9-11 Inside Job

World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 & 7

Fell on Footprint in Free Fall Time (as if with no resistance)


Best Articles & Videos

Top 9-11 & Hacking Election
Articles & Videos

9-11 What You Are Not Being Told Videos

Videos Re: Secret Government

WTC 7 Website

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime

Report: Magnet and PDA Sufficient to Change Votes on Voting  Machines

Al-qaeda Is Creation of Bushites and Mass Media

Good 9-11 Truth Video
What Top Players Say about 9-11
The Category of Terror

9/11: Re-examining the 3 WTC High-rise Building "Collapses"
NIST Admits Total Collapse of Twin Towers is Unexplainable
Dr. David Ray Griffin Interview in Copenhagen
New Eyewitnesses to WTC Basement Explosions
Full Movie: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
Barry Jennings Was Witness to WTC 7 Controlled Demo
Patriots Question 9-11 Website
Did Flight 93 Crash in Shanksville, Pa.?
NYC Emergency Service Director-WTC 7 Was Controlled Demo
Hunt Boeing-Shanksville Edition
9-11 Case against Cheney
Analyst: al-Qaeda Tapes Doctored by US Company
WTC 7 Security Official Details Explosions in WTC 7
WTC 7 Set Up for Controlled Demolition for Morning of 9-11
Cheney Was in Command of NORAD on 9-11 Video
Mineta Confirms Cheney Ordered 9-11 Stand-Down
9-11 NIST Report Debunked
9-11 Asbestos Contamination-A Website to Help You
9-11 CNN and Fox Live Video Coverage
Rumsfeld on 9-11: An Enemy Within
9-11 Must Watch Truth Videos
WTC Slow Motion Video-Floors Being Blown Out
Mark Crispin Miller-No to Holt Bill Video
Theft of 2004 Election-What You Must Believe
Jim Fetzer on Hannity & Colmes Re: 9-11 Video
Cutter Charges Confirmed at WTC
NIST Confronted over 9-11
WTC Controlled Demolitions-Video
Bush Told of 9-11 Attack Before He Left Florida Hotel
Many Explosions in WTC
Rare WTC 7 Video-Limited Fires
FBI-No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9-11
Open Complicity-Anatomy of 9-11 Cover-Up Video
Professor Jones 10 Part 9-11 Truth Video
CNN Reports Complete Disinfo on 9-11 Video
9-11 and the Evidence
USAF Stand Down on 9-11
Third Stage- Very Good Short 9-11 Truth Video
9-11 Video: WTC Loaded with Explosives
9/11 'Smoking Guns'
9/11 Report: A 571-Page Lie
9-11 Growing Skepticism
Pentagon Official Story is False-Video
WTC 7 The Smoking Gun of 9-11 Video
Flight 93 Crash Site Video-No Plane
Alex Jones-9-11 Holes Video
Webmaster Talks on 9-11 
Morgan Reynolds Talk on 9-11

  • Expert on Record-Bin Laden Confession a Fake
    CNN Live Report- No Airplane at Pentagon
    Mineta Testimony on Cheney Stand Down/shoot Down Censored

  • Judge Suppresses Report on Voting Machine Security
    Judge Suppresses Report on Voting Machine Security
    By Andrew Appel - Posted on October 2nd, 2008 at 6:45 am
    A judge of the New Jersey Superior Court has prohibited the scheduled
    release of a report on the security and accuracy of the Sequoia AVC
    Advantage voting machine. Last June, Judge Linda Feinberg ordered
    Sequoia Voting Systems to turn over its source code to me (serving as
    an expert witness, assisted by a team of computer scientists) for a
    thorough examination. At that time she also ordered that we could
    publish our report 30 days after delivering it to the Court--which
    should have been today.

    Three weeks after we delivered the report, on September 24th Judge
    Feinberg ordered us not to release it. This is part of a lawsuit
    filed by the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic, seeking to
    decommission of all of New Jersey's voting computers. New Jersey
    mostly uses Sequoia AVC Advantage direct-recording electronic (DRE)
    models. None of those DREs can be audited: they do not produce a
    voter verified paper ballot that permit each voter to create a
    durable paper record of her electoral choices before casting her
    ballot electronically on a DRE. The legal basis for the lawsuit is
    quite simple: because there is no way to know whether the DRE voting
    computer is actually counting votes as cast, there is no proof that
    the voting computers comply with the constitution or with statutory
    law that require that all votes be counted as cast.

    The question of whether this report can legally be suppressed was
    already argued once in this Court, in June 2008, and the Court
    concluded then that it should be released; I will discuss this below.
    But as a matter of basic policy--of running a democracy--the public
    and legislators who want to know the basic facts about the
    reliability of their elections need to be able to read reports such
    as this one. Members of the New Jersey Legislature--who need to act
    now because the NJ Secretary of State is not in compliance with laws
    the legislature passed in 2005--have asked to read this report, but
    they are precluded by the Court's order. Members of the public must
    decide now, in time to request an absentee ballot, whether to cast
    their ballot by absentee (counted by optical scan) or to vote on
    paperless DRE voting machines. Citizens also need information so that
    they can communicate to their legislators their opinions about how
    New Jersey should conduct elections. Even the Governor and the
    Secretary of State of New Jersey are not permitted, by the Court's
    order, to read this report in order to inform their policy making.

    Examination of the AVC Advantage. In the spring of 2008, Judge Linda
    Feinberg ordered the defendants (officials of the State of New
    Jersey) to provide to the plaintiffs: (a) Sequoia AVC Advantage
    voting machines, (b) the source code to those voting machines, and
    (c) other specified information. The Sequoia Voting Systems company,
    which had not been a party to the lawsuit, objected to the
    examination of their source code by the plaintiffs' experts, on the
    grounds that the source code contained trade secrets. The Court
    recognized that concern, and crafted a Protective Order that
    permitted the plaintiffs' experts to examine the source code while
    protecting the trade secrets within it. However, the Court Order,
    issued by Judge Feinberg on June 20, does permit the plaintiffs'
    experts to release this report to the public at a specified time
    (which has now arrived). In fact, the clause of this Order that
    permits the release of the report was the subject of lengthy legal
    argument in May-June 2008, and the plaintiffs' experts were not
    willing to examine the AVC Advantage machines under conditions that
    prevent public discussion of their findings.

    I served as the plaintiffs' expert witness and led an examination
    team including myself and 5 other computer scientists (Maia Ginsburg,
    Harri Hursti, Brian Kernighan, Chris Richards, and Gang Tan). We
    examined the voting machines and source code during July-August 2008.
    On September 2nd we provided to the Court (and to the defendants and
    to Sequoia) a lengthy report concerning the accuracy and security of
    the Sequioa AVC Advantage. The terms of the Court's Protective Order
    of June 20 permit us to release the report today, October 2nd.

    However, on September 24 Judge Feinberg, "with great reluctance,"
    orally ordered the plaintiffs not to release the report on October
    2nd, and not to publicly discuss their conclusions from the study.
    She did so after the attorney for Sequoia grossly mischaracterized
    our report. In order to respect the Judge's temporary stay, I cannot
    now comment further on what the report does contain.

    The plaintiffs are deeply troubled by the Court's issuance of what is
    essentially a temporary restraining order restricting speech, without
    any motion or briefing whatsoever. Issuing such an order is an
    extreme measure, which should be done only in rare circumstances, and
    only if the moving party has satisfied its high burden of showing
    both imminent harm and likelihood of success on the merits. Those two
    requirements have not been satisfied, nor can they be. The plaintiffs
    have asked the Court to reconsider her decision to suppress our
    report. The Court will likely hear arguments on this issue sometime
    in October. We hope and expect that the Court will soon permit
    publication of our report.