kind of critical thought. - There's just so many anomalies, so many things that are absolutely dead wrong that are still being promoted today as a myth to the general public. And the general public, in my opinion, is buying it. They're probably just like I was before I look into the details, well, sure, why wouldn't you buy it? But the devil's in the details. That's where you have to look, and that's where this whole thing just comes apart at the seams. (tense dramatic music) - [Narrator] The heat of the fire would've softened both the floor trusses and the outer columns they were attached to. When the steel became weak, the trusses would've collapsed. And without the trusses to keep them rigidly in place, the columns would've bent outward and then failed. Once the trusses fail, the floors they were holding cascade down with a force too great to be withstood. (building crashing) The result is what's called a progressive collapse. As each floor pancakes down onto the one below. - Now, what do we notice left standing? (audience laughing) They forgot to keep going, and there's something left standing. This is a strong core, 47 columns. They weren't just freestanding spaghettis, they were all interlaced and tied together. It was, in essence, a freestanding structure. This is a collapse in New Zealand from the earthquake, unfortunately. And what do we have here? What do we see? We see pancakes. We see large chunks of floor. This is a six or seven-story building that came down. What do we see at ground zero? We had 110 floors. Did we see on complete floor? How about the roof? Did we see the roof? There was no load on top of the roof. We see nothing. We see cut steel. All cut-up steel, but no one-acre size floor. (somber tense music) - [Bystander] Oh, my God! (building crashing) (bystanders screaming) - This is just with the sound off, same speed. And I'm gonna slow it down here. What do we see? We see them racing down one side. We see the corners still standing, coming down one side only. We don't see entire floors impacting. We see partial floors. What about this corner? Why is that still standing when this has rushed way ahead, dozens of floors ahead? Quite unusual. It doesn't match. It doesn't match what we were told. - The one thing that really caught my attention in one of the videos was looking at when the North Tower was coming down, stuff being thrown out to the side. And it seemed like it was getting thrown way out to the side. And there was clearly heavy chunks of material being thrown very great distances. And I literally stopped the video, I mean, on the screen, on the television, and took out a ruler and stepped through a little bit of it and I looked up some distances off the internet for the width of the building and everything. And I estimated the speed of ejection horizontally of some of these chunks of stuff, and I came up with an estimate around 60 miles an hour, and that seemed so anomalous to me. And I figured, "No way. How do you throw..." That had to be tons of stuff that they're throwing horizontally at such high speeds, and this was high in the building. I even figured out, at one point, that the roof line, the building as it was coming down, by the time the roof line came down to the place where that stuff was thrown out, it was not going even 60 miles an hour then. So this stuff is being thrown horizontally faster than the building is even coming down. This isn't a complete smoking gun by itself. It's very, very suggestive that we're looking at explosions here. - This building had 47 massive core columns at the base almost solid steel, 52 inches by 22 inches, thinning to two inches at the mid-height and to the lightest part of the structure, up at the top, as little as 3/8 of an inch thick, those steel members. So, when you see the building coming down in the videos, realize what we're talking about here. There's more steel on the facade of this building with these 14-inch square tube columns, every three feet, nine inches marching across this building, than there is windows. That collapse had to come down through this steel. Here's the North Tower. We're told this upper block drove the rest of the building down. The planes hit here, there's no movement down from here until about now. Once again, this upper block is destroying itself in what can only be described as a miniature controlled demolition, if you will, of the top 15 stories. There's nothing left to drive the rest of the building down at any speed. Let's look at the structure. The upper portion is the lightest, the lower portion is the heaviest. Let's compare. If you look at Newton's third law of motion, there's an equal and opposite reaction against a lighter object striking a heavier object. Hey, it's the same if you dropped the lighter object onto the heavier object. Equal and opposite destructive force, which one will give up the ghost first? But take a stop-start look now. Stop, bands of explosions wrapping all the way around the building like the first responders describe. That upper portion is destroyed first. Let's take a look from below. A lot of violent activity with squibs, isolated explosive ejections, occurring underneath. In a moment, we'll talk about the lateral ejection of this material, but take a close look now at the corner where you see developing a series of explosions rapidly advancing down the corner of the building much faster than the rest of these explosions, almost as fast as the free-falling objects. Let's look at the South Tower. It's hit 30 stories down, it does begin to tip over a little bit, but then it's completely destroyed, almost disintegrated in this cloud. It doesn't end up in some mass on the ground below. So, we have asymmetrical damage from the airplanes and the fires, and asymmetrical loading from this portion of the building which is continuing its angular momentum, theoretically, falling 22 degrees off the building, and yet, watch what happens below. (light thoughtful music) Complete, symmetrical destruction all the way down to the ground. Just like the first responders describe. - Buildings came down, essentially, in free-fall, and this is an important starting point. This violates two fundamental laws of physics, one being the law of conservation of momentum, and another being the law of conservation of energy. The first law means that hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the cold lower section should have slowed the upper part of the building, simply due to the mass of the lower section. The second law requires that deformation of the lower section would consume energy, slowing the fall even more. The theory that was claimed to be the most probable root cause for many years, called the "pancake theory," in which the floors pancake down upon each other, is no longer supported by NIST. It's really no longer supported by anyone. And since 2004, when my former company did test models of the floor assemblies, the pancake theory has no longer been viable. The only three instances of a skyscraper suffering global collapse due to fire occurred all in the same day in the same place. There have been many raging building fires much worse than existed in any of the World Trade Center buildings, but no global collapse has ever resulted from those fires. We can see from these photos that the towers appear to have exploded, starting at the top and going all the way down. Also, high-velocity bursts of debris shot out from 10 to 30 floors below the collapsed front. At the top of each tower, the debris appeared to shoot upward and outward as much of the solid structure turned to dust. Some large steel column assemblies were shot outward for hundreds of feet. Is this what it looks like when a building is softened or weakened from fire? NIST made the point that in no instance did they report that steel in the World Trade Center towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius. Normal building fires and hydrocarbon fires generate temperatures much lower than that. NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures, and that's air temperatures, of only about 1,000 degrees Celsius. In other words, diffuse hydrocarbon fires such as these cannot produce temperatures high enough to melt steel. Unfortunately, many prominent media and political figures have suggested that very thing, and continue to do so. The fire resistance of tall buildings like those at the World Trade Center is ensured through testing of samples prior to construction. My former employer, Underwriters Laboratories, tested and certified the fireproofing used in the World Trade Center towers, as seen in this quote from the company that manufactured the fireproofing. UL tested the steel components used in the World Trade Center towers to meet the 1968 New York City Fire Code. That meant that the column assemblies had to withstand three hours of intense fire, and the floor assemblies had to withstand two hours of intense fire in a test furnace. And, of course, the biggest problem with this is that one of the towers failed in 56 minutes. Here's the fellow that told me about this testing, Loring Knoblauch, who was the CEO when I worked there. He later wrote to me and a few others, saying, "We tested the steel "with all the required fireproofing on it "and it did beautifully." "As we do not do follow-up service on this kind of product, "we can give only an opinion on the test sample, "which was indeed properly coated." And, "We test to the code requirements, "and the steel clearly met those requirements "and exceeded them." And as I said, UL later participated in the NIST World Trade Center investigation, which was a clear conflict of interest. Here's a photo of one of those floor assemblies after the standard method ASTM E119 was performed. During this test, it was held in a furnace at a temperature over 1,000 degrees Celsius for a period of two hours. You can see the slight effect. The midsections of the assembly sagged a few inches, but the frame was not damaged and the floor held its load without failure. The weight loaded was twice as great as what was known to have existed in the World Trade Center. These experiments were performed on four separate floor models, all of which had less fireproofing than was known to have existed in the World Trade Center on September 11th. Even within NIST's computer models, the sagging and pulling effects that NIST's explanation depends on were not seen. NIST was simply not able to demonstrate this critical pull-in effect. Physical tests were not done, although that would have been decisive. The computer models did not indicate these forces either. And as a result, NIST made some fraudulent changes to the scenario: All the fireproofing was stripped off a large section of the computer-modeled building and exaggerated temperatures were applied for twice as long as NIST had said occurred in the failure zones. That is the applied exaggerated temperatures for 90 minutes instead of 45 minutes. But even then, the pull-in forces were not created in the computer. So NIST did something completely paradoxical: It disconnected the floors before applying an imaginary pull-in force. This is the opposite of science. This is not anywhere near science. No physical tests done, the computer models did not give them the answer they want, so they do something completely fraudulent, which is exactly what they did. - National Institute of Standards and Technology, who was tasked with explaining these three collapses and who fabricated computer models with falsified input data that they will not give us the access to to verify their results, claiming that it would jeopardize public safety were they to release this information to the architects and engineers who are responsible for high-rise safety. This is NIST's computer model. Compare it to reality. What do you see? I'll point out about six things that I see. First of all, it stops two seconds into the overall collapse. Why? Well, as you can see, it begins to tip over. They can't even get their own computer models to reflect the straight-down symmetrical collapse of an engineered patterned set of explosives. And you can see massive bulging and indentation at the bottom, which is not reflected at all in the perimeter steel frame skeleton of the building. What else do you see? We have a massive set of failures of connections of structural steel framing that amounts to a rate of about 400 per second failing, beginning here and look, almost instantly, all the way up the building. Structural engineers will tell you that an isolated failure in a structural steel system cannot cause an instantaneous set of failures vertically throughout the building. And then NIST claims, well, then that travels laterally, but they don't even show us that. But forget that, just the fact that we have massive failures in the structural system throughout the height of this building in the first few seconds before the overall collapse, wouldn't you expect to be seeing that reflected all the way up to the top? If we don't take out all 24 core columns and all of the 50 or so perimeter columns at once, virtually, simultaneously, what's going to happen? That building is going to fall to the path of least resistance. Asymmetrically, it'll fall over. - [Johnathan] They're saying that fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough so that they pushed a girder spanning between two columns, and this caused the girder to walk off its seat. - The most recent explanation for both the towers and World Trade Center 7 is false, but there is also a good amount of evidence now that points towards the explosive demolition of all three buildings, including the finding of incendiary and explosive materials in the World Trade Center dust. - Now, one of the things that was found in the dust is that there were small iron microspheres found in the dust. These are very small spheres and they're round. And the reason they're round is the only way they could have gotten round is if they were molten at one time and they have a lot of iron in it. So it's another evidence that we had temperatures higher or high enough to melt steel or iron. Of course, then we also saw melton metal flowing from Tower 2. There it is pouring down there. So, there's evidence of high temperatures. This is about seven minutes before the collapse of Tower 2. All of a sudden, it starts pouring out. What is this stuff? Can thermitic material cut or melt steel? First of all, what is thermate or thermite, or thermetic material? I had never heard of thermite before three years ago, ever. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum. And when you add sulfur to it, they call it thermate. I decided to do a little research on thermite and to find out what it could or could not do. I could not obtain nano-thermite, so I made small quantities of old-fashioned thermate, which is not considered an explosive, with ingredients that are legal and readily available. Thermate is difficult to ignite. An ordinary fuse is not hot enough. But a magnesium strip, which burns white hot, will ignite the thermate giving off heat and white smoke. (light percussive music) In addition to giving off heat and white smoke, thermate produces lots of small spheres of iron. These iron spheres are a natural by-product of thermate, and not from any steel, just like those iron spheres found all through the dust. Using an ordinary steel box tube, I had a slot milled along one edge. Welding the bottom and using clamps on the top to hold the powdered thermate in, I bolted it to a steel beam vertically. I call this device my thermitic "box cutter." With only 1 1/2 pounds of thermate, or less than 1/100th of what the National Geographic experts used for their experiment, not only was I able to melt steel, but it also sliced a vertical cut. So, I made a slightly larger thermitic box cutter, (angle grinder whirring) and used two 3/8th bolts, drilled and tapped on one side of the connection. (flames whooshing) It only took a slight twist to break it completely off. (metal clanking) I noticed as the thermate burned, it tended to lose its cutting power, perhaps because it could expand into the area where the box cutter previously burned. So, I built a piston-driven box cutter using a compressed car hatch piston. I added sheets of tungsten to minimize the burnout and allow the piston to slide better. I then bolted my contraption to the flange of the column and ignited the white-hot magnesium. (flames whooshing) It appears that not only can thermate melt steel, but it can also cut vertical columns. Can thermate make pressure pulses and/or dust puffs? (flames whooshing) (explosion blasts) I guess it can. Can thermate cut bolts? (flames whooshing) (explosion blasts) (metal clanking) I guess it can. Can thermate be configured to cut just the bolt head? (flames hissing) (explosion blasts) I guess it can. And without any evidence on the other side. I had a replica of a segment of the WTC box columns made up. And like the Trade Center ironworkers, I bolted the segments together. It made two sets of my two bolt blasters, placing them in the access hole. Let's listen to another eyewitness. - Like, it sounded like gunfire. You know, "Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang!" And then, all of a sudden, three big explosions. - [Johnathan] Is it even possible that thermate could do this? (explosions blasting) (metal clanking) I guess it is. I made a four-sided internal box cutter that was split into two pieces, so they could be inserted inside the column. (explosion blasts) I think my box cutter blew about 50 feet up, consuming valuable energy and trimming my trees in the process. Nevertheless, the inside of the column was cut about 3/4 of the way through. - NIST failed to address the actual collapse dynamics of the World Trade Center towers, and, in doing, so they ignored a great deal of the most important evidence related to the fall of the towers. That includes the sudden onset of collapse, the near free-fall acceleration from both of the towers, evidence of explosions and high bursts of debris coming off of the perimeter walls, and a lot of the other evidence of molten metal and the rubble piles and the high temperatures, which I'll speak about today. NIST reported gas temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius within its report on the World Trade Center destruction. It's important to note that these are gas temperatures, not the temperatures of solid materials. But one problem with the maximum temperature cited by officials is that there are many eyewitnesses who claim that metal had been melted at the World Trade Center. And we know that could not have resulted from these temperatures. Here are just a few of the eyewitness statements that were made. The first one is from a man who worked for John Skilling, the design engineer of the World Trade Center towers. He said, "As of 21 days after the attack, "the fires were still burning "and molten steel was still running." A chaplain at Ground Zero said, "I talked to many contractors "and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, "beams had just totally been melted because of the heat." Dr. Keith Eaton of the Institute of Structural Engineers said, "I was shown slides of molten metal, "which was still red hot weeks after the event." Another doctor from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health said, "In some pockets now being uncovered "they are finding molten steel." The temperature required to melt steel is 1,538 degrees Celsius. And it's far above the maximum gas temperature cited in the official report. So the solid temperature, evidence for solid temperatures, are much higher than what officials say the gas temperatures were. In a structural fire, steel temperatures lag behind gas temperatures for a number of reasons, including the thermal conductivity of steel, the effects of convection, and the fireproofing that's applied. Achieving a steel temperature of 1,538 degrees Celsius at the World Trade Center would require gas temperatures that are well above 1,538 degrees Celsius and far above the maximum of 1,000 degrees Celsius cited in the official U.S. government World Trade Center reports. I've seen evidence of the previously molten metal myself in the form of metallic microspheres that I found in nearly all the nearly dozen World Trade Center dust samples that I've examined. Here are photo micrographs that I took of the first examples that I received in 2007. On the left, here, you can see what the content of a typical World Trade Center dust sample looks like under a microscope. These photos are at 100X. On the right, are photomicrographs of particles that were extracted with a magnet from the bulk of the same World Trade Center dust sample. At the top of that, you can see the many metallic-looking microspheres and other droplet-shaped metallic particles. Below that are examples of red chip-like materials and other metal-looking objects. the spheres indicate not only that the iron or silicate was molten at one point, but that due to the small size of the spheres, a violent disturbance of some kind would have been necessary to shatter the molten metal into the small sizes seen. Various explosive or incendiary processes are likely explanations. The result was that the spheres we found were very high in iron and low in other elements. This agreed with the findings of the RJ Lee Group. You can see the trace in the lower section on the left from RJ Lee and how matches with the trace on the right from our team. The temperatures required to explain this evidence listed here cannot be explained by the temperatures given in the official reports on the World Trade Center. Provide even more corroboration for these findings we need only look to the official U.S. government report that proceeded the current one published by NIST. - [Commentator] And slices right down through that plate, all the way down here. It's tough to see if it's all concave where it's pushed in. It didn't mind that this thing should be able to survive that sort of outward force. I think the only way I'm gonna find anything in this pile is with a magnet. - [Johnathan] The first report was from FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Administration. Appendix C of their report provided strong evidence of extremely high temperatures at the World Trade Center, in the form of highly corroded and eroded steel samples saved from the buildings after they were destroyed. FEMA described samples of steel that had been thin to razor sharpness. In some cases, there were inexplicable holes in the steel. The fire engineering professors who found the samples could not come up with an explanation for it. They also could not explain the sulfidation of the steel. That is steel had been chemically changed at the microstructural level in ways that indicated a chemical eutectic mixture had been achieved between sulfur, iron, and oxygen causing steel to melt. - You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel. Molten steel running down the channel rails like you're in a foundry - [Officer] Yeah, like lava. - Like lava. - From a volcano. - [News Reporter] This is like watching the collapse of an active volcano, and the dust from it is not unlike that from a volcano. - Surface temperatures in the debris piles were found to be as high as 750 degrees Celsius a week after 9/11. As you've heard already today, there's an explanation for all this officially unexplained evidence. This explanation is that the thermite reaction was present and occurring at the World Trade Center, on 9/11 and afterward, in the pile at the World Trade Center site. The thermite reaction is an extremely exothermic chemical reaction between aluminum powder and a metal oxide. The metal oxide is typically iron oxide, which you can see here on the left with the reddish color. The temperature at which thermite burns approaches 3,000 degrees Celsius for some mixtures, which would explain the evidence discussed so far in this testimony. The products of an aluminum iron oxide thermite mixture are molten iron, an aluminum oxide, which quickly forms a white dust cloud as it cools. Additives like sulfur improve the burn properties of thermite. I've made nano-thermite myself via formulations published by the U.S. National Laboratories. On the left, here, you see a photomicrograph I took of a particle extracted from the World Trade Center dust. On the right, is a photomicrograph of a nano-thermite material that I made. And below, that's a photo of the ignition of that nano-thermite. When we look at the ignition residues, they're strikingly similar to the appearance of the World Trade Center dust particles that were extracted with a magnet from the bag. Both are the same colors, they show the same metallic microspheres, and both exhibit the same kind of vesicular formations that suggest high-temperature reactions or explosive effects. - [News Reporter] This must have been ground zero where this thing blew up. Car after car after car, buses completely obliterated and burned straight down to the steel. - [Johnathan] This is the destruction of the South Tower of the World Trade Center viewed from a helicopter to the south. This particular video clip is rich in details that call the official story into question. Notice the numerous explosions on the west side of the building above the impact point. As the top 30-floor section falls, it tips to the east. It starts off intact. (tense music) But then it disintegrates in mid-air. Gravity alone could not cause the top section to disintegrate. When an object is in free fall, there are no internal stresses. It should've hit the ground in one piece, but it didn't. Some of the debris is clearly being accelerated by forces other than gravity. These effects can be caused by late-firing explosives which can produce a white smoke trail. White smoke, consisting of aluminum oxide, is a by-product of a thermite reaction. While producing this video, I ran across one rocket projectile I had not seen commented on before. This one stopped mid-air and changed directions. Even taking perspective effects into account, this projectile lost one component of momentum and gained another. That requires an impulse. Note that the rocket trail does not point back to the building but the point where the impulse occurred. Let's take it from the top. There's a lot going on. Watch for the smoking guns. - Up until this point, I thought all the white dust coming out of the towers was crushed wallboard. There was plenty of wallboard and it's white. But this is not what wallboard would look like if you crush it and throw it out the window. These are rocket trails. It goes out like this and then it changed direction 90 degrees. And it still tracks a white smoke trail after it. What are we looking at here? This is rocket fuel. This is outrageous. And when I saw this for the first time, I said, "That could be our red-gray chips." I was asked to join this team of scientists investigating these red-gray chips, and the work eventually ended up in publication on April 3rd of 2009. The paper is based on four samples: Janette MacKinlay's sample is on the corner of the World Trade Center square plaza, and the other one here is from the Brooklyn Bridge, sample number three, and sample number four is a little north of that. In all four samples, we found these red-gray chips. These are the four samples, A, B, C, and D. When you heat these chips up, they react. We think that there is a pretty good resemblance between this chip, which has been ignited in the laboratory, and this chip, which has been found in the World Trade Center dust. Incendiaries which act by means of heat, they must, by necessity, be thermitic. And this is why we observed, molten iron in the rubble. Molten iron coming out of the South Tower. And these iron spheres being formed unambitiously indicating that thermite must have been there one way or the other. 60,000 to 70,000 people were exposed to the dust for an extended period of time. And they looked into the lung tissue of World Trade Center responders. The picture to the left here is from lung tissue. And they found some thread-like tubular structures in four out of seven patients which were ill, in numbers ranging from 11,000 to 230,000 per gram wet tissue. This is the same material which they found also in the World Trade Center dust. Formation of carbon nanotubes requires three conditions must be fulfilled: You must have very high temperatures, and you must have a source of carbon atoms, which means an organic chemical present, and you must have a metal catalyst, among which iron happens to be one of the best. This means that the ignition of the nano-thermite should be ideal circumstances for the formation of nanotubes. This is a picture from the patients in the Mount Sinai study. This is what we find as a product of the nano-thermite reaction. - We can prove that your story is false. And I don't use the word "prove "lightly. When you have people coming up with a story that violates the laws of physics, not just once but repeatedly, you can say, "Okay, that story's wrong." And what we have to do now is hope that the people of the world have at least enough grasp of science to see what we want to explain, to understand that we want to explain here. The idea that these buildings came down because of explosions, and even, more specifically, because of explosives planted in the building, was an idea found all over the place on 9/11. On the scene by eyewitnesses. Even on television, on the radio, in the paper. Very common. And it's important that we know that. It changes our perspective on this. So here's my first video. The reporter here is N.J. Burkett, and he's working for ABC News 7, and he's standing very near the towers. - Take two. Take two. And two, one. This is as close as we can get to the base of the World Trade Center. You can see the firemen assembled here, the police officers, FBI agents. And you can see the two towers. A huge explosion now, raining debris on all of us. We better get out of the way! - So, this man, he and his companion, had to pick up the camera and run for their lives. And I don't see any evidence that Mr. Burkett had a particular conspiratorial frame of mind, and he certainly didn't come around after the event. This is his spontaneous judgment. Standing in a place of great danger, he says, before the material even hits the ground, "A huge explosion now, raining debris on all of us. "We better get out of the way!" and he runs. And just so you know, he also had to run for his life when the North Tower came down a little bit later. And he described that as a blast. So, here we have some people who are off-screen in, I assume, their apartment or condo in New York City, watching and filming, in this case, the North Tower in the distance, and we can hear them talking in the background. And it's particularly the man who talks here that I want you to listen to, I assume it's Matthew Shapoff. - [Matthew] And I had my shoes on and I was about to go out the door, I would've been walking around when this happened. - [Witness] There it goes. - Oh, my God! - Oh, my God! That was a bomb that did that. - [Witness] (gasps) Oh God! Look at that! - [Matthew] That was a fucking bomb that did that. There's no goddamn way that could've happened. - Oh, my God! - Again, this gentleman didn't come along after the scene. He made his judgment as the North Tower came down, and he made it just as the debris was beginning to hit the ground. "That was a bomb that did that!" he said. Now, by the way, I just want to remind you what I'm trying to prove here. I'm not using Shapoff's evidence to argue that controlled demolition took place. I'm not even at that stage of the talk yet. I'm simply making a historic point. Point about history. That there were people on that day who made the spontaneous judgment that these buildings exploded. - [Bystander] You wanna call your mother or somethin'? (explosion blasts) - We just heard one more explosion, that's about the fourth one we've heard. - [News Host] The two buildings then exploded. They were leveled. - But there was another explosion on the far side of one of the buildings from where we're standing. The reverberation, and another explosion on the right-hand side. There seemed to be another explosion. And also on the right-hand side, there was also another explosion. We're not sure if that was extra reverberation from what happened at the World Trade Center or if that was an added explosion. - All of a sudden there was a roll, an explosion, and we could see coming at us a ball of flame stories high. - It was blowin' up. The World Financial Center was blown up. - We was in an explosion. We was in the lobby and the third explosion, the whole lobby collapsed on us. - [News Reporter] Was that a secondary explosion? - [Firefighter] Yes, it was. Yeah, definitely a secondary explosion. 'Cause we was inside waiting to go upstairs, and on the way upstairs, the whole fucking thing blew. It was like three explosions after that. We came in after the fire. We came when the fire was going on already. We was in the staging area inside the building, waiting to go upstairs. When it exploded, the whole lobby collapsed on the lobby inside. We watched the first explosion. - People that don't understand, there may be more. Any one of these fuckin' buildings can blow up. This ain't done yet. - [Firefighter] You're in the building, trying to help people, and it's exploding on you inside the building, so I don't think it can get any worse than this. - We were in the lobby, gathering to go up and start doing a search on the upper floors, as we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy-duty explosion. - [Witness 1] Yeah, that did look like there was an explosion and it just went down. - [Witness 2] It went up! - There was an explosion. We were on the support floor, which is a basement. A guy came in running, all his skin was out of his body. - [Witness 1] Something exploded. - [Witness 2] What? - [Witness 1] World Trade, another explosion. - [Witness 3] Another explosion at World Trade. - It looked like there's a whole bunch of explosions in the bottom, like windows and shit first. Then the top fell to the right and the bottom fell to the left. - Tower 1 just came down. The whole side of it just collapsed like there was a bomb inside of it. This whole thing just imploded, like, just came down. - [News Host] I don't know whether it's another explosion or a portion of the building falling away, but something major just happened at that building. - [News Reporter] We just witnessed some kind of secondary follow-up explosion on the World Trade Center 2, the one that is on the south. It is difficult to make out through the debris and smoke, the second tower, the only one that was standing, Tower 1. Just we saw some kind of explosion, a lot of smoke come out of the top of the tower, and then it collapsed down onto the streets below. - [News Reporter] There has just been a huge explosion. We can see billowing smoke rising. - My next example is from firefighter Christopher Fenyo, and this is taken from the FDNY oral histories. And he's talking about a period after the South Tower came down, that was the first tower to come down, and before the North Tower came down. So, sometime roughly between 10:00 and 10:30 in the morning, it turns out there was a debate happening among firefighters at the scene. Quote, "At that point a debate began to rage "because the perception was that the building looked like "it had been taken out with charges." In other words, not merely that it came down because of explosions in some general sense, but that the building had been rigged for demolition. They were debating that before 10:30 in the morning on 9/11. - We made it outside. We made it about a block? - We made it at least two blocks, and we started runnin'. Floor by floor it started poppin' out. - It was as if they had detonated. - Yeah, detonated. - As if they were planted to take down a building. "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom!" - All the way down, I was watchin' it and runnin'. - All of a sudden, I look up, and about 20 stories below, at least that's what it looked like to me, about 75 flights up below the fire I saw, from the corner, "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom!" Just like 20 straight hits. Just went down. And then the whole building just went (imitates crashing). And as the bombs were going, people just started running. And I sat there and watched a few of them explode and I just turned around and I just started running for my life because, at that point, the World Trade Center was coming right down right above us. - This is very good eyewitness testimony. As far as I can tell, this footage is entirely independent from the Naudet brothers' film. That means this gentleman, Paul Lemos, did not see the firefighters and they did not see him. And here they are independently, on the day itself... And we know it's the day itself, we can see Building 7 in the background during Paul Lemos's testimony. The same gesture. "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom!" Here's what he says. And by the way, this man doesn't guard himself. The firefighters don't go so far as to say they were explosions, they just say they looked like them. He doesn't guard himself. "All of a sudden I looked up "and about 20 stories below the fire, "I saw from the corner..." He's talking about the North Tower. The same building that the two firefighters were talking about. "I saw from the corner: "'Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom!' "Just like 20 straight hits. "Just went down. "And then I just saw the whole building "just went (exhales sharply). "And as the bombs were going, people just started running. "And I sat there and watched a few of them explode. "And then I just turned around "and I just started running for my life "because, at that point, the World Trade Center "was coming right down." - The fire trucks that were there originally were on fire. Windows were blown out, cars were exploding. There's big holes in the side of buildings that the explosion fired out to. They told me afterwards it wasn't explosions. I was talking to one of the architects that they pulled in. 'Cause he was talking to me about it, and he said, "What did you see?" I said, "I saw the fire, and when I looked up, "I saw around the 70..." "'Cause the fire was on the 96th floor. "So I looked down, "and it happened probably 70, 75, I can't be specific. "I looked and I could see the corner, "and it just started going 'Pop!' "Just started going 'Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom!'" And he goes, "How fast?" I go, "Like firecrackers." Now, there's no evidence that Paul Lemos was ready to give up what he believed he thought he saw, but already on 9/11, on the scene, he's being told what he didn't perceive. There is no way at that point that anyone could've claimed to know scientifically that this man had not perceived explosions. Hadn't studied the rubble, the physical residue. Hadn't done a comprehensive study of video or still footage. Hadn't done a comprehensive investigation of eyewitness evidence. How on earth could he make that judgment? But there's more: He's interfering with a criminal investigation. I don't care whether you look at this as a homicide investigation or a fire investigation or a bombing investigation, in all three cases it's clear that eyewitness testimony is important and that you go to the scene and you gather it. You don't tell eyewitnesses what they did and didn't perceive. This eyewitness evidence has been ignored or suppressed by the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Because if we ask how many references there are to eyewitness statements about explosions in the towers in the 585 pages of the 9/11 Commission, we find that there is one sentence fragment. They are discussing firefighters who are in the North Tower when the South Tower came down, and this is what they say: "Those firefighters not standing near windows facing south "had no way of knowing that the South Tower had collapsed; "many surmised that a bomb had exploded..." That's it, 585 pages. This implies that eyewitnesses who thought there were explosions were in the North Tower at the time the South Tower came down. In fact, most of them weren't. It also implies that they made a mistake. And they made that mistake because they had an impeded view. They weren't near a window. They couldn't see what was going on. This is grotesquely misleading. Many eyewitnesses were looking directly at the towers. And I've already showed you examples. So, whether it's deliberate or not, this is an extremely inadequate and misleading way of dealing with this important testimony. If we ask about the National Institute of Standards and Technology now, which was given the specific job of figuring out why these buildings collapsed, how many references are there to eyewitnesses to explosions in the towers in the 295 pages of the final report? Zero. Not one. Now, you need to know that the 9/11 Commission and NIST had access to the same material that I have access to, and yet they both miss my 156 eyewitnesses to explosions. Not to mention many other eyewitnesses that are not in my list. Whether that's deliberate suppression of evidence, which would be a crime, or whether it's simply massive incompetence does not concern me today. Because either way, we have an investigation that is thoroughly inadequate, and that's why we need a new one. - My son, Bobby, almost 10 years ago, died right here at the site of the North Tower. We came up to New York and we did find his body, and we took Bobby home that week, and buried him a week later, on Tuesday the 18th. For years and years, I've been trying to find out what happened that day. A few years ago, I finally ran into the doctor who examined Bobby, and he gave me an outline. He told me not to look at the pictures, but he gave me an outline of all his injuries, and all his injuries were in the chest and in the face. Back of him, No problem. His skull was still intact, but everything was blown off his face. He lost his arm and severe lacerations of his chest. So, from what I talked to the doctor, Bobby died instantly. - The bottom elevator, the glass just flamed, exploded out the front of the World Trade Center. Glass blew everywhere. - What happened was I was down in the basement, all of a sudden, we heard a loud bang, and the elevator doors blew open. Some guy was burnt up, so I dragged him out. His skin was all hanging off, so I dragged him out. I pulled him out of the parking lot, and this was what was left on him. Pulled him out, when I pulled him out, I looked up, and that second bomb blew up. - Well, Bobby walked into the lobby, or might not have even made it into the lobby, and there was a huge explosion. In an explosion, in a detonation, the air that shoots out from that explosion is supersonic. The gases shoot out in supersonic speed and then the heat follows it. The 9/11 Commission hearings states that a fireball from the plane hitting from the 93rd to up to the 98th floor because the plane went in on an angle. The idea, again, the commission saying, only a fireball created this damage. The fireball, supposedly, that came down does not have that energy. Remember, every window in the North Tower was blown out. You have an area of 208 feet by 208 feet. It's impossible that a fireball created that damage. So, therefore, my thing with Bobby was that he walked... Was walking into the towers, there was a huge explosion, it killed him instantly. Hit him in the face, hit him in the chest, obviously took off his arm, and that's how he died. And remember, the 9/11 Commission Report refused to acknowledge the testimony they got from firemen, from policemen, from the EMS workers of these explosions that were taking place in the sub-basement. And both the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST lied about that. - The FBI's official 9/11 investigation code name is PENTTBOM. Interestingly, the PENTTBOM code name and the translation of the B-O-M in the code name for the word "bombing" was, just the other day, confirmed again by still FBI director Robert Mueller in TIME magazine just this May 9th: "The FBI's SIOC, Strategic Operations Center, "filled to capacity on 9/11 "and remained that way through PENTTBOM, "the FBI's cryptonym for 'Pentagon,' 'Twin Towers,' "and 'Bombing.'" Now, that's very fascinating because the official story, of course, in the 9/11 Commission Report and all the media that follows their lead, is that bombs really weren't involved at the World Trade Centers or the Pentagon. But the Pentagon, I now know from interviewing eyewitnesses, expected a terrorist attack on the building that morning, but with explosives of some kind. Bomb-sniffing dog teams were at the Pentagon metro stop at least as early as 7:30 a.m. I've personally interviewed a Fort Monmouth TDY auditor named Michael Nielsen, as well as the very famous Army area survivor April Gallop, for two hours with under oath testimony on videotape. And they both stated that there were bomb-sniffing dog teams in the metro stop. So, the Pentagon expected some kind of an attack, apparently with explosives that the dog teams were sniffing for. "I was walking on the Pentagon's innermost corridor, "across the courtyard when the incident happened. "I heard two loud booms, one large, one smaller, "and the shock wave threw me against the wall." This is one of many photographs that were originally from the Department of Defense that are available on the web. Mechanical engineer Michael Meyer has stated, "It is physically impossible for the C ring wall "to have failed, due to the impact "of plane debris of any kind, in a clean neat circle." Like the one seen here, at the inside of the C ring is the signature of a shaped charge explosive and definitely cannot be, he said it was impossible, from an impact from any kind of plane debris. Meyer spent years in aerospace, structural design, and the design and use of shaped charge explosives. If a plane, or any object, any impactor, would come in at an oblique angle, which the official story says, and goes diagonally through three rings that you're not going to have a perfectly round exit hole. If it's the front of a fuselage or even around the engine, it would have to impact coming perpendicular to the wall. The official story, of course, says that there is a single exit hole on the inside of the C ring This is a graphic taken from the Washington Post immediately after 9/11 from Pentagon sources, DOD sources itself. There are three exit holes listed from the Pentagon's own immediate sources to the Washington Post after 9/11, not just one. This is an aerial photograph that the Pentagon provided to all the media right after 9/11, you can see it on the web. This is the so-called official exit hole, right here. But there are two others that, in turn, perfectly match these three so-called exit holes from the Pentagon's own released data. And here it says "exit holes," plural. The government lied about inside explosions, do you think it's telling the truth about the one and most famous outside explosion In the five famous frames from the two videotapes of the security cameras in the parking lot of the Pentagon that the videotapes were released in the Moussaoui trial in August of 2006? The 85 videos that were confiscated by the FBI, there was an FOIA request, the FBI FOIA officer was honest and did an analysis of those 85 videotapes and came back to the person who requested it, that there were only two of the 85 that in any way could be interpreted as showing an impact on the building. And those are the two, and they do not show a plane. - NORAD was notified about American 77 at 9:24 that morning, roughly 14 minutes before the Pentagon was officially hit. Why were the F-16s from Langley Air Force Base, about 130 miles away, not able to get to the Pentagon in time to prevent the attacks? The 9/11 Commission claims that the Indianapolis Center did not notify the military, even when, at 8:56, it lost this flight's transponder signal, its radar track, and its radio. The Commission claimed no one at Indianapolis had any knowledge of the situation in New York until 9:20. Television networks had started broadcasting images of the World Trade Center at 8:48. These images included, at 9:03, the crash of the second airliner into the South Tower. Millions of people knew about these events, how can we believe that no one at the Indianapolis Center had any knowledge of the situation in New York until 9:20? "As soon as you know you had a hijacked aircraft, "you notify everyone. "The notification gets broadcast out to all the regions." - During the time then, the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course, the orders still stand. "Have you heard anything to the contrary?" - Mineta assumed, he said, that they were orders to have the aircraft shot down, but no aircraft approaching Washington was shot down. Mineta's interpretation also made the young man's question unintelligible, given the fact that the airspace over the Pentagon is categorized as "forbidden," meaning that commercial aircraft are never permitted in it, plus the fact that the two hijacked planes had already crashed into the Twin Towers, the expected orders, if an unidentified plane were approaching the airspace, would've been to shoot it down. Had Cheney given those orders, there would have been no reason for the young man to ask if the order still stood. His question made sense only if the orders were to do something unexpected: Not to shoot it down. The official story is rendered especially dubious by its claim that the Pentagon was struck by a Boeing 757 flown by Al-Qaeda's Hani Hanjour. As the title of a New York Times story revealed in 2002, Hanjour, who had been taking lessons in a single-engine plane, was known as a trainee noted for incompetence, about whom an instructor said, "He could not fly at all." And yet, on September 11, 2001, before Hanjour had been declared by authorities to have been the pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon, a Washington Post story said, "Just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission "into the White House, the unidentified pilot "executed a pivot so tight, "that it reminded observers of a fighter-jet maneuver. "Aviation sources said the plane "was flown with 'extraordinary skill.'" A Post story the following year stated, "Aviation experts concluded that the final maneuver "American Flight 77 was the work of a great talent." "I have 6,000 miles of flight time in Boeing 757s and 767s, and I could not have flown it "the way the path was described." If the maneuver could not have been executed by a 757 by one of America's top pilots, it could not have been executed by one of the alleged hijackers. Turning now to United Flight 93. In 2003, NORAD officials told the 9/11 Commission that the FAA reported a possible hijack of United Flight 93 at 9:16. But the 9/11 Commission, in 2004, called this incorrect, saying instead, by 10:03, when United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, there had been no mention to the military of its hijacking. Besides being unbelievable, the 9/11 Commission's claim was contradicted by many prior reports. In his 2004 book, Richard Clarke said that during his White House video conference, FAA administrator Jane Garvey reported that at about 9:35, a number of potential hijacks, which included United 93 over Pennsylvania, had occurred. This conversation occurred while both Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers had been listening. Brigadier General Montague Winfield, who had taken a leadership position in the Pentagon's National Military Command Center, recalled, "We received the report from the FAA "that Flight 93 had turned off its transponder, had turned, "and was now heading towards Washington, D.C." General Larry Arnold, the commander of NORAD's U.S. Continental Region, indicated in a January 2002 interview that the military learned about United 93's troubles between the crash into the second tower, and the attack on the Pentagon. "By this time," he said, "we were watching United 93 "wander around Ohio." He also said that "At 9:24, our focus was on United 93, "which was being pointed out to us, "very aggressively, I might add, by the FAA." This report by Arnold, who was involved in the events, differed radically from what the 9/11 Commission claimed, that the FAA never contacted the military about United 93. - [News Reporter] I've seen the pictures, it looks like there's nothing there except for a hole in the ground. - [Witness] Basically, that's right. The only thing you could see from where we were was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see, there wasn't much left. - [News Reporter] Any large pieces of debris at all? - [Witness] No, there was nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there. - [News Reporter] That's really all you see, is a large crater in the ground and just tiny, tiny bits of debris. There's been at least one report that the investigators out there, and there are hundreds of them, as I said tonight, have found nothing larger than a phone book. - The falsity of the official story about 93 is further suggested by descriptions of the alleged crash site. One television reporter said, "There was just a big hole in the ground, "all I saw was a crater filled "with small, charred, plane parts, "nothing that would even tell you that it was the plane. "There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, "no body parts." A newspaper photographer said, "I didn't think I was in the right place. "I was looking for something that said, "'Tall, tail, wing, plane, metal,' there was nothing." Debris, instead, was found many miles away, and much of it was debris that could not have blown there. John Fleagle, an employee at Indian Lake Marina, reported that the debris that washed ashore included pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic, and checks. Newspapers reported that debris was found in New Baltimore, which was beyond a mountain ridge more than eight miles from the alleged crash site. Also, although Flight 93 reportedly was carrying more than 37,000 gallons of fuel when it crashed, tests of soil and groundwater at the official crash site, found no evidence of contamination. - Vice President Cheney's performance on the morning of 9/11. The fact that he gave two different accounts of when he got to the PEOC, the bunker under the White House, one of them has to be false. So whether or not he gave a true account, we know he gave a false one. Cheney and Rumsfeld were planning for the suspension of the US Constitution when neither of them were in the government at all. And that is a sign, I think, of something gone very strange in this country. So that's, to me, the key area of what's called continuity of government, or COG. Now, the 9/11 Commission report concedes that COG was implemented that day. There are focal points where we know that we need information that is still being withheld. So step one is to get the information out, and the whole battle will be won or lost there. If we win the battle to get stuff released, then I think the rest, it'll become clear what needs to be done after that. There was a systematic CIA pattern of withholding important information from the FBI, even when the FBI would normally be entitled to it. This pattern is a major component of the 9/11 story because the behavior of these two eventual hijackers was so unprofessional that, without this CIA protection from the Alec Station group, they would almost certainly have been detected and detained or deported long before they boarded Flight 77 in Washington. And so, I may add, would've been the other hijackers with whom they had been in contact. A very relevant example is the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993. Relevant because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, was one of the 1993 plotters, as well. The FBI had an informant, Emad Salem, among the plotters, and Salem later claimed, with supporting evidence from actual tapes of his FBI debriefings, that the FBI deliberately chose not to shut down the plot. - [Emad] We was start already building the bomb, which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. And we was all informed about it, and we know that the bombs start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case. (tense thoughtful music) - We know from many accounts of the Bush administration that there was also another powerful pro-war consensus within it, centered on Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the so-called cabal of PNAC, the Project for the New American Century, that, before Bush's election, had been lobbying vigorously and publicly for military action against Iraq. We know also that Rumsfeld's immediate response to 9/11 was to propose an attack on Iraq, and that planning for such an attack was indeed instituted on September the 17th. I've called these events "deep events." Events with a predictable accompanying pattern of official cover-ups, backed up by amazing media malfunction, and dishonest best-selling books. Some of these deep events, like the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, should be considered structural deep events because of their permanent impact on history. It is striking that these two structural events, the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, should both have been swiftly followed by America's engagement in ill-considered wars. The reverse is also true. All of America's significant wars since Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan twice, once covertly and now overtly, and Iraq, have all been preceded by structural deep events. America, I argue in my latest book, has become dominated by a war machine in Washington, a war machine that has been building incrementally since Eisenhower warned us about it in 1961. (tense thoughtful music) - We now stand 10 years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Now, this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. - This tragic event of 9/11 was used as a pretext and justification to wage war on an impoverished country in Central Asia. Anybody who has a minimal understanding of military planning will know that you don't plan a large-scale theater war in a matter of four weeks. It takes several months, and sometimes years, to prepare a war of that size, so the war on Afghanistan was in the pipeline well before 9/11. If Al Qaeda is behind these attacks, who is behind Al Qaeda? And I knew from my research I'd conducted on Yugoslavia, in particular, but going back to the Soviet-Afghan War, that Al Qaeda was an intelligence asset of the CIA. And this was amply recognized in numerous documents, and the response of the US intelligence community was, "Yeah, we supported him, "but he went against us." We were the sponsors of Al Qaeda, it was for a good cause, it was to fight the communists in the Soviet-Afghan War, and we sent in the mujahideen. We trained them in these CIA camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We set up the religious schools, the madrassas. We then contracted with our friends in Saudi Arabia to send in Wahabi missions into Afghanistan to train these people. Bin Laden's whereabouts have always been known. Why? Because Al Qaeda is a CIA intelligence asset, and has always been an intelligence asset, and continues to be an intelligence asset. We see Al Qaeda in Iraq, then we see Al Qaeda in Yemen, Al Qaeda in Africa. We had subsidiaries of Al Qaeda virtually everywhere, you know? And where er the United States needed to intervene militarily, they used the pretext of Al Qaeda in Yemen, or Somalia, or wherever, under different names, corroborated by media reports, et cetera. And in all cases, I can assure you, these are instruments of US intelligence, or MI6, or Mossad, and there's a collaboration between them. 9/11 has unleashed a road map of war and destruction. We're at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history, I think that's not an understatement. The war on terrorism is part of that process because it gives a justification to wage war on humanitarian grounds. So that you wage the war, not against countries, but against what they called non-state entities, All this has permeated the consciousness of millions of people. It's created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, which was then coupled with the coded alert, the color-coded alerts, and Homeland Security, and so on. It was a pretext to wage a war without borders, which, in essence, is a war of conquest, and it was also a pretext to implement far-reaching changes in at home through the Patriot legislation, through national security, protection of borders, and so on, so forth. If the war on terrorism is no longer accepted and doesn't have its legitimacy, the whole construct, military doctrine, collapses like a deck of cards. And that's why 9/11 truth is so important. - Thinking about elite political crime and recognizing that we don't classify it and study it. When I looked at the literature in political science on Watergate, Iran-Contra, crimes like that, they treated them as exceptions. As something that rarely happened, and when they did, the elites were just misbehaving. But the more I looked into it, I realized, well, these are fairly common events. They're not often investigated, but they're pretty well known and they're fairly common. So I started studying this kind of criminality as a type of crime, like white-collar crime or hate crime. And I classified it and I began collecting examples of it, 9/11 fit the pattern. The investigation did not include any consideration of controlled demolition. Nobody looked in the debris for explosives or incendiaries. That, to me, indicated what's called "guilty knowledge" in criminology. That somebody didn't look because they knew that there would be something to find. One of the things I started studying was the Nuremberg war crimes trials cause there was an example of political crimes being prosecuted. And in the war crimes trials, the Nazis were accused of setting the Reichstag on fire. The main evidence was that immediately there were laws passed, they had a list. Already, the night when the Reichstag was on fire, they had a list of the people they wanted arrested. And this was considered to be proof. And I thought, "Well, you know, "it's the same way with 9/11." There was an agenda already there and it was rolled out immediately after the events, which suggests that there was foreknowledge and complicity to provide a pretext for these wars in the Middle East. The idea of conspiracy being an irrational belief, the idea of a conspiracy. Conspiracy is a sound legal concept. We use it all the time. We prosecute gangsters in the United States for conspiring. Conspiracies happen, we know that: Iran-Contra, Watergate. So, how can you have a concept that dismisses all conspiracies as improbable or impossible? It also doesn't make any sense. It's an unsubstantiated theory of its own. When people dismiss conspiracy theories, what they're doing is embracing a coincidence theory. They're assuming that all these things: "Yeah, they didn't catch "the hijackers getting on the planes." And, "Yeah, there was a group of elites "who said we needed to have a new Pearl Harbor." And, "Yeah, there were all these war games "going on at the time. And "Yeah, the buildings fell down." All coincidental. All coincidences. So what's going on is you have an unsubstantiated theory that's being smuggled in with this pejorative term. But it is the opposite of the way we think about most crimes. If there was a man who married a wealthy woman and the woman died of a freak accident, and then he married another wealthy woman and she died of a freak accident, we would say, "This guy's killing his wives." We would certainly suspect that. We would interrogate him. We'd wanna know: "Where were you when she died from the freak accident?" It would be our automatic response. The TV shows on crime use this constantly. They will look for patterns in crimes to identify the suspect. It's just a normal thing. It's criminology 101. And yet, when we look at elite political crimes, we see them one at a time, even when they're obvious connections, like the Kennedy assassinations or the 2000 and 2004 elections. Conspiracy theory is generally fairly widely accepted if you do public opinion polls and ask people, you know, do they believe the official account of the assassination of President Kennedy? Overwhelmingly, people do not. They believe that there was some kind of conspiracy. The Kennedy assassination was reinvestigated in 1975. Congress concluded there was a conspiracy, but they didn't know who... It was never prosecuted. The CIA and the intelligence agencies are actively shaping how we perceive events. And we know this because the conspiracy theory concept, there was a propaganda program initiated by the CIA to get people to use that term as a counter to critics of the Warren Commission. (reporters chattering) - I'm just a patsy. - Did you shoot the president? - I first understood conspiracy theory when they were talking about the Kennedy assassination, and it's the choice between was it a lone gunman or was it a conspiracy? And so that's where the term comes from. It doesn't even apply here. The official story is a conspiracy theory in a literal sense: That you have this conspiracy of a bunch of people to make this thing happen. What I'm basically saying, and what most of the people in the truth movement are saying, is, "Yes, there was a conspiracy, "but it wasn't a bunch of Arabs "that got together and did this. "It was basically a bunch of rich, powerful guys "in white shirts and ties and suits, and so forth, "that are the ones that we should be looking at." There's all the signs that the people who were behind this had to have had connections with military, to have access, even, to the kinds of materials used to bring the buildings down. They had to have access to the buildings to be able to plant it. They had to have access to all the means they have to cover this up. So, there's lots of signs that there are people working at various levels, in a coordinated manner, to make this event happen. - It's very hard to convince people that American public officials would do these kinds of things. People just say, "Well, they wouldn't go along with it. "And if they did, they couldn't organize it. "It's too complicated. "They couldn't organize an action like that "and not have it detected. "And if they could, somebody would talk, "and it would get out, and we'd know about it." Americans know you can keep secrets. We kept the Manhattan Project secret. That had 100,000 people working on it. They built three cities from scratch. One was the 1/5 largest city in Tennessee. This word never got out. Get this: When Truman became president, he was not told about the Manhattan Project until he'd been in office for over a week. So, we can keep secrets. We kept secret our decoding of the Japanese and German secret codes, that was kept secret all through the war. The idea that you can't keep secrets among large groups of people is just mistaken. We're looking at the events of 9/11, but we tend to not think of 9/11 as connected to the anthrax letter attacks. I call this incident specific myopia. So it's a nearsightedness. I think of it as we're like victims. We're like abuse victims. The shocking events are so overwhelming, they loom large in our minds and our perceptions, and we can't see them as if we were above and looking at a bunch of them. We can only just see the one and then see the other. - The human brain is the most complex organism in the body, and thus the mechanisms by which the mind processes and interprets, and responds to information is equally complex. For example, the human brain is composed of hundreds of billions of neurons, each with thousands of synapses, creating a vastly complex and intricate neural network consisting of up to 100 trillion to up to a quadrillion synaptic connections. At any one time, this organ is processing an infinite amount of information, both from its internal and external environment, most of which we are unconscious of. However, it is often that information, of which we are largely unaware, that has the most significant influence over our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Even those thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that we adamantly believe to be consciously determined. We assume that when we are looking at something, we are consciously analyzing it based upon the visual information that is entering the brain from the eyes. But this is not entirely accurate. In fact, visual stimuli transduced by the rods and cones in the eyes and sent by electrochemical signals to the central nervous system via the optic nerves does not go directly to the occipital cortex, which is the primary region responsible for processing visual information. Instead, it first goes to the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus, another region of the brain that is a part of the limbic system and important to emotional arousal. To put this in simpler terms, this means that you can experience an emotional reaction to something before you are consciously aware that you have even seen it, which, in turn, then affects how you see it. Alternative explanations of political assassinations, terrorist attacks, and other national tragedies that differ from official state accounts are sometimes dismissed by the general public because they evoke strong cognitive dissonance, a psychological phenomenon which occurs when new ideas or information conflict with previously formed ideologies and accepted beliefs. In psychology, a false belief generally refers to one that has been manipulated often purposely and outside of the person's awareness, and sometimes in a very specific direction or misdirection. The use of repression and terror, including threats of censorship, suppression of information, imprisonment, and torture by leaders to silence political opponents and dissidents, is not exclusive to authoritarian states. Such tactics can also be implored by leaders of democratic states, a fact that can be difficult for people to acknowledge, especially if it is not consistent with their belief system. Although some people may harbor cynicism about bureaucrats and politicians, most do not want to believe that public officials, in general, and especially those at the highest office, would participate in election tampering, assassinations, mass murder, or other high crimes, especially in democratic societies. Protecting democracy demands that citizens must be made aware of how they can be manipulated by government and media into forfeiting their civic liberties and duties. Information vital to protecting citizens from crimes against democracy orchestrated by the state, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, can happen particularly in times of disaster, collective shock, and national threat. - I believe in human curiosity and human intelligence, and there is a limit to how long people can go on thinking that one bullet inflicted seven wounds on two different people in the presidential car in Dallas in 1963. That sort of thing slowly becomes ridiculous because of what's being called "paradigm shift." It's not that you persuade the older generation, the older generation die, and then you have a new generation whose minds have not been distorted by the propaganda campaigns. The mainstream media are in a sense digging their grave by adhering to a position on conspiracy theories which they could get away with back in the days of the Kennedy assassination 'cause they monopolized American access to information. They don't have that monopoly anymore and they're losing to the internet. And one of the reasons that people are going to the internet, not to the mainstream media, if anyone is curious about 9/11, they know they have to go to the internet. So in a sense, I think that technology has become a great ally for those of us who want the truth. - This is a big issue. I mean, it's not just the 9/11, it's not just the buildings or the science of the physics, but it opens up into a very, very huge issue out there. And no one person can tackle this issue. But it's my opinion that if you know about it, do something. Whether you're an artist, whether you're a poet, whether you're a singer, you don't have to be an engineer for sure about this. Matter of fact, most of the more brilliant people out there are not engineers. They're very, very intelligent people that know what's going on. So, I like to say not everybody can do everything, but everyone can do something. You can do your little part to help share what's really going on out there. - You need to wake up. You need to look at what's really going on, not just the myth, the propaganda. There are ways to bring about fundamental change in the way people think and the way people coordinate together with government and so forth. And something of that sort is needed, in the United States as much as any other country in the world. What does it take to actually trigger something akin to a revolution, in a sense? We have a power structure that's controlling what happens in the US government, that's not operating in the best interests of the people of the United States. It's operating in the interests of corporations and a wealthy elite class, and so forth. Peaceful revolutions have occurred. Gandhi and India is, of course, probably the first one that comes to mind. There's a book out there called "A Force More Powerful." It's a book and a video done at the same time. I highly recommend it. The video focuses on six nonviolent revolutions in the 20th century that were successful. - I'm the sole US citizen on this panel I happen to notice. So I have, perhaps, a special responsibility here and an obligation. I want to say that I am a proud and patriotic American, U.S. citizen. I served in the military. I've been a federal employee. I've represented the United States as a Fulbright scholar in four countries. And I think my country has a proud history, not all of it, but much of it, and we've done some wonderful things. And I have not given up on my country. I was at the original hearings when the Twin Towers were proposed in New York as a city planner, and I supported the building of the Twin Towers, proposed by David Rockefeller to keep the Financial District in the Downtown. It was migrating north, and that's why it was built. I supported it because I felt it made good planning sense. And I was well aware of the internal structure of this building, very interesting structure. Unique, actually. I had done work in structural engineering. My first degree was in architecture. And so when I saw the videos of the collapse of the building, I said, "Something's fishy here." And it seems to me that my doubts have been confirmed here. I have found nothing in the evidence that's been presented here to change my mind. I've tried to be a fair panelist, and I went back and reread the 9/11 Commission report. I can tell you, it doesn't improve with age. (audience laughing) I did my first Fulbright in the Soviet Union in 1978. I'm well aware of what an authoritarian state is like to live in, and I don't want that for my grandchildren. I want my open, free, democratic society back. And so I think we have done a marvelous thing here. We have laid out, with the help of the experts this evidence, and I think it's a great beginning. The price of empire is America's soul, and that is too high a price. - We need to know the past to understand the present and to foresee the future. Historical truth is very different from official truth. Official reconstruction coming from United States administration has been manipulated. The public opinion cannot accept the inert and careless behavior of United States authorities. This panel trust the United States justice and in United States' willingness to accept the truth. Nevertheless, if the inert and the careless behavior should continue, we would be obliged to start legal proceedings before the International Criminal Court, or via, according to Article 7. This article establish the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court has been established in order to watch over the world's people against the crimes committed out of declared wars. It is not question of interference, but of justice and solidarity. - The task before the Toronto Hearings and the 9/11 truth movement going forward is to begin to tackle and overcome the heavy inertia of the mass media and its grip on the public, the wider public, public face of the 9/11 story, which is a mass of mythology hardening into theology and hardening into dogma. There is a massive psychological investment in these myths by the public, even by the public who otherwise may be highly critical of the government of the US and have no illusions about its flaws but nevertheless, they're not able to embrace the evidence that we've been dealing with here. One of the rhetorical devices used by the official story is to say that we critics are showing disrespect for the dead. And the contrary, it seems really important to say that by really seeking the true sources of their tragedy, of their deaths, we are showing real respect for them. Some of the areas that we've thoroughly explored here, and I believe we've drilled down to bedrock on such topics as the physics and kinetics of the collapse of the Twin Towers, which absolutely cannot be explained by the quote-unquote "official story." And we're getting really exciting insights on the chemistry of the dust and what it reveals. We have focused on the strongest evidence and reasoned arguments that the official account of 9/11 is not true. Any open-minded person, in my view, who genuinely seeks the truth and is willing to examine the evidence would support a real inquiry with the power to subpoena witnesses and with the political clout to pry loose from a secretive government evidence that they have so far managed to suppress. Our success may depend on more progress in changing public perceptions. And that depends on our ability to open minds to the disturbing evidence that some part of our democratic state is guilty of mass murder of its citizens. And on this point, there are serious obstacles to overcome. We really want to begin a long process of rebuilding trust in the democratic state, and the only way it can be done within the law, by opening the government to the legitimate needs of its citizens to know and to see and to be heard. We do not and should not trust a secretive government operating in the shadows, committing atrocities, and using the instruments of power to keep us in the dark. To let the doubts surrounding 9/11 to fester in the dark would lead to the ultimate destruction of trust. We should be a movement to rebuild trust through real inquiry. It cannot be achieved through a foreign power or an international body. If it is to be our rebirth, we have to be the fathers and the mothers. - We have given witness to science here these last few days, for it has been on trial for 10 years. We are not a grand jury, nor do we convene here under any other statutory authority. We're not a conference or an academic proceeding, and yet we have heard here a great deal of scholarship never before assembled quite like this. We are something new, something combining many things. Each of these witnesses, with a score of others doing likewise here, stepped from a privileged place into the augur of history. Like Galileo, they glimpsed the redemption that God, him-her-itself, willing others might someday do likewise. Made the mysteries explicable to us all. No one faithfully viewing these hearings can be unchanged by them as a panelist gave testament just now. This alone makes this event an unconditional success. But although we know the institution exists normally to indict the crimes proved here, those institutions have turned against us. Where science is converted into fiction what can we expect for civil liberties? Where bodies in motion, otherwise governed by universal laws, can be held in contempt, as with physical mass made unencumbered by those pesky laws of thermodynamics. But when the mass media and every other institution in the land are willing to play along with contempt for laws of the universe, we've got more fundamental problems. I know that headlines will never be enough, I think all of us know that. But one thing I know for certain, although so many of them want free people thinking otherwise, we who are free are not lone wolves, not now and not ever. Something other than physical laws binds us together now, us who gave witness to these testaments here, so wonderfully done. We might be exiles from the matrix of received wisdom from a pliant media. Here's to hoping soon for a world full of exiles. (somber thoughtful music) (somber thoughtful music continues)