Whitehall from Battery Park

Whitehall from Battery Park
At Dusk



Cold-Calling "Plotline" Participants and Selected Experts


Thursday, October 16, 2008

Monday, March 24, 2008

Please Contribute Questions: More Needed!

Top 10 Questions

Please feel free to add your own questions in the comments section. I am interested particularly in what people initially found suspicious.

The list of questions below, I wrote a couple years ago, around the time the movie "Flt. 95 " was released is by no means exhaustive....but suggestive. I found these among my papers. I had read them out at a St. Mark's Sunday event. I figured to post them. People who have never thought of any of this before, will find them helpful.

onclusive evidence for fraud can be derived from any one aspect alone, from the cumulation of evidence which demonstrates it and from the No Plane Observation:

Why were the GPS locators put on the truck hauling away the scrap from the W. Trade Centers?

Why was the nose of the United Flt 93 "found" 8 miles from the tail?

How do cell phones work at 35K feet?

Doesn't a Physicist trump a Civil Engineer in terms of qualifications in science?

Why did the buildings disintegrate at free fall speed?

Why does Morgan Reynolds say, in regard to culpability for 9/11,: "The FAA guy Ben Sliney was the operating manager but it was his first day on the job. Charles Leidg, the naval captain, it was his first job at the NMCC (National Military Command Center) and Montague - these 2 guys of course I would charge...

"Why did both Leidg and Montange get promoted for their catastrophic failures?"

Why was the investigation "closed door?"

Why were the witnesses not put under oath?

Why was the investigation filled with omissions,  distortions and outright lies?

Why did the 9/11 commission make no recommendations to reform the FAA, when it laid the failure on them?

Given the above, Why is the Media so cowardly?

What started the break-up of the buildings?

Why did theTowers fall so quickly?

If it was a natural collapse, where is the rubble?

Why isn't any of the steel core columns left standing?

Why did the event look like a Hollywood special effect?

Given the above, Was the event deliberately designed to make a point with the public?

Why did the government fight an investigation of 9/11?

Why did the Government representative (Guiliani) destroy evidence?

Why wasn't the President hustled to safety?

Why of the 45 people listed as dying on the United Flight 93, are only 6 listed in the SSDI (13%) Social Security Death Index.

Why did only 25 families of the purported victims accept the 9/11 compensation fund (56%)

Why were theTowers and Bldg. 7 the only 3 steel constructed towers/buildings known to free-fall due to fire in all of recorded history?

Why do people believe the planes felled the 2 Towers?(They saw the planes hit on T.V. so the planes must have caused it?")

What is the significance of the "suggestions" given to the Public by the TV talking head commentators? 

Why does the record show the use of the same phrases and conclusions by the News "anchors" and why do they all make the same points, immediately?

Why was the alleged seed of the event, (Osama bin Ladin and his 19 men) allegedly obsure beforehand, yet at the moment of the event allegedly "known" immediately?

Regarding the NIST report: "Why is reasoning backward from the result to a foregone cause not good science?

Why is NIST refusing to release the data upon which they based their computer simulation of the "collapse."?

Why did the supposed terrorists seem to care so much about minimizing civilian death - hitting high in the tower, flights which were under booked, hitting early in the day when few people were yet to work and hitting in a side of the Pentagon that was being renovated?

Why am I called unpatriotic because I tell the truth about our country?

Were any terrorists found in Iraq or are all civilians there terrorists?

How did our oil get under their soil?

Regarding United 93 the movie:
Aren't movies, which are not documentaries, supposed to entertain?

Why isn't the movie a documentary? Why is the movie openly "fiction?"

Does this movie honor or dishonor the dead?

Can Hollywood decipher what could have possibly happened from 2 dozen phone calls and 30 minutes of suspect cockpit voice recordings?

Are the fictional actor's roles an honor to the Passengers aboard Flt 93?

Why did the plane crash?

Was Flt. 93 meant to hit Building 7?

Why did Mr. Silverstein have to "pull" Building 7, when there is an "absence of cause" for the building's disintegration?

Was there something in the offices of Building 7 which included the NSA, CIA, FBI, SEC, as tenants and contained what was purportedly Giuliani's bunker...that needed to be destroyed?

Will the movie United 93 be judged on its artistic merits or on its politics?

Did the passengers of Flt 93 thwart our government's attempt to create a diversion to cover up the blowing up of a building?

Why did Building 7 get destroyed?

Why doesn't everyone realize that Building 7 came down in 6.6 seconds after being hit by precisely nothing? And that the government has no explanation or excuse for it and that the collapse of the building and the bombing of Building 6 were not brought up in the Kean Commission Report?


Why is there a claim of threat?

What is the difference between 3000+ dead on 9/11 from the building collapses and the 2000+ American soldiers who died so far in Iraq? Why are the victims of 9/11 more revered? Why are the victims of the Iraq war ignored by the Media and the society?

Is the difference between the 9/11 victims and the Iraq American soldiers the fact that neither groups of deaths could've been avoided?

Could the deaths on 9/11 have been avoided if the government did it's job?

Could the deaths in Iraq have been avoided if Bush had told the truth?

Were we directly at risk from Saddam Hussein?

Are we at risk from Iran?

Does the fact we invaded Iraq and are getting ready to Invade Iran have anything to do with the conclusion of some that world oil production should peak anytime from last year to within the next 5 and at the most generous forecast the next 10? And that a liquid fuel shortage could put our economy into a Mega depression deeper than that of the 1930's and that warfare, national security and national defense are completely dependent on access to petroleum?

Is it any coincidence that Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia, between them, contain 3/4 of the remaining world supplies of petroleum?

Has our number of enemies increased or decreased in the last 5 years?

After a person sees the movie Flt. United 93 would they be more or less interested in invading Iran?

Are all Middle Easterners to blame for 9/11? If not, why do we take vengeance against them. Why do 85% of our troops in Iraq say the war there is in retaliation for Saddam Hussein role in the 9/11
attacks? (Zogby International, Utica NY)

Is everything we do O.K.? Since we are Americans are we perfect?

Did 9/11 help Republicans?

How do we fight a "foreign enemy" that belongs to no state?

Why did Benjamin Chertoff, nephew of Michael Chertoff who is head of "Homeland Security" write the article for Popular Mechanics supposedly debunking the 9/11 government story skeptics?

Who gains from the War in Iraq?

Do Americans as a group benefit from our governments allowing the selling off of the oil interests there?

Do the oil companies Iraq was forced to sell their oil to the main beneficiaries?

Is it a coincidence that the movie "United 93" is released just as the government gears up for a war in Iran?

Why does Donald Rumsfeld say the terrorists manipulate our press? (Said so a few weeks ago on the radio show of Rush Limbaugh)

Do the events of 9/11 allow our government to operate secret prisons in former KGB prisons where they torture illegally detained prisoners?

Why did Karl Rove say, "Liberals want to lose the War on Terror"?

Why does Karl Rove have to show contempt for his opponents?

Was "9/11" the pretext for permanent War?

Are Arms productions necessary to keep our economy propped up?

Are terrorists a replacement for Communists?

Is Osama bin Laden the new Stalin?

Is the government’s story the most outrageous conspiracy theory?

Did Moussaoui say in open court “9/11 is an FBI operation?” Did the court then close to the public?

Did Moussaoui offer do produce documentation before Congress?

Why was the alleged high-jacker of Flt. 93 Saeed Alghamdi trained in the English language at a U.S. military base?

Does the fact the 9/11 Commission was a white-wash job prove that government is treasonous and criminal?

How did the government have foreknowledge of 9/11?

Why did 3 of the alleged hijackers have listed as their address on a driver’s license and car registrations. the Navel Station in Pensacola, FL?

Why is it that time lines released after 9/11 by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) , the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Pentagon (DoD) do not agree as to actual events, who was notified about those events, at what times, what orders were given, and the responses to those orders?

(cf: Are we all War Criminals for allowing what is going on to go on? For turning a blind eye to what is obvious with just alittle bit of research? Can a "learning disability" be considered an excuse?)

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Interview with Joseph Keith

This originally was posted on Ningen's Blog, and then copied to Pilots, Architects, and others websites.

He explains how jetliners COULD NOT have it the towers at low altitude with the reported speeds.

The audio interview (pumpitout) is much better than the transcript...


" Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney. The website is www.physics911.net. Curious about why he resigned (I’m still a SPINE member), I interviewed him from his home in southern California.

Q: Why did you resign from SPINE?

A: Well, I was a founding member in 2002 but I have little patience. With all the arguments I have gone through with Kee, I’ve spent so much time with Kee, it’s led nowhere. A plane never hit the second trade center tower, WTC 2, that’s what started our disagreement about 4 years ago.

Leonard Spencer first came out with what I thought was a smoking gun, the pod. I thought that pod must be a smoke screen device to hide the fact that a real airliner flew by but did not hit the building. And then editors doctored the tape after the fact.

Later on I decided the pod was a distraction since I determined that the video was fake. Case closed.

Q: Why is the video phony?

A: The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!

Q: Why would the establishment elite pull off a phony video?

A: The video had to be phony because the Illuminati, or whatever we want to call them, had to eliminate all possibilities of a foul up. They needed the hijacking scam to implicate the Muslims, but they couldn’t afford any risk. They had to Keep-It-Simple-Stupid so they faked the crashes.

Since we know that the rich will always hang together, have their children intermarry, and do anything to protect their wealth, they must have an organization, an interlocking directorate, if you will, that is compartmentalized. I could have done a better job, but they faked the video in an amateurish way. A friend of mine could have done a much better job of faking an airplane crash—break a wing off, break a part of the body, throw some fluff in and then I wouldn’t have noticed anything wrong.

Q: When did you realize something was amiss about 9/11?

A: I watched 9/11 on TV that day and my next-door neighbor is a pilot for SkyWest Airlines. We were good friends and when 9/11 happened I called up right away and said, “Turn on the TV.” He came over to my house. I said, “It’s fake.” “Yes, it’s fake,” he said. Later, we decided that the networks did not get the real-time feed of the crash and simulated it instead. In about a week we were convinced by neighbors that the networks were displaying the real thing. His wife is an American Airlines flight attendant and she’s very outspoken. Every 9/11 anniversary they put out a big display about praying for 9/11 flight attendants and all that. She thinks I’m a stupid conspiracy nut. Kee used to ask David, through me, airline questions, but now David is not allowed to talk to me. I don’t know if Kee is personally contacting him now.

Q: You knew right away it was an inside job because the WTC hit was faked?

A: I have spent lots of time trying to figure out how the New World Order could screw up so badly, and the only conclusion I can come to is that there must be some high-ranking insider, or possibly group, that is trying to warn the world of the danger of allowing such a powerful force to rule. In another era, the most powerful force in the World was the Holy Roman Empire and it was brought down by an insider who exposed the document that gave it its power as a fraud. I can’t go into the details now but it later led to the Reformation. I wrote a paper on it 50 years ago.

Q: You say anyone can prove the video is fake. How?

A: First get any video. They’re getting harder to find. A good example is “In Memoriam, New York City 9/11/01” from HBO, narrated by Rudy Giuliani, because the plane crashes at the beginning. Start the DVD and as the plane comes into view, hit the pause on your remote and then go frame-by-frame until the plane goes into the building, step by step.

Carefully watch the plane go into the building: it’s like a hot knife cutting through butter. Marvel at how a plane can meld into a steel-concrete building. A plane should crash against the building. It makes one curious! It should make you think about how a plane would enter a steel-concrete building.

Q: One argument we hear is that all the videos can’t be fake.

A: Well, get all 30 of ‘em and run ‘em, I have four. One of mine doesn’t show the actual crash, two of them show a plane banking, one doesn’t.

Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing. No nothing.

Q: Isn’t that impossible in reality?

A: Yes. Then after absorption of the plane, you see the building closing up and then an explosion. Meanwhile, nothing fell from either the building or the plane.

Q: That’s compelling evidence of video fakery. What else?

A: One more test is to pause with the plane on the screen. Take a magic marker or tape and mark the nose of the plane and then count frames until the tail passes the mark. You’ll find that the number of steps the plane takes while the plane is in thin air is the same as the number of steps the plane takes as it melds into the building.

Q: So there’s no deceleration?

A: Right. It violates all Newton’s laws of motion. I’ll state them:

1. An object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion until a force is applied.

2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force. When an object in motion hits stationary resistance, the force acts in the opposite direction of the object and therefore the object decelerates.

3. Newton said, “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” but I say, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

Q: So, for example, a diver speeds through thin air but slows in the resistance of the water unless he has a new energy source to maintain speed.

A: Right. It’s like this TV show I was watching called Myth Busters. They dumped this dummy from 100 feet and it registered 16 G’s when it hit water. That can kill you, we can only take about 10 G’s. Then think about hitting steel and concrete.

Q: Believers in Boeing 767s hitting the twin towers always bring up kinetic energy as the big explanation for how an aluminum plane could fly right through the wall of a steel and concrete tower. Speed squared is supposed make us believe the plane-like outline of the holes in the towers.

A: The more kinetic energy, the more damage the speeding object will do when it hits, but they’re claiming that it punched right through. The plane should have continued right through the building like a bullet through paper. Sure, in the bullet case, little kinetic energy is lost. No plane deceleration also means the plane never lost kinetic energy. Victor Thorn and the others, even though they’re good on demolition and no plane at the Pentagon, are afraid to come out for the No Plane Theory (NPT).

When Jerry Longspaugh, an aerospace engineer and SPINE member, saw a photo of a hole in one of the towers and thought he saw the core, he wrote to Kee and me, “It looks like the NPT is true.” Maybe Kee said something to him, I don’t know.

Kee’s got to be a phony. He’s been saying how sorry he was about the hassle I’m suffering from the plane huggers. That kind of thing is not unusual in my life.

Q: Why won’t Kee do the video test?

A: His university won’t let him.

Q: But he’s done a lot exposing 9/11 lies like proving the cell phone calls were impossible.

A: Kee is allowed some freedom but NPT is the key to the kingdom. It would topple the kingdom, so he won’t go there. Physics911.net has this “What may have happened” and “What did not happen” and he won’t use ‘em. He won’t run your article. They have to have Arab hijackers, so they have to have airplanes.

Q: So do you believe there were no planes?

A: Logic tells me there were no airliners involved. They never showed any wreckage, the hole was empty, and the government showed a few parts but no serial numbers, no part numbers.

Q: The government could have crashed a plane, say, in Pennsylvania, by remote control.

A: Too many problems. Somebody could pick up a part with a serial number.

Q: What about the controversy over high-energy explosives at the WTC?

A: Well, I tend to agree with those who believe they were used but my problem has always been the video. It was fake and that was the end of it for me. Case closed!

Q: Is SPINE or Scholars for 911 Truth doing any good?

A: Absolutely not, they haven’t done anything for a couple of years. SPINE is defunct. In 2004, for example, I sent something by Gerard Holmgren against the plane huggers to Kee and nothing came of it. SPINE never puts up anything controversial so it is just safe stuff, orthodoxy now.

Q: Nila Sagadevan is a big defender of planes at the WTC.

A: When he joined SPINE I called him up because he lived in southern California and found he lived only 6-7 miles from me. We talked about going for a beer but when I got around to the NPT, he said that was nonsense. “My friend Greg Szymanski visited ground zero and reported a jet engine so I know a plane hit the bldg,” and he hung up. Nila has some weird beliefs and I forwarded an email from him to Kee and wrote, “Ask this guy if he’s ever interviewed an ET.” Nila wants to get on talk shows, peddle his weird beliefs, and he depends on the media to sell his books. Gurus are liars.

Q: Why is there such resistance to NPT?

A: NPT is a direct attack on the head of the snake. You can go after Bush, Cheney and that whole compartmentalized entity but not the head of the snake. NPT is the only thing that we have direct evidence of, so it is very threatening. The media control everything because they can point the finger at anybody. The media is the enforcement arm of the head of the snake that controls everything. It can topple any government. And NPT is direct proof of their enforcement of the 9/11 scam. It’s the propaganda arm of the ruling class and NPT would break it all open. They’d be done."

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Hezarkani Fake CNN Fake Ghostplane Fake 2

"Oh My God! CNN 911 Video Is Fake! Shock and Awe!"

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Loose Change/We are Change "ground-breaking" Fireman Testimony Problematic

No offense, his story of the first plane, "The wing came through the other side and bodies were falling to the ground. Liberty street was on fire"

Does not hold.

There was no hole on the South side of the North Tower after the "hit" I have pictures of the ground there and there are no plane parts - let alone a wing. There are no bodies in the photos.

Liberty St. in front of the fire house is to the East of the South Tower. It is not adjacent to the South side of the North Tower.

How can an AL airplane wing penetrate through the building and come out the other side intact? The tower was caged in steel.

John's narrative also breaks apart when he describes the collapse of the North Tower. How did he know it was going to fall? Why didn't the fireman *all* turn back if they knew that? Why did he leave the building? Why is there so much time in his story between the initiation of the disintegration of the building and his getting out? The building turned to dust in 10 seconds.

There is so much more about his story which is confusing and needs clarification.

How did John know it was an airplane that hit when he was in the North Tower stairwell? How was anyone able to tell him, "a plane is coming" before "it " hit.

The "plane" was allegedly traveling at over 500 miles per hour and would not be recognizable as approaching even 4 or 5 seconds before it's "impact." Neither, at that speed, could anyone predict ahead of time, to where "it" was headed.

John, IMO, could be an elaborators and exaggerator (bullshit ) rather than an outright liar. But his story, as it stands, does not hold together. This is why in courts of law testimony is questioned. For clarification and to determine its proper weight and plausibility.

Neither did Luke or Avery seek to clear iup anything John said. Since neither will ever look at the discussions around the "plane" evidence they apparently have no idea even what questions to ask to bring clarity to the issue.

They seem to take exactly what John says at face value because of the emotional issue - John is a "first responder' and firefighter. Just as Les took a 'first responder's word for it last year when the man claimed to see a stewardess strapped into a chair on the roof of a building below - from the window of one of the Towers before it collapsed -with her throat cut. Everyone bought that. She flew out of the building from the crashing "plane" landed upright on the roof of a building nearby? Still strapped in her seat? I don't believe it. People say that is rude to the "first responder" but I simply don't believe it.

Everyone apparently believes Praimnath's story too, even when it is full of impossible absurdities - the "plane" hit his office at 500+ miles an hour and (allegedly) no part of it remained outside nor in the opening into which it (allegedly) disappeared - (which is BTW, too small for a 767 to disappear into) the wing was in the room with Praimnath, and he escaped being hit by the plane by hiding under a desk, although the "plane made a direct hit on his office while he was looking at it approach out his window, and escaped without a burn.

I don't believe that either.

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: <>911TruthNY / CHANGE
Date: Aug 8, 2007 5:18 PM

9/11 First Reponder / Fireman John Shroeder recounts his experience and questions the official story. This is ground-breaking testimony!
Let's spread this to the four corners of the Earth. Please REPOST!!

From Ningen's Blog on the effects of trauma on memory:
Post-event information influences memory

Excerpt from Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham, The Myth of Repressed Memory (St. Martin's Press, 1994)

Dr. Loftus is professor of psychology at UC-Irvine and University of Washington and a prominent expert on memory.

She has written other books and articles that may be more pertinent, but I have a copy of this book, and the below passage summarizes some of her findings that I think are relevant to consideration of 9/11 eyewitness accounts.

This excerpt describes Dr. Loftus' testimony on behalf of a man prosecuted for murdering his daughter's friend twenty years earlier, based solely on his daughter's accusation that she now remembered her father killing her friend.

I took the stand . . . and for two hours discussed my experiments investigating memory acquisition. I explained to the court that memory fades with time, losing detail and accuracy; as time goes by, the weakened memories are increasingly vulnerable to "post-event information" -- facts, ideas, inferences, and opinions that become available to a witness after an event is completely over. I told the jury about a series of experiments I conducted featuring a shocking film simulation of a robbery. At the end of the short film, a child is shot in the face. Subjects who watched the film with the shocking ending were able to recall details with significantly less accuracy than subjects who watched a similar film without the violent ending.

This study, I explained, tells us about the distortions that can occur in the acquisition stage of memory, when an event occurs and information is laid down in the memory system. Other studies tell us about the retention and retrieval stages of memory, after a period of time goes by and we are asked to recall a particular event or experience. Hundreds of experiments involving tens of thousands of individuals have shown that post-event information can become incorporated into memory and contaminate, supplement, or distort the original memory.

I described a study I'd conducted in which subjects watched a film of a robbery involving a shooting and were then exposed to a television account of the event which contained erroneous details. When asked to recount what happened during the robbery, many subjects incorporated erroneous details from the television report into their account. Once these details were inserted into a person's mind through the technique of exposure to post-event information, they were adopted as the truth and protected as fiercely as the "real," original details. Subjects typically resisted any suggestion that their richly detailed memories might have been flawed or contaminated and asserted with great confidence what their revised and adapted memories told them they saw.

I now see that Dr. Loftus has a number of papers online here:


I think the discussion of "misinformation effects" on page 5 of this paper is relevant to the 9/11 eyewitnesses:


And in this paper as well:


Wednesday, July 18, 2007

THE FIRST SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH CONFERENCE: The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not.

The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not

Propaganda by the government and the corporate media would have us believe that the 9/11 "inside job" hypothesis is not merely controversial but unsupported by proof. That is wrong. Academics, experts, and scholars who have examined the physical evidence and considered this event within its historical context tend to converge in agreement that the inside-job hypothesis is, in fact, strongl ysupported by the available evidence, while the version advanced in The 9/11 Commission Report is not only false but provably false and incrucial respects physically impossible. That the official account of 9/11 is a lie and that 9/11 appears to have been an inside job is no longer a matter of serious scientific debate. If you have any doubt, visit our site at 911scholars.org.

Even though the broad outlines of what happened are no longer controversial--for example, we know that The World Trade Center was intentionally demolished by a high-energy causal process physically unrelated to plane crashes and resulting fires--the precise details ofhow the perpetrators carried out the attack remains the subject of intense controversy. What we know with relative certainty about 9/11 is already the story of the century: it demands re-thinking our history, our politics, perhaps even our way of life. From a scientific rather than political standpoint, controversial questions about what may have happened on 9/11 are fascinating and challenging--not least of all because they could lead to a better understanding of 9/11 with respect to its social and political significance. And if high-tech weaponry was used at the WTC, that would rather strongly implicate theDepartment of Defense as their source.

In an attempt to clarify these matters, Scholars for 9/11 Truth willbe hosting a conference entitled "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not?", to be held 3-5 August 2007 in Madison, WI. I think we can all agree that the most important dimension of our efforts is explaining why the "official account" that the government has advanced cannot be sustained. Since there can be disagreements even here about what we should or should not emphasize and what has or has not been proven to an extent sufficient to emphasize them as basic "refutations" of the government's account, Kevin Barrett and I will discuss the science and the politics of 9/11 research as the opening session.

The major sessions will be devoted to the issues that have tended to divide us. Judy Wood, Frank Greening, and Bob Fitrakis will explore and analyze the serious possibility that non-conventional means, including high-tech, directed energy weapons, may have been used along with conventional methods to destroy the World Trade Center. Jerry Leaphart, Ed Haas, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Wood will discuss their historic legal actions involving the NIST. Morgan Reynolds, Rick Rajter, and Dave von Kleist will discuss what did or did not happened to the planes alleged to have hit the Pentagon, Shanksville, and the WTC on 9/11. Ed Haas of THE MUCKRACKER REPORT will present our keynote address on "The National 9/11 Non-Debate".

Registration, including lunches on both days, will be $125. Attendance at the meeting is limited to 150 participants. This conference will be distinctive by focusing on the issues that have divided us, by longer sessions dealing with them in great depth and, by virtue of its size, affording unusual opportunities for personal interaction between the speakers and the participants. You will get to know Kevin Barrett, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, Ed Haas, Jerry Leaphart, Bob Fitrakis, Frank Greening, Dave von Kleist, Rick Rajter, Jim Fetzer, and more.


The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not
3-5 August 2007, Madison, WI

The conference will be held at the
Radisson Hotel Madison,
517 Grand Canyon Drive,
Madison, WI 53719.
Information about the hotel may be located on-line at www.radisson.com/madisonwi.

The hotel provides complimentary breakfasts, has a pool and exercise room, with very nice accommodations. The rooms run $99 per night. Registration, including two lunches, will run $125.


Friday, 3 August 2007

7-10 PM, Registration

Saturday, 4 August 2007

7-9 AM, Registration

9 AM-Noon: The Science and Politics of 9/11

Jim Fetzer, Scholars, and Kevin Barrett, MUJCA

Noon-1 PM: Deli Sandwich, Soup, and Salad Buffet

1-4 PM: What Happened to the World Trade Center?

Judy Wood, Scholars, Frank Greening, and Bob Fitrakis

4-6 PM: The National 9/11 Non-Debate

Ed Haas, Editor, The Muckraker Report

6-8 PM: Dinner on your own on the town

8-11 PM: Taking Legal Action against NIST

Jerry Leaphart, Ed Haas, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood

Sunday, 5 August 2007

9 AM-1 PM: What Happened to the Airplanes?

Morgan Reynolds & Rick Rajter, Scholars, and Dave von Kleist

1 PM-2 PM: Hot Lunch Buffet, Closing Remarks

The conference will be limited to 150 participants. The program ends early on Sunday for afternoon flights. The hotel has a limo service to and from the Dane County/Madison Airport.

Rooms at the conference rate are only guaranteed until 13 July and thereafter depend upon availability. And you must register in order to reserve your room.

To register, send a check to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, 800 Violet Lane, Oregon, WI 53575. Please contact Jim Fetzer, Program Chair, for more information at jfetzer@d.umn.edu.

Anyone who has thoughts about the program that they would like to share is welcome to forward them to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu at their earliest convenience. This conference should provide an opportunity for experts on complex and technical scientific questions to explain their research and its significance. My hope is that by subjecting each others' research to rigorous but collegial criticism, the
attention-getting controversial aspects of 9/11 research may be turned into a benefit, rather than a distraction, in the larger process of seeking and exposing the truth about 9/11 and gaining an adequate scientific understanding of how all of this was done.

James H. Fetzer
Scholars for 9/11 Truth