AE911Truth Launches New Petition to Canadian Government

Today, I will be interviewing David Long of AE911Truth, who is working on a petition asking the government of Canada to investigate the new scientific evidence surrounding 9/11. This would include the presence of explosives as discovered in the chemical residue of the WTC dust examined by Prof Niels Harrit and the evidence found by AE911Truth that points to the WTC collapse as having been the result of a controlled demolition.

David was actually himself present in NYC on 9/11 and you can see him giving his account of what he witnessed in this interview here:

The petition, which will be going to the Canadian Parliament has already been signed by 1405 Canadians. To view or sign it , go here
And also, visit for more information.

This will be the first of two interviews I will be doing on this subject this month, with the second one featuring Richard Gage of AE911Truth on January 26 at 2:00pm EST, where he will be announcing the next showing in Montreal of Experts Speak Out, the newest and best film made by AE911Truth on the events of September 11.

The showing will take place in Montreal in February, with the date and venue to be announced in the near future. People who are interested in making a difference have an opportunity to do that now with this upcoming event. Show your support by coming to the showing and learn how you can help send this message to the government of Canada by familiarizing yourself with the action plan and writing to your member of Parliament.

To listen live:

22 responses to “AE911Truth Launches New Petition to Canadian Government

  1. internal demolitions didnt bring those towers down. no jets were used that day. None. It was all TV hocus pocus. How those buildings came down is far more interesting than the fake jets. Watch Dr Judy Woods videos “Where Did The Towers Go ?” Ive studied the 911 evidence for the last 5 years.

  2. SONIA! aka Ms. FEY! See you on the airwaves today:) xoxo

  3. Reblogged this on Name That Traitor.

  4. With regard to Dr. Judy Woods, I don’t recommend people follow her work. The collapse of the World Trade Center can and should be analyzed much using simple physics based on Newton’s Laws. Video evidence proves that the World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 all collapsed at free fall speed. This is impossible unless all the supporting structure is removed simultaneously. The only way to do that is with the use of explosives. Physicist David Chandler proved this using video analysis and is a member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Dr. Judy Woods proposes theories that are misleading and are not supported by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They are not part of the evidence submitted to the parliament of Canada.

  5. David – do you believe that planes were used that day ? Dr Wood puts up a pretty good case. So far you haven’t said anything to refute her claims. If the video footage I watched on TV was not faked, those towers turned to dust in mid air. They didn’t collapse in a “free fall” and “pancake” . They went “poof”.

  6. Hi Andre, yes, I do believe that planes were used that day. Although I didn’t see any, it is just because I was standing on the other side of the buildings. What is clear though is that the buildings collapsed in free fall. This is the best argument to use because it means that the supporting structure had to be removed for free fall to occur. This can only be done with explosives. Also, if you look at the pictures, its clear that it looks like an explosion – more than one in fact. This matches with what I heard when the towers collapsed – sounds of multiple explosions.

  7. My research says no planes were used. Anywhere. There is no hard evidence they were used, other than video fakery. Also there are witnesses stating they saw cruise missiles. Including friends of mine. If the video footage of the “collapse” that we are seeing on TV is true and accurate, they are turning to dust in mid air. I dont see them “pancaking”. Dr Wood, according to her, is a structural engineer, and I have no reason to doubt her at this point, says most of the wreckage “dustified” before it hit the ground. She also stated that if the true amount of wreckage did hit the ground, it would have broken the bath tub that keeps the water out. It never happened. There also was not much of a seismic reading. They also started clean up right away, pretty much cleaning up a crime scene. So we have a technology far different than what is being speculated as internal demolitions or thermite.

  8. The laws of physics are universal and can be used in a consistent way to analyze any physical problem. Since our objective is to provide the reason that we need a new 9/11 investigation we only need to prove that free fall occurred. The simplest way to do this is through video analysis which show that the rate of collapse was free fall. This is undeniable and proves that the supporting structure in the building had to be removed simultaneously. I’d suggest you look at the work by David Chandler. He makes the analysis simple and only needs high school level physics (Newton’s laws) to prove the point. In a legal case, this is the most likely argument to be effective. Therefore, we have cited the evidence from AE911Truth in the petition to the Government of Canada. Other theories may exist but we saw no value in them.

  9. Why doesnt the A+E for 911 do the “new” investigation ? The crime scene is cold, they have all the “expertise” , the evidence was mopped up and what was left of the buildings were taken to a Staten Island landfill. What is there to investigate when all the evidence is obviously plain to see on the video, especially the fake jets. IF its an inside job “personally I think was an “outside” job) why would you want government to reopen an investigation ? Would you trust them ? Its like the first 911 Commission Report or even the Warren Commission report. Complete fabrications.
    I have regents credit in physics, I am a builder and have some knowledge of construction. So when looking at the videos, I dont see pancaking, I see pulverization of most of the steel and concrete before it hit the ground – Hence the rather large dust cloud that enveloped lower Manhattan etc. I also dont see all that many squibs to get the job done, same with 7. Not to mention 2 other buildings were completely destroyed, and 2 others partially destroyed.
    My experience is most people dont make very good eye witnesses due to the high subjectivity and emotions in a moment of duress. That’s why we look at material hard evidence. And there is none for the planes or the pancaking.

  10. There are many theories about what brought the towers down but AE911Truth are the only ones who have solid, proven, physical evidence backing up what they say. If anyone is going to get this thing re-opened, it’s them. And that’s the goal here, to get 9/11 reinvestigated so everyone can know that we have been lied to and have been conned into submitting to a police state and getting involved in multiple wars all based on a lie.

  11. Here is the problem Im having with this. AE911 isnt 1) addressing the obvious plane fakery 2) the “dustification” of towers. Thermite and internal demolitions dont cause structures to pulverized in mid air. Reopening an investigation is sort of like sending your children to public school. Its an abdication of personal responsibility onto strangers, along with all the other problems that come with public school fraud i.e. vaccines etc.
    Just to say Dr Woods evidence is wrong without proving otherwise, is disingenuous. You dont have reopen any investigation, the evidence in right in front of our faces. Dr Wood is the only one who filed a lawsuit, that I have seen so far. According to Dr Wood, the judge asked her if “she had a death wish” If there were internal; demolitions, you have to show how they almost completely disintegrate into dust, with leaving hardly any wreckage at the bottom. Sonia, look into Dr Woods research.

  12. Good science requires that an experiment is reproducable for it to become a valid scientific statement. Newton’s laws have existed since 1687 (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica) and to this day have never been disproven. They are the basis for why buildings stand up the way they are expected, and are the reason why every modern machine is able to work safely. The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth base their evidence on laws of physics. These are established facts that can be easily reproduced anytime. Just for example, a demonstration of free fall can be done by letting an object drop out of your hand. During a legal case, evidence that goes in front of a court must be of this type of quality. The theories of Dr. Wood and some others do not meet this requirement. This is the reason they are not recommended by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

    • Dr Wood doesnt have theories, she is looking at the hard evidence. Just like there is no hard evidence planes were used. Its my opinion that A+E911 is stonewalling. Dr Woods IS the investigation, A+E911 is just asking for another faulty investigation, with no crime scene left. Who is going to run this rabbit hole op ? Another government committee ? Anybody who believes planes hit the towers/pentagon/shankesville is 1) ops or 2) woefully deceived. I concentrate on the ‘no planes’ because it shows how much the American sheep have been deluded and hypnotized by mass media and TV.
      Sorry but the video Im watching of the towers coming apart doesnt look like “pan caking”, they just went up in a poof of dust that covered lower Manhattan . I have seen no hard evidence of internal demolitions or thermite, just hearsay from what people think they saw.

  13. Hi Andre, it is your choice. However, I think your approach is not going to prove effective in court. Scientific evidence has to be reproducible. There is no way to prove Dr. Woods claims in a test environment. This makes the legal path for her claims weak and her scientific basis also. Furthermore, accredited engineers are required to meet certain professional standards when performing their work. If they fail to meet this standards they can loose their professional licenses and face other serious consequences. The architects and engineers that have signed the AE911 Truth petition have all been verified and are professionally licensed. With regard to your question involving thermite, there is a peer reviewed paper by Dr. Niels Harrit which you should read. Information about this is available on the the website

  14. Ive been over there. The engineers wont explain how aluminum planes went clear through concrete steel reinforced buildings, coming out the other side, intact. Licenses dont mean anything. Doctors are “licensed” but they are also the leading cause of death in America.
    Then the same holds true, how are the A+E911 going to replicate thermite/internal demolitions of 100 story buildings, with minimal wreckage? Internal demolitions leave a lot more wreckage. They dont pulverize buildings.
    You havent even examined Dr Woods research, you are shooting from the hip without examining the hard evidence, you are in essence saying “If the engineers say so, it must be true.” That’s hearsay. Most dont want to lose their “license”. They havent filed any claims. They are luke warm at best. Even Dr Wood doesnt believe planes hit the buildings. Then you also have buildings 3+5 demolished to the ground, and buildings 4+6 partially demolished to the ground. With a fraction of the wreckage that internal demolitions would cause. But they arent talking about it. The whole truther movement is a scam.
    A+E 911 arent thinking outside the box. They are disingenuous and are not willing to stick their necks out for the truth.
    Dave, How much are you being paid to be a spokesman for A+E911?

  15. David are you receiving compensation from A+E911 ? Or from anybody else to speak out ? I ask because you seem to be overly zealous in your mission here.

  16. Hi Andre,
    With regard to how AE911 Truth was able to reproduce the thermite result, I recommend you see the experiments performed by Jon Cole.

    I’m a volunteer.

  17. Pingback: Richard Gage And the WTC Demolition | The Truther Girls' Blog

  18. For a response to the DEW theory from AE911Truth, please see:

    It is highly unfair to suggest that someone is a paid spokesperson just because they oppose a point of view. AE911Truth is made up of volunteers, not paid “spokespeople” with an agenda. David’s point that AE911Truth’s approach is more likely to be legally effective is valid. Furthermore, the DEW theory denies the existence of active thermitic materials in the WTC dust, which is provable from physical evidence and can be experimentally replicated. This is no different than those that support the highly speculative mini-nuke theory.

  19. Truth isnt fair. I ask any and every question to get to the bottom of it. There are plenty of paid ops, infiltrating and using misdirection. AE911 doesnt answer my questions. This makes them suspect. Id also ask David if he is jewish/zionist and what is his personal stake is, in getting to his truth.
    Its obvious to me that 1) no planes were used that day and 2) the towers were pulverized in mid air, and didnt “pancake” but Im repeating myself here . Sonia, ask Dr Judy Wood for an interview.

  20. Top 9/11 September 11 Conspiracy Cold Case Solved: Flight 175 A was faked 2012 (case closed) switched replaced by Flight 175 B

    The hard proof is the FOIA plane photos were all removed i.e Carmen Taylor: Missing FLIGHT 175 FOIA and Jaron Rubenstein: Missing FLIGHT 175 FOIA Files and the one file of Flight 175 remained looks like a drone.

    Dr Judy Wood has some interesting points and has gain support in the UK. via Alan Watt interview

  21. has been deleted Flight 175 Drone Photos for years. i.e

    I know because I tried to post the photos and topic gets shut down and my account delete.

Leave a Reply to David Long Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s