Big day for 9/11 justice: Jimmy Dore interviews Leroy Hulsey and IC911 debates Twin Towers’ destruction

Yesterday was a big day for the pursuit of 9/11 justice!

After years of tip-toeing closer and closer to speaking the truth about the demolition of the WTC towers, comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore interviewed Dr. Leroy Hulsey about his computer modeling study of World Trade Center Building 7, which Dr. Hulsey conducted in his final years as a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Dr. Hulsey’s interview with the influential YouTuber is a major step forward for the pursuit of 9/11 justice and will hopefully give more journalists the confidence to begin talking about and investigating what really happened on 9/11.

You can help by contacting Dore and urging him to interview Kevin Ryan about who was responsible for 9/11 — a topic Dore has touched on in recent months and appears ready to delve into further. Be sure to note that Ryan is the editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies and author of Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects.

The full livestream that aired yesterday is currently not available, but short segments of the interview have been posted on X.

Clip from Jimmy Dore interviewing Professor Leroy Hulsey about WTC7.

Comparison of Leroy Hulsey's building of model and NIST's model to the actual footage of WTC7 collapse. Why didn't NIST enact code changes if buildings can suddenly collapse due to fire?… pic.twitter.com/rPKPEu5qBM

— 911Gene (@911Gene) December 9, 2023

IC911 debates YouTuber Sabin Mathew about the Twin Towers’ demolition

Earlier in the day, civil engineer Jonathan Cole and IC911 Executive Director Ted Walter debated Sabin Mathew, host of the YouTube engineering channel Lesics, which has 6.5 million subscribers.

Two months ago Mathew released a video that falsely and superficially advocates the progressive collapse theory of the Twin Towers’ destruction. It has since accumulated more than six million views.

Although the debate was hampered by technical issues and the host interrupted us several times, we were able to make our core arguments and provide lots of information that should be useful to viewers exploring the issue seriously for the first time.

Two months ago a popular YouTube channel called Lesics released a video on the Twin Towers’ destruction that has now accumulated more than six million views. You can watch the video here:

Unfortunately, the video’s creator, Sabin Mathew, puts forward a deeply flawed and evidence-free theory similar to that of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Realizing the opportunity to educate Mr. Sabin and the 6.5 million subscribers to his channel, we at IC911 approached him about having a discussion, and he graciously accepted.

Please join us tomorrow at 9:45 AM Eastern on the Lesics channel as civil engineer Jonathan Cole and IC911 Executive Director Ted Walter have a friendly scientific debate with Mr. Mathew.

We hope this discussion will reach millions of viewers worldwide just as the public’s interest in reexamining what really happened on 9/11 seems to be heating up.

On November 15, 2023, the Center shared the news that a German structural engineering professor with expertise in demolition, Maximilian Ruppert, had recently spoken out about 9/11, and we published a portion of his November 4, 2023, interview at the Club der Klaren Worte in Munich, Germany.

Today we are pleased to provide the full interview with English subtitles along with a transcript.

In the part of the interview we did not previously release, Ruppert speaks about why he remained silent for so long and about what he calls “the beginning of the end of science” that occurred on September 11, 2001.

We recommend watching or reading the full interview with Ruppert — a vastly qualified and articulate new voice in the pursuit of 9/11 justice.

Special thanks are owed to Sandra Jelmi and Gene Laratonda for their hard work in providing the translation and video captions.

---

Maximilian Ruppert:

I haven’t actually spoken about it since that event, September 11, 2001 — at least not publicly. This is the first time today, and I didn’t actually plan on doing it.

* * *

Announcer:

The Club der Klaren Worte is an independent and nonpartisan information platform. We are not funded by any organization or party. Only our viewers and readers support our work. Thank you for that.

Markus Langemann:

Hello, my name is Markus Langemann. I am a journalist with the Club der Klaren Worte. We organized its first forum on November 4, 2023. You can also see the lectures and discussion contributions in the media library at klubderklarenworte.de. And, for the first time in over 20 years, a German expert in structural engineering took a public stance on 9/11 during this forum.

Prof. Dr. Maximilian Ruppert speaks from his professional perspective as a structural engineer about the Twin Towers in New York and the paradigm shift in science that, for him, began with this act of terror.

If you want more people to see this video, please give it a quick comment and like. You can find more independent and non-partisan information at klubderklarenworte.de. Here is the conference recording of this interview.

Ladies and gentlemen, at least we have now kept our promise, that was less than a minute. And now we have a very good reason to invite Prof. Ruppert to the stage.

Dr. Maximilian Ruppert. Let’s sit down now, please. Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps just briefly explain your biography. Maximilian Ruppert is an expert in the field of structural engineering and physics.

And, of course, he also has extensive experience in the analysis of building structures and especially his expertise in the physics of explosions. Let’s discuss this very briefly to begin this conversation.

I promise that I am not being disrespectful toward the interviewee or the subject matter. We know each other personally, and I will be using the informal “you,” as we’ve known each other for about a year.

We don’t know each other particularly well, but we both live in the same area of Munich. And we agreed that it would be silly to pretend. We’d rather leave that to other forums and media. And that’s why we treat each other the way we do; that’s why we’re using the informal “you.” It’s nice that you’re here, Maximilian.

Ruppert:

Yes, thank you.

Langemann:

Maximilian, we chose the title for this short interview sequence: “9/11, The Beginning of the End of Science.” But perhaps you would first like to say something about your area of expertise in Ingolstadt. What is your profession exactly?

Ruppert:

Yes, if you google me, you will find me, among other things, as a professor at the Technical University of Ingolstadt. And the title for me is Fundamentals of Engineering. And these are actually exactly my subjects: statics, mechanics, and strength of materials. But also, let me say, assessments of technical risk from an engineering perspective. Those are my subjects. Add to that innovation methods. That rounds the whole thing off a bit.

Langemann:

You were a young man back then when the event of 9/11 happened. And we had talked about it at a private event. That did something to you. That was exactly your core area back then — namely, explosions and structural analysis. And I would ask you to describe what you experienced back then, what you felt, and maybe just describe it a little bit.

Ruppert:

Yes, first perhaps also the history — how it actually came about that we’re talking here now. Markus, who inspired me a bit, to be honest, convinced me to talk about 9/11 here. I haven’t actually spoken about it since September 11, 2001, at least not publicly. This is actually the first time today. And I hadn’t actually planned on it, but, as you rightly say, we talked about it at this private event. And then after a while you asked me to talk about it at your event. I was torn and not 100% convinced yet. But maybe it will flow now, as it did back then at the event. At that time, I couldn’t stop talking, and now we have an audience.

Maybe I’ll just tell you why I’m qualified to assess the situation. So, I’ll dig into that a little bit now. As a little boy, I always liked handling explosives — not entirely legally. My father supported me.

At one point I removed a piece of the garden and created a half-meter-deep crater. I wasn’t scolded. But I felt bad for my father. My mother didn’t speak to him for three days because he liked getting the stuff at the pharmacy, always by the gram. You could still do that back then. That’s no longer possible today.

All my life — in fact, already as a child — I was fascinated by the topic of demolitions. And so, when I turned 18, I attended the Technische Hilfswerk (THW) and passed their courses in demolitions and was finally allowed to do it legally — chimneys, trees, and so on.

I really know how to do this in practice. How to do a shearing demolition, for example. How to destroy train tracks to derail the train. We really learned how to do such things at the THW.

You should know, the Technische Hilfswerk has a historical background, of course, so back then they had to include such things into their portfolio. And these were my first, well, structural/practical calculations. Then I studied civil engineering at the TU Munich and went straight to the Bundeswehr University and spent four-and-a-half years on my thesis on the effects of impact and explosions on buildings.

And then in September of 2000, one year before 9/11 — actually, pretty much to the day — I defended my thesis on this topic and was, I have to say in all modesty, one of the few people who ended up creating a standard to calculate such things.

And now, to answer your actual question: Exactly one year later, I was still employed at the chair of Baustatik und Numerische Methoden [“structural analysis and numerical methods”]. We organized a little party because a dear colleague of mine acquired his PhD title, having finished his thesis one year after me. It was on this day, September 11th, that we had a really great party, as we should have.

I mean, you spend all this time researching, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and your topic is always in your head, for years, and you are fully invested. And so, we celebrated with my dear colleague. Then the celebration was suddenly over, and big monitors were rolled in. I remember it as if it were yesterday, even if it was so long ago. The party was over and then . . . Military personnel were also present. Anyone of importance was there.

Americans were not present. Normally they are always there when there is a party, and this was actually the reason why a higher-ranking officer said: “Look what happened there! The Americans are bringing down these towers and didn’t even bother to tell us! The audacity! Well, when there is a demolition on our side” — I’m now quoting him — “then they always come over to drink and guzzle, and now we can’t join them.”

This was the spontaneous reaction within the first seconds, after seeing the images. But then silence overcame us, because we realized that people had been harmed, and this took our breath away in the truest sense of the word.

Langemann:

So, could this small group of professionals see these images and truly instantly evaluate them? I mean, this sounds absurd. Who can instantly evaluate? But you did already elaborate on how long you have worked on these topics.

Ruppert:

All of us in that room did research these topics. This was a small community in the German-speaking area [of Europe]. There was also one in Israel with whom we were in close contact, and one in the USA, and [one] in the Far East as well, and that was it. So, everybody knew everybody.

And on that day, the German community — Berlin, Freiburg im Breisgau, Munich Bundeswehr University — they were all present. And we basically knew instantly, for buildings to come down that way, it can only be a planned procedure.

We also felt — wow, respect! This is a really clean job! This is quite a feat! This is not easy! You have to think about it this like — well, I won’t hold a structural engineering class right now, don’t worry — but to come up with the structural calculations to erect such a building — especially one of these dimensions — requires maybe one-hundredth of the effort and also of the technical expertise compared to what it takes to bring down such a building in this particular manner. You can always knock it down, but to do it without any great collateral damage, I mean . . .

Langemann:

Careful! We have to respect [the victims].

Ruppert:

With all due respect to the people who were harmed. But normally you clear the area and then you bring it down, if you are planning it, so it comes straight down without significant collateral damage with respect to the infrastructure — and, of course, also with respect to the people.

Bringing down this type of building really means two years of the hardest work and preparation, both in terms of engineering and calculations — these days virtual, with the help of computers — as well as actual practical work on the site. Once I brought down a chimney. At the THW we were going at it with the Flex and cutting every lightning rod. The smallest disturbance could cause it [the chimney] to topple over.

My master of explosives, God rest his soul, who taught us these things at the THW, always said: “Guys, there is one mistake you should never make: announce beforehand how the chimney will fall. Instead, you should wait and say only afterwards: “This is where I wanted it to fall.” [Audience laughs.] You can see how difficult it is to bring these things down with such precision. This is really a profound art.

Langemann:

Was there, after the observation of this collapse . . . was there any doubt in this small circle? Could people have said: “Well, maybe it really is some other event, because . . . the planes — we all saw them.”

Ruppert:

No, no doubts. Not one. That didn’t happen. We instantly knew. This had to have been facilitated through a planned explosion however this was accomplished. But we instantly knew: They were brought down in a controlled manner. And we had only seen the two towers. The third tower [WTC 7], this I only understood many years later.

Langemann:

At this point we don’t even want to discuss the event and the media coverage of it, so to speak, but we’ll just accept it as it is. We have an expert sitting here with us and he is speaking, basically without authorization, for a group of scientists. And where there was a clear question there were doubts. Was there a clear answer? No. For many years, as you said at the beginning — I just want us to be able to get a proper measure of this — you said you had never spoken about it, for good reasons.

Ruppert:

Yes.

Langemann:

Why?

Ruppert:

As I said, during the earlier discussion I listened and heard from quite a few. Bernd Fleischmann, in particular, stated this very well earlier and thanked those who could afford this courage. I would also like to add to that and say that you have to be able to afford this courage. I couldn’t afford the courage to rebel back then, or I just didn’t.

I’ve been ashamed about it for years, to be honest. I actually should have rebelled.

Langemann:

You were 28 years old at the time?

Ruppert:

Yes, I was 28 at the time and was working on my doctorate.

Langemann:

You were unattached, free, you didn’t have a family to support. You could have stood up.

Ruppert:

That’s true, but I was actually planning on starting a family. My dear wife, who is here now, was also in the active training phase back then, in the process of starting a family. And it worked out, too. Yes, that was the situation back then.

There was already a point where I stood up and became loud. And then I realized what consequences that had. And then I became quiet for a while.

Maybe one could ask: Why did I even come here today and talk about 9/11?

As I said, I could have done it sooner, but it was so long ago. But I think there is a motivation why I’m doing this today. Because I want to create a little bit of understanding when you say “Why doesn’t science stand up?” Or at least the three percent of us, because the other 97 percent all, which is also nonsense. But where is the three percent? I can only explain it to you from my own history.

So, I was 28 at the time and was handing in my doctorate. Then it takes months. You’re shaking. Then it’s finally time where you can defend yourself, and then you get a title, beautifully decorated.

And a year later you are in a state of shock and wonder, “Have I really devoted 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for many years, to complete nonsense?” So, damn it, what I did is true. So, I know that I’m right. You are actually 100 percent clear straightaway.

It’s a surprise when you see something like that on TV with other people. Well, I still remember that week I called in Israel, in the USA, in the Near East, in the Far East too, and told one of them, “Ted, do you know these guys who appear on television talking about the collapse of the towers?” He says, “No, I don’t know them at all.” He was much older than me. He should have known these people. People were interviewed that none of us knew.

We weren’t interviewed. I wasn’t approached by any journalist, even though I had actually, you could say, created this numerical standard — one for calculating such things.

Then you doubt yourself. And then some people say something and then they become defamed. You have to see it that way, too. So, you’re quiet and at first you’re in a state of shock. And then comes the next moment.

That’s not an excuse. It’s just an explanation, where you compensate for all the drama with success somewhere else.

So it happened that I was fed up with science, I have to admit honestly. And then you go into industry. That’s where you wanted to go, anyway. I made ten times as much money.

That’s it: I made money and was successful, so I was able to distract myself really well.

And then, coupled with the first bashing — that really hurts you. I still remember that. I’ll say it directly now. My father-in-law, whom I respect very much, is an entrepreneur from whom I learned a lot. Part of my success is due to the discussions with him. I then explained it [to him], and he just said, “What you’re saying isn’t true. I saw it myself on ARD, on ZDF. That’s just airplanes. Don’t say such stupidities.”

And then you ask yourself, “Well, if he can say this — even though he really likes and appreciates me and there is such mutual respect and also admiration on his part for me getting a doctorate at such a young age — when someone like that says straight-up that I should keep my mouth shut, even if he means it lovingly, then what happens if I say it out loud and people don’t react so kindly?”

So that’s a situation in which you as a young person feel overwhelmed. And today, quite frankly — and this was also expressed earlier — today I honestly don’t care about it. So with everything secured, what can they do now? Defame me as a conspiracy theorist? That doesn’t bother me anymore. Today I can do it.

Langemann:

In this context, let us perhaps speak again of the infamous word “evidence” in science.

Ruppert:

Yes, just like the title says, this is the beginning of the end of evidence-based science — i.e., natural science or engineering. That’s what I tell myself. It’s all based on empirical science. So I need numbers, data, facts, which I collect diligently.

If you look at the root of the word empiria, from the Old Greek, then it is already the internalized wealth of experience. That is how it is defined. And now maybe what you meant earlier, I just have a clear question with a clear yes or no answer in this case.

You can believe me, but you don’t have to believe me, either. I don’t claim today that what I say will be accepted. But let’s be honest. Every one of you is, to a certain extent, a scientist. Yes, all of us. We do nothing other than observe things.

There are cases where demolitions took place, where it was done professionally in order to bring down such a building. There are hundreds of documented examples. That is evidence-based, I would say. That is your own observation.

There are also hundreds of examples where buildings are destroyed by fires, even large fires. And what they look like afterwards is shown in the pictures and the material — moving images or simply photographs — and that is also captured.

So, we all know, through our own observation, what is what — and can respect it that way. You don’t need me as an engineer. Thank God you don’t have to read my 350-page dissertation! That’s totally boring, anyway, just formulas and stuff. Leave it alone. Save yourself the time.

If you want to know exactly how to calculate something like that, okay, there are also updates. It was so long ago — over 20 years. But you don’t need any of that. If we just say, “When will the whole topic come to an end?” — i.e., when will we talk about the end of science as I now understand it or as I define it — then it is nothing other than making this observation myself and giving myself the time to internalize it. That is empiria.

If I rely on it and then completely replace it with the stories of others, then for me science is at the end. And on that day, on the 11th of September 2001, this story no longer agreed with my observation, the observation of all my colleagues — not in the slightest.

When my colleagues started saying, “Yes, but it could be like that after all,” I dropped out. I can’t hear that now, guys. And the others who didn’t go through with that also left the apprenticeship or went into industry — distracted themselves, made money, maybe even lining one’s pockets, one or the other, though I’d say, generally speaking, made money and never brought up the topic again.

Langemann:

Ladies and gentlemen, this is almost a good ending point for this moment. It was important to us here to just give you this point. Perhaps it is a kind of starting point to explain the dissonance that we still feel in our society today and to ask you, Maximilian, to speak from your very personal perspective and your very personal experience.

You said earlier — and this brings us to the end here —  you said earlier that at some point you lost the desire to continue doing scientific work, to be a scientist. But you can’t really give that up. You were active in business. I would like to briefly promote, so to speak, the Akademie der Denker. Take maybe just a minute to briefly explain what you are doing.

Ruppert:

Well, I hadn’t planned that in advance, but it was already mentioned before. The longing for the freedom of science is in my heart. Out of that grew some initiatives to create free academies. One of them is the Akademie der Denker. You’re warmly invited to maybe talk to me about this later. I don’t want to say anything more about it now.

Langemann:

Well, maybe you’ll take that with you, ladies and gentlemen. Time for a refreshment. And I think — I’ll take a look — I think there’s a 60-minute break. Please proceed to the adjoining room. See you later.

* * *

Please also visit our website and subscribe to the free newsletter for more information. Our work is only possible because you support us. Bank and PayPal accounts can be found under this video. Thank you for your support and see you next time.

We at the International Center for 9/11 Justice are honored to make available for free on our website one of the great contributions of our late dear friend Dr. Graeme MacQueen: his 2014 book The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy.

Without this seminal work, the 9/11 research community and the broader public would know vastly less about the 2001 anthrax attacks and their connection to the preceding false flag attack of 9/11.

A brief synopsis

Through his meticulous research and incisive analysis, Dr. MacQueen makes the compelling case that the anthrax attacks were perpetrated by a group of insiders deep within the US state apparatus.

The perpetrators’ goal, he argues, was to sustain the level of fear created by 9/11 and to frame al-Qaeda and Iraq — thus reinforcing the initial pretext for the global war on terror while also implicating a state actor and elevating the perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction.

When the plan to frame al-Qaeda and Iraq failed, the perpetrators turned to the domestic “lone wolf” limited hangout. The FBI ultimately charged US Army biodefense researcher Bruce Ivins, who conveniently took his own life before the case against him could be prosecuted.

Dr. MacQueen’s book is a must-read. For those of you who’ve already read it, we encourage you to use the online version as a resource and a means of sharing the book with others. You can find it in our Republished Books archive together with Another Nineteen.

Almost a year to the day after Maximilian Ruppert defended his PhD thesis on the effects of explosions on buildings, he and a room full of colleagues watched in disbelief as each of the Twin Towers crumbled on television before their eyes.

All of them — experts in structures and/or explosives — realized immediately, without a shadow of a doubt, that the buildings had been brought down by controlled demolition.

Now, more than two decades later, Ruppert has broken his silence, speaking publicly about what he knew from day one and admitting that he feels ashamed for having waited so long.

About two weeks ago, on November 4, 2023, Ruppert told his story to Markus Langemann at the Club der Klaren Worte in Munich, Germany. One week later Langemann published a video of the interview. After two days it has amassed more than 100,000 views.

Because the interview has no English subtitles, the Center has republished a portion of it with English subtitles on our X page; this video now has more than 90,000 views. If Langemann grants us permission, we will republish the entire interview with English subtitles.

An unusually credible voice

Ruppert’s background makes him an unusually credible voice when it comes to assessing that the Twin Towers were demolished.

Not only did he earn a doctorate in structural engineering, but prior to that he received demolition training at the German Federal Agency for Technical Relief and then went on to perform several demolitions on his own.

According to Ruppert, he then became, through his PhD work, one of the few people in the world to have created standards for calculating the effects of explosions on structures.

Is Ruppert’s decision to speak out yet another sign that the tide is starting to turn? What more will Ruppert do, and what impact will his speaking out have? Stay tuned for more on this developing story.

MUST-SEE INTERVIEW: Maximilian Ruppert, a German professor of structural engineering with expertise in demolition, says that he and his colleagues knew immediately on 9/11 that the Twin Towers were demolished.

The full interview is available here: https://t.co/CnuyGxo42w pic.twitter.com/iG3Najczar

— International Center for 9/11 Justice (@ic911justice) November 14, 2023

Join the International Center for 9/11 Justice and UK Column for the First Annual David Ray Griffin Lecture on December 3, 2023 — to be given by Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser.

The Annual David Ray Griffin Lecture will be held each year around the time of the late professor’s November 25, 2022, passing. It is intended to honor Dr. Griffin’s immense contribution to the pursuit of truth and peace and to carry on his legacy of scholarship in service of those principles.

The Ruthless Empire Post-9/11

In this year’s lecture, titled “The Ruthless Empire Post-9/11,” Ganser will examine the actions the U.S. government has taken in the 22 years since 9/11 with the goal of maintaining and expanding its global hegemony, particularly in Eastern Europe and parts of Asia.

Ganser’s talk will draw from his latest book, USA: The Ruthless Empire — published in German in 2020 and in English in 2023 — but will also focus on two major ongoing conflicts that have developed since the book was written: NATO’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and U.S. ally Israel’s brutal war in Gaza.

Ganser is perhaps best known for his book NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, published in English in 2004.

Opening Remarks and Roundtable

Opening remarks will be given by 9/11 and social justice researcher Elizabeth Woodworth and renowned international legal scholar Richard Falk, who were both close colleagues of Griffin during his career.

Then, following Ganser’s hour-long lecture, Ganser and Falk, together with Marilyn Langlois, a longtime 9/11 and peace activist, will participate in a roundtable discussion. It will be moderated by Piers Robinson, a researcher of propaganda, conflict, and media. (Woodworth, Langlois, and Robinson are all members of the IC911 board of directors.)

Audience members will be invited to submit questions to be discussed during the roundtable.

The two-hour event will be professionally livestreamed by independent news organization UK Column. It will begin at 7:00 PM CET / 1:00 PM EST / 10:00 AM PST on Sunday, December 3, 2023.

A link to attend will be sent out closer to the date of the event. A video of the event will be posted shortly afterward.

Please save the date and spread the word. We look forward to seeing you there!

In the second discussion thread to be added to the Center’s “Debated Topics Forum,” researchers David Chandler and Wayne Coste examine the impact damage to the west face wall of the Pentagon.

Chandler and Coste write:

“We envision this to be the first of a series of papers that discuss the best evidence showing that Flight AA77, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed Dulles Airport and impacted the west face of the Pentagon. The purpose of this initial paper is to provide the observational details that establish the preliminary conclusion that the Pentagon was impacted by a large airplane consistent with a Boeing 757. The evidence is inconsistent with theories that the damage was due to fire, explosives, or impact by a small plane or missile.”

Responses welcomed through February 2024

We at the Center cordially invite the 9/11 research community to read this paper, and we welcome anyone who disagrees with the arguments being presented to submit a response paper in accordance with the Forum’s Publication Guidelines.

Responses must be submitted within four months — i.e., by Feb. 27, 2024. Responses will not be subject to peer review; they need only meet the minimal standards set forth in the Publication Guidelines.

The Debated Topics Forum is intended to be a venue for constructive, evidence-based discussions about long-debated questions in the 9/11 research community. It is our hope that the forum will serve as a platform for genuine scholarly debate that produces major advances in our understanding of 9/11.

We thank everyone in advance for their interest and participation.

Today the International Center for 9/11 Justice is republishing the final three chapters of Kevin Ryan’s landmark 2013 book, Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. Ryan’s introduction to these chapters is below.

Now that the entire book is available for free, we encourage you to share it with anyone who may be looking for fact-based answers about who had the means, motive and opportunity to carry out the crimes of 9/11.

---

Author’s Note on ‘Another Nineteen’ Chapters 15, 16 and 17

The final three chapters of Another Nineteen address two final suspects and then consider conclusions that can be drawn from the investigation.

Chapter 15 focuses on Duane Andrews, an Air Force intelligence officer who later, as a staffer, managed the House Intelligence Committee before leaving government to run operations for Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Andrews was an expert on the defense and information systems that failed on 9/11, and his company profited greatly from the attacks. Andrews also was a protégé of Dick Cheney, whom he called his “personal lifelong hero.”

Under Andrews’ leadership, SAIC created and managed the databases for tracking terrorists, supplied aircraft security equipment, predicted and investigated terrorist attacks against the WTC (both in 1993 and 2001), helped create the official account for what happened at the WTC, and provided the information that was used to capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11. SAIC was also part of the clean-up effort at Ground Zero, using robotic equipment that was designed for the removal of unignited explosives.

Chapter 16 examines Porter Goss. Having been a long-time CIA operative who was allegedly involved in assassinations and attempts to overthrow Fidel Castro, Goss became a U.S. congressman from two districts in Florida where Mohamed Atta and friends lived and went to flight school. Goss was a strong supporter of the Bush Administration and, like Bush and Cheney, he initially rejected calls for a 9/11 investigation. He then worked to prevent criticism of the White House during the investigation. Goss led the passive cover-up effort known as the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001” and agreed to redact its report to protect the Saudis. After becoming director of the CIA in 2004, Goss ensured that no one in U.S. intelligence was held accountable for the many failures related to the attacks.

The final chapter of the book reviews some of the most critical evidence revealed in earlier chapters and suggests next steps for an independent investigation.

I’m proud to say that the purpose of the book was fulfilled, as it clearly describes how powerful insiders had the means, motive and opportunity to commit and cover up the crimes of September 11th. Strong leads are provided for independent investigators to follow that will, if pursued honestly and objectively, lead to the truth about what happened that day and to justice for the victims of 9/11 and the 9/11 wars.

Kevin Ryan, October 2023

Dear Friends,

The International Center for 9/11 Justice was launched in June 2023, and in just four months a huge amount of progress has been made.

None of it would have been possible without hundreds of people rising to the occasion and donating in the Center’s early days.

Now I’m asking you to join our growing community!

Only with your help can the Center become a vehicle that is capable of lasting the long haul and sparking a global 9/11 awakening.

Join before Nov. 1 and receive the ‘Peace, War and 9/11’ DVD!

Between now and November 1, become a sustaining supporter at $10 or more per month and you’ll receive your own DVD of Peace, War and 9/11, which will be available to members only.

Or, if you prefer to make a one-time gift, donate $100 or more before the deadline and you can receive the DVD that way.

Dr. Graeme MacQueen — the now-deceased narrator of Peace, War and 9/11 — once poignantly remarked:

“The story of 9/11 is not over yet. It’s up to us to construct a humane ending to this story — an ending which has justice and truth in it.”

I couldn’t agree more with Graeme. The story of 9/11 isn’t over yet — as long as we continue our fight for truth.

Right now is our chance to truly reinvigorate the worldwide pursuit of 9/11 justice. Please become a sustaining supporter of IC911 today and help write the final chapter of the 9/11 story.

As Graeme put it, “It’s up to us.”

Onward,

Ted Walter
Executive Director
International Center for 9/11 Justice

P.S. Become a sustaining supporter before November 1 and help make the Center a vehicle capable of sparking a global 9/11 awakening!

P.P.S. If you’re an existing sustaining supporter, thank you! You’ll receive your own Peace, War and 9/11 DVD without needing to donate again!

Soon after the launch of IC911 in June of this year, board members Piers Robinson and Kevin Ryan joined researcher Aaron Good on his podcast, American Exception, to talk about the new organization.

The episode was originally behind a paywall but as of September 11th has been made publicly available to non-paying listeners.

For those who are eager or curious to learn more about the Center and the people behind it, this interview provides an excellent overview.

You can find the interview on Podbean, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and other podcast platforms.