"9/11 fifteen years on": invitation for submissions

OffG is hoping to field a series of articles in the run-up to the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, looking at the questions and controversies that still persist.
We’re after a wide spectrum of perspectives and opinion from the mainstream to the so-called “conspiratorial”. Scientific papers, personal commentary and political analysis are all welcome. It can be your own personal work or recommendations of other material.
Send to us at [email protected] before Sep 10 2016.
Looking forward to hearing from you.


Filed under: latest, OffG

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

0 0 vote
Article Rating
9 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Admin
Admin
Sep 1, 2016 8:46 PM

we’re closing comments on this as it is just an info post & will be deleted in due course, so not a good place for discussion . But there’ll be plenty of opportunity to air your views on 9/11 soon.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Sep 1, 2016 7:52 PM

Reblogged this on Worldtruth.

Chris Plumley
Chris Plumley
Sep 1, 2016 4:23 PM

Excruciatingly incompetent or criminally complicit. Must be one or the other. Every day exposes further realisation that the latter is the most likely scenario.

Manda
Manda
Sep 1, 2016 4:23 PM

I recommend Dr Judy Wood’s book ‘Where did the towers go’. No theory of who or why, just evidence pointing to what happened (and couldn’t have happened) presented.

Catte
Catte
Sep 1, 2016 5:08 PM
Reply to  Manda

Doesn’t she (or maybe it’s just her followers) claim the towers were brought down by a space beam?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 1, 2016 6:08 PM
Reply to  Catte

Judy Woods propounds utter nonsense as does her sidekick James Fetzer. The two are likely ‘infiltrators’ or ‘disinfo-agents’ whose purpose was/is to discredit all serious attempts to get to the bottom of 9/11 by having their hairebrained pseudo-scientific nonsense publicly associated with more scientifically grounded efforts to conduct a proper forensic investigation of the crime.
Some debunking of Wood’s nonsense can be found here:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.ca/2011/05/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth_9853.html
And a bit of the original controversy between the lunatic fringe that Fetzer and Wood represent and the saner original core of scientifically literate skeptics of 9/11 can be found here:
http://stj911.org/faq.html
A favorite source of information and research of mine on the issues of 9/11 is Kevin Ryan. Brilliant and incisive and readable. You can find his website, “Dig Within,” here:
https://digwithin.net/
There is also, of course, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
For me, a piece of evidence that should be a slam dunk indictment of the “official story” for anyone with even only a modicum of understanding of physics is the non-controversial “freefall” collapse of WTC7:
https://normanpilon.com/2015/02/15/wtc7-in-freefall-no-longer-controversial/

bill
bill
Sep 1, 2016 7:43 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

In fact as a real US patriot Prof Fetzer has spent much of his life seeking to explain and understand the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers which so shook his own confidence in the political integrity of his own country where he has acquired a highly respected reputation and along with dozens of books and articles has brought together many of the worlds leading experts to help illuminate a host of the difficulties of both cases, and is in no way a supporter at all of Dr Woods, their fall-out being a legend on Amazon.reviews attracting over 5000 comments, whilst he endorses the so-called “mininuke” theory .
Dr Woods is the only scientist to have challenged the official scientific findings in the US courts being denied jurisdiction by the Supreme Court through an alleged lack of jurisdiction. Here is not the place for a full defence on the facts of either Prof Fetzer nor Dr Woods who despite their falling-out are unlikely disinformation agents, the sudden and brutal murder of one of Dr Woods research team being in itself as appalling as it is suspicous. The tone of their disagreement is in fact a tragedy as civilised people must be able to talk to one another without hostility and without the constant murmur and accusation of dishonest motive.
As stated ,here isnt the place for a discussion of 9/11 facts nor where the differences lie.Suffice it to say Dr Woods work is outstanding in how she takes the official narrative apart -hardly the enterprise of a disinformation agent – in the ist 5 or 6 chapters…… her book is worth reading for this alone if you can “get” or accept the rest of it or wish to challenge some of the evidence on which some of her conclusions are based.

Manda
Manda
Sep 1, 2016 6:15 PM
Reply to  Catte

Ha, ha! That’s what her detractors claim. Only mention in the whole book of ‘space beams’ is re detractors comments. It’s essential you go to source these days to form your own opinion, getting it second hand from anywhere is bound to lead to uninformed opinion.

Manda
Manda
Sep 1, 2016 6:30 PM
Reply to  Catte

Remember, those attacked the most severely are the most feared. All I can suggest is you research yourself and make up your own mind if you are interested. I have come to the conclusion Chomsky and Zinn were right to say looking into 9/11 is a (my interpretation) waste of time, energy and resources.