May 2010

David Ray Griffin
Published May 27, 2010
911Truth.org

At 5:21 PM on 9/11, Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed, even though
it had not been hit by a plane – a fact that is important because of the widespread
acceptance of the idea, in spite of its scientific absurdity, that the Twin
Towers collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airliners
plus the ensuing jet-fuel-fed fires. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC
7) thereby challenges the official account of the destruction of the World Trade
Center, according to which it was accomplished by al-Qaeda hijackers, even if
one accepts the government’s scientifically impossible account of the Twin Towers.
This fact was recently emphasized in the title of a review article based
on my 2009 book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7,1
by National Medal of Science-winner Lynn Margulis: “Two Hit, Three Down
– The Biggest Lie.”2

1. Why the Collapse of WTC 7 Created an
Extraordinary Problem

The collapse of WTC 7 created an
extraordinary problem for the official account of 9/11 for several reasons.

by Peter Dale Scott
May 24, 2010
JapanFocus.org
The Asia-Pacific Journal, 21-2-10

In July 1987, during the Iran-Contra Hearings grilling of Oliver North, the American public got a glimpse of “highly sensitive” emergency planning North had been involved in. Ostensibly these were emergency plans to suspend the American constitution in the event of a nuclear attack (a legitimate concern). But press accounts alleged that the planning was for a more generalized suspension of the constitution.

As part of its routine Iran-contra coverage, the following exchange was printed in the New York Times, but without journalistic comment or follow-up:

[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

Both North’s attorney and Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the Committee, responded in a way that showed they were aware of the issue:

Brendan Sullivan [North's counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?

[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?
Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.
Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.1

But we have never heard if there was or was not an executive session, or if the rest of Congress was ever aware of the matter. According to James Bamford, “The existence of the secret government was so closely held that Congress was completely bypassed.”2 (Key individuals in Congress were almost certainly aware.)

(AFP) — May 21, 2010
Googlenews.com
LONDON — Inquests into the deaths of 56 people in London’s July 2005
suicide bombings will probe alleged failings by police and MI5 intelligence
before the attacks, the coroner conducting the hearings said Friday.
Judge Heather Hallett also ruled that inquests into four suicide bombers will
be held separately from those of the 52 victims, a relief to families who had
protested plans to hold the inquests together.
The suicide bombers set off near-simultaneous explosions on three London Underground
trains and a double-decker bus on the morning of July 7, 2005, in what has become
known as 7/7, nearly four years after the 9/11 attacks in the United States.
Hallett, giving details of arrangements for the inquests due to start in October,
said they would probe what police and MI5 officers knew ahead of the shock attacks.
"The scope of the inquest into the 52 deaths will include the alleged
intelligence failings and the immediate aftermath of the bombings," she
said.

Submitted by John Bursill
Story by Naomi Breeze
May 20, 2010
Below is a moving and powerful story by one of the hardest working and
most determined 9/11 Truth Advocates I know, Naomi Breeze. She has guts and
determination in spades and will not be stopped in her quest to get justice
for the victims of the 9/11 attacks that include ten Australians!
Solo Truth Action in Newcastle, Australia on the 14 of May 2010
Story by Naomi Breeze
After stumbling across 9/11 Truth on the internet about three years ago I contacted
John Bursill of 9/11 Truth Australia and have been a passionate 9/11 Truther
ever since. I feel privileged to have been involved with two successful conferences
in Sydney, Australia and am honoured to have met some of my 9/11 Truth heroes.
I attended a talk in my hometown of Newcastle on 14 May 2010 by ex-Fire Fighter,
ex-Chief Dan Daly, about 9/11 and how it changed his life. The talk was organised
by a Catholic Church Chaplain through his Passionist Family Group and cost $5.00.
The Chaplain is a personal friend of Dan and was in New York on September 11,
2001.

May 19, 2010
Washingtonsblog.com

The U.S. government suppressed health information after 9/11. For
example, as Newsday noted
in 2003:

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center,
the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the
public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe
when reliable information on air quality was not available.
That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the
Inspector General of the EPA.

Because the government lied about the health risks involved, many heroic first
responders didn’t use any real precautions, and so have gotten sick and died.
And see this.
The same thing appears to be happening in connection with the Gulf oil spill.
Specifically, marine toxicologist Ricki Ott writes: