In the years following the attacks of September 11, 2001, professionals from various fields, including; physicists, mathematicians, chemists1, architects, engineers2, lawyers3, and academics4 have challenged the U.S. government’s official explanation for the events of 9/11. Through continued research5, legal action6, and ongoing public awareness campaigns, these professionals, along with concerned members of the public7, seek a new, impartial investigation into the 9/11 attacks.
Two of the most prominent organizations spearheading the drive for a new investigation are Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911 Truth) and The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry (The Lawyers’ Committee). AE911 Truth challenges the science behind the U.S. government’s official explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. The organization is backed by more than 3,200 architects and engineers who support AE911 Truth’s assertion that the U.S. government’s official explanation for the collapses of the three buildings is fundamentally flawed2. The Lawyers’ Committee has extended AE911 Truth’s efforts into the legal realm, incorporating research and evidence advanced by AE911 Truth and other sources to bring several presently pending legal actions3.
The Working Group will continue to monitor the initiatives of AE911 Truth, The Lawyers’ Committee, and others, while advocating for the inclusion of marginalized research in academic discourse. Indeed, it is essential that we consider all relevant evidence to derive an accurate and comprehensive assessment of the 9/11 global “War on Terror.”
Learn more about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
Learn more about The Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry:
Within the past year, new developments and initiatives have emerged from various professional fronts to challenge the U.S. government’s official 9/11 explanation. Included are: an engineering study investigating the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), several legal proceedings, and a group of New York fire commissioners’ formal request for a new investigation into the attacks of 9/11.
University of Alaska Fairbanks WTC7 Study:
On September 3, 2019, a research team headed by Dr. Leroy Hulsey within the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ (UAF) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, released a draft report of its four-year, $300,000 study, which used finite element modeling to investigate the collapse of WTC 7. The UAF study concluded that “the collapse of WTC 7 was caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.” This finding is extremely significant because it refutes the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) 2008 study that concluded WTC 7 did indeed collapsed due to office fires. NIST’s 2008 finding is itself noteworthy because prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building on record had collapsed due to office fires. Also odd is the fact that the 9/11 Commission failed to acknowledged 47-story WTC 7’s free-fall collapse in its 2004 Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States (also known as The 9/11 Commission Report). Given the implications of UAF’s NIST refutation, discrepancies between the two studies must be resolved.
Visit the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Institute of Northern Engineering to learn more about Dr. Hulsey’s study of WTC 7’s collapse:
Lawyers’ Committee For 9/11 Inquiry legal actions:
The Lawyers’ Committee is presently advancing two primary legal actions within federal and district courts that challenge the U.S. government’s official explanation for the 9/11 attacks. On November 26, 2018, The Lawyers’ Committee received a letter from Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, stating that the district attorney would comply with The Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10, 2018 petition and July 30, 2018 amended petition that demanded the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury “extensive evidence of so-far-unprosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC 1, WTC2, and WTC7).” On March 18, 2019, subsequent to the U.S. Attorney’s confirmation letter, The Lawyers’ Committee filed a supplement to the first amended petition. The supplement provides a summary of persons, companies, and entities who may have material information related to the federal crimes reported by The Lawyers’ Committee.
In addition to securing a Special Grand Jury, The Lawyers’ Committee, in a separate legal action, filed a lawsuit against the FBI, which claims that the FBI did not consider evidence related to WTC demolition or several other areas of evidence known to the FBI in its 2015 review of the U.S. government’s 2004 9/11 Commission Report.
Visit The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry’s website to learn more about its ongoing legal actions regarding unprosecuted 9/11 crimes.
Franklin Square & Munson Fire Districts Call for New 9/11 Investigation:
On July 24, 2019, the fire commissioners of New York’s Franklin Square and Munson Fire Districts unanimously passed a resolution calling for a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. The fire commissioners cited “overwhelming evidence presented in [The Lawyers’ Committee’s petition] demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries, not just airplanes and the ensuing fires, caused the destruction of the three world trade center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day.” On the 18th anniversary of 9/11, Franklin Square Fire Commissioner Christopher Gioia, speaking at the National Press Club in association with AE9/11 Truth and The Lawyers’ Committee, vehemently reiterated the need for a new, impartial investigation into the events of 9/11.
Learn more about Franklin Square & Munson Fire Districts’ call for a new 9/11 investigation and its meetings with members of Congress:
Academics and Independent Researchers Speak Out
Although most of the academy has been conspicuous in its failure to analyze evidence that contradicts official explanations for the 9/11 attacks, a small number of academics and independent researchers have voiced strong refutations. The thinkers depicted in the following videos and information resources are at the forefront of comprehensive 9/11 event-analysis:
The 9/11 Perspectives Master Class:
On September 11, 2019, Foundation 11 September hosted The 9/11 Perspectives Master Class in Zurich, Switzerland. Experts from various disciplines shared new analyses of the events of 9/11 while reiterating studies and evidence that were omitted from official explanations.
Learn more about Foundation 11 September:
9/11 in the Academic Community Documentary:
Adnan Zuberi’s University of Toronto Film Festival award-winning 2013 documentary, 9/11 in the Academic Community, examines scholars’ reluctance to question official explanations for the 9/11 attacks. Through a powerful reflection on intellectual courage and the purpose of academia, Zuberi’s film aims to change intellectual discourse on 9/11 and the ‘War on Terror.’
Learn more about 9/11 in the Academic Community:
The 9/11 Consensus Panel:
The 9/11 Consensus Panel is 23-member organization that is building a body of evidence-based research examining the events of September 11, 2001. This evidence is derived from a standard scientific reviewing process and is available to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution. The Panel regularly features selected excerpts from its Consensus Points, with links to full supporting documentation.
In 2018 the panel’s 51 consensus points were compiled in a book by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, entitled, 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation. AE911 Truth had this to say about the book: “9/11 Unmasked is destined to be the Bible, the foundation, the go-to source of future research. It belongs on the bookshelf of anyone who has nagging questions about what really happened on September 11, 2001. And it will surely be on the desk of each and every government official who might one day be tasked with reinvestigating that monumental event.”
View the 9/11 Consensus Panel’s 51 points of consensus, and learn more about the organization:
The 2001 Anthrax Attacks:
Over the course of several weeks following the 9/11 attacks, letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to a variety of news media offices as well as to U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle. The attacks, which killed five people and infected 17 others, led to U.S. Congressional inquiries.
In the 2014 book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy, retired professor of religious studies at McMaster University, Graeme MacQueen, presents disturbing evidence that surrounds the anthrax attack incidents and the attacks’ aftermath:
Beyond being lethal and injurious, the attacks were widely blamed on extremist Muslims and their backers and used to support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They were also used to justify and hasten the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, which was being presented to Congress just as the first anthrax victim grew ill. In October 2001, one of the hypotheses that gained ground was that of the Double Perpetrator; the claim that al-Qaeda was carrying out the attacks with the support of Iraq. Much evidence was put forth to support this Double Perpetrator hypothesis but independent scientists soon discovered that the anthrax spores came from a domestic lab in the US serving the military and intelligence communities; not from al-Qaeda or Iraq. The FBI then quickly claimed that an individual was responsible for the attacks and began noisily looking for this “lone wolf.” In 2008 the Bureau named Dr. Bruce Ivins of the US Army Medical Institute of Infectious Disease as the “anthrax killer.” Although the FBI remains committed to the Ivins hypothesis, the case has been disintegrating for the last three years. Currently, it is justly held in contempt, not merely by scientists who worked with Ivins, but by many journalists as well as several US senators. But this raises the question: if Ivins did not commit this crime, who did?
MacQueen’s book presents evidence to support the following points: (a) The anthrax attacks were carried out by a group of perpetrators, not by a “lone wolf.” The attacks were, therefore, the result of a conspiracy— by definition a plan by two or more people, made in secret and resulting in an immoral or illegal act. (b) The group that carried out this crime consisted, in whole or in part, of insiders deep within the US state apparatus. (c) These insiders were the same people who planned the 9/11 attacks (d) The anthrax attacks were meant to facilitate a seizure of power by the executive branch of government through intimidation of Congress and US civil society. The attacks were also designed to achieve public acquiescence to and support for the redefinition of US foreign policy; replacing the Cold War with a new and aggressive global conflict framework, the Global War on Terror.
Learn more about Graeme MacQueen’s book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy:
2011 Toronto Hearings:
In 2011, an international group of professionals from varying disciplines gathered at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada, to present new and established evidence that called into question the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks. Evidence was presented to a distinguished panel of experts over a four-day period. Through their analysis and scientific investigations, attendees hoped to spark a new investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Watch the full, extended version of the 2011 Toronto Hearings:
David Ray Griffin:
David Ray Griffin is perhaps the most prolific writer to challenge the U.S. government’s explanation for the attacks on 9/11. A longtime professor of philosophy, religion, and theology, Griffin has written or co-authored 14 books that provide evidence and arguments refuting determinations made in the official U.S. investigations.
Learn more about David Ray Griffin:
Additional Information Resources