A New 9/11 Investigation – Coming to a Theater Near You///// Explosion before the destruction of building 7 WTC

A New 9/11 Investigation – Coming to a Theater Near You?

Hollywood Stars Seek to Make Feature Film Focused on WTC Demolitions

Howard Cohen
AE911Truth.org
January 23, 2012

“A Violation of Trust” (formerly titled “Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator”) is a feature film project that is willing to do what the world’s governments and legal bodies are unwilling to do – open a real investigation of 9/11 for the entire world to see. It dramatizes the first day of “The President’s New Investigation of 9/11”, with actors performing from a tightly-written, factually-accurate script that pits the 9/11 Commission Report and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Reports against the work of 9/11 researcher Dr. David Ray Griffin and the scientific research highlighted by leading 9/11 truth organizations, including Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The filming of “A Violation of Trust” will be performed on a single set, depicting the investigation’s public hearing room. The single-set approach provides the most intense platform for the actors and the script to involve the audience. The film’s compelling drama, forceful images and real-time video clips will be woven into its often contentious question-and-answer dialogue to create opportunities for conflicting views that will be argued both passionately and in a scientific and logical manner.

The list of actors that have signed on to this film includes:

A dozen additional actors will be added to the ensemble cast.

The production schedule for “A Violation of Trust” is as follows:

Pre-Production: NOW

Principal Photography: 10 days beginning March 22, 2012

Post-Production: 6 weeks

Cannes “Marche du Film” Premiere: May 16, 2012

Release Date: September 11, 2012

For those calling for a new 9/11 investigation, the release of “A Violation of Trust” will be a focusing event. It is a front-row seat in what would be the most critical hearing room of our time. For those unfamiliar with the details of the official government reports published by the 9/11 Commission and NIST, or those who sweepingly dismiss all the anomalies and inconsistencies in the official story as mere naturally occurring coincidence, the movie can act as a catalyst for further personal investigation. It will provide an invaluable resource to more fully understand the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent government cover-up:

• The state of affairs and events the movie alludes to have a basis in historical reality.

• The scientific evidence and testimonies make vital factual claims based upon sound research that are crucial to the persuasive power of the film – and emphasize its role as a mirror to reality.

• The filmmakers hope to stimulate discussion and generate demand for a real investigation by bringing a neglected subject out of the shadows – What really happened on 9/11?

“A Violation of Trust” (formerly titled “Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator”), is being produced under the auspices of Actors & Artists for 9/11 Truth. Please visit the project website and consider donating to support the production and marketing of the film. Donate $25 or more and receive a FREE DVD.

The following is an excerpt from the script of “A Violation of Trust” in which the character of Richard Gage, AIA, testifies at the hearing.

Fictional characters in this excerpt:

JUDGE ALAN EISNER is a former Federal judge and confidante of the President who is serving as Chairman of the investigation.

PROFESSOR RUTH FOWLER is Chief of Research at the White House.

DR. ELLA SLOAN is the President’s Science Advisor.

MRS. KATHY SAWYER is a representative of family members of the 9/11 victims.

DR. SINGER is an assistant to Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST in the 9/11 reports.

MRS. SAWYER: Excuse me Mr. Chairman, but we have a big problem with Dr. Singer’s testimony.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Which part of it?

MRS. SAWYER: All of it.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: What do your experts say?

MRS. SAWYER: Let me introduce Mr. Richard Gage, AIA, a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Mr. Gage, what sparked your interest in 9/11?

MR. GAGE: In 2006, I caught an interview with Dr. David Ray Griffin that changed my life. He was describing the oral histories from dozens of New York City firefighters that had recently been released due to a court order.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Then what happened?

MR. GAGE: I started watching videos on the Internet of the buildings collapsing, looking for signs of explosives. You can actually see them going off, all around the buildings, just like the firefighters said.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: You’re saying the evidence for explosives has always been there right in front of our eyes?

MR. GAGE: Everyone saw the Twin Towers brought down in a way that could only have been caused by explosives. We were just told differently by the government and the media – and then further deceived by the 9/11 Commission and NIST.

DR. SLOAN: What would the explosives have been used for?

MR. GAGE: To remove the steel columns so they didn’t offer any resistance to the floors falling from above. That’s why the buildings came down at nearly free-fall acceleration.

DR. SLOAN: By free-fall do you mean as fast as if you dropped a bowling ball from the roof and it fell down to the ground without any resistance?

MR. GAGE: It’s basic physics – the same laws of physics Isaac Newton discovered over 300 years ago.

DR. SLOAN: So if NIST’s fire theory violates these laws then it must be wrong?

MR. GAGE: Not even George W. Bush could have written a signing statement that can invalidate the laws of physics.

DR. SLOAN: However, on the other hand, I believe you’re saying the theory that the Towers were brought down by explosives in a controlled demolition does not violate these laws?

MR. GAGE: That’s right. Something that can’t be explained in terms of the official story or the laws of physics is fully understandable when you consider explosives.

DR. SLOAN: Could there be any other explanation?

MR. GAGE: Without explosives there’s no way two identical 110 story buildings could collapse in about a dozen seconds each.

DR. SLOAN: So the fires and the crashes didn’t cause them to collapse?

MR. GAGE: Look at the building in this video. It shows 10 characteristic features of controlled demolition. Professor Fowler, please show that video.

VIDEO OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION FEATURES.

MR. GAGE: The probability any of these features would occur without explosives is extremely low. The probability all of them would occur is virtually impossible.

MRS. SAWYER: Whoever planted those explosives knew the planes would be hijacked and flown into the buildings that morning and that the military wouldn’t shoot them down. They waited for that to happen and then they blew them up.

DR. SLOAN: If there were no planes would the towers have been blown up anyway?

MRS. SAWYER: Probably not – the idea was to be able to claim they collapsed because they were hit by the planes. Whoever planted the explosives needed the planes so al-Qaeda could be blamed.

DR. SLOAN: But how did they know al-Qaeda would fly planes into the Towers that morning?

MRS. SAWYER: I don’t know.

DR. SLOAN: But you say they knew in advance the planes were going to crash on 9/11?

MRS. SAWYER: They had to.

DR. SLOAN: And you’re saying they weren’t al-Qaeda?

MRS. SAWYER: I’m saying al-Qaeda couldn’t have done it – at least not alone. Find out who helped them and you’ll know how and why.

MR. GAGE: Take a look at this video of Building 7.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: I’m sorry, building what?

MR. GAGE: Building 7. It was never mentioned in the 9/11 report and many people, like yourself obviously, have never known about it.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Please continue.

MR. GAGE: Could we see the video, please?

VIDEO OF BUILDING 7 BEING DEMOLISHED. IMAGE ON THE SCREEN CHANGES TO A SPLIT SCREEN IMAGE. ONE IMAGE IS WTC BUILDING 7 WHILE THE OTHER IS A HIGH RISE BUILDING BEING DEMOLISHED.

MR.GAGE: Building 7 came down at 5:21 PM – 7 hours after the Twin Towers. As you can see this is a comparison to another high-rise that was being demolished by explosives.

MR.GAGE: Play it again please – in slow motion.

VIDEO PLAYS AGAIN.

MR. GAGE: As an architect, I’m trained to watch things in an analytical fashion. Always thinking, ‘how does this happen’ and ‘what makes that happen’.

DR. SLOAN: And what happened to Building 7?

MR. GAGE: It was a controlled demolition, the same as the other one.

PROFESSOR FOWLER: Mr. Chairman, the NIST report admitted Building 7 remained in free-fall for more than 2 seconds.

MR. GAGE: Fires don’t make that happen. Explosives do. NIST’s admission about the 2 seconds of free-fall is the clearest proof that explosives were used to remove the columns.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: They acknowledged the free-fall, but did they explain it?

MR. GAGE: No, their report isn’t scientific, it can’t be true.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Dr. Singer, do you agree Building 7′s collapse looks like the other one, the controlled demolition one?

DR. SINGER: In science we have lots of phenomena that look similar and yet have completely different causes.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Do you agree it could be a controlled demolition?

DR. SINGER: Hypothetically, lots of things are possible. But I’m confident it wasn’t.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Why are you so confident?

DR. SINGER: Our investigation proves that when the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 in the morning some of its debris hit Building 7 and caused fires that burned all day until it collapsed seven hours later.

DR. SLOAN: But physicists, architects, engineers and demolition experts from all over the world told you it was probably controlled demolition. Shouldn’t that have made it your priority?

DR. SINGER: I understand why people may think that, but when we learned the facts about the way the building was built, the way it supported itself and the damage that was done when the North Tower collapsed that morning – we determined it wasn’t explosives.

MR. GAGE: Are you saying explosives are outside the range of possibilities even though the possibility of explosives being used is consistent with the evidence?

DR. SINGER: NIST found no corroborating evidence suggesting the building was brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11. Our fire hypothesis is the only credible one.

MR. GAGE: But no steel-framed high-rise building anywhere in the world has ever collapsed because of fire. Mrs. Fowler, please show those buildings on fire.

IMAGES ON SCREEN OF STEEL-FRAMED HIGH-RISE BUILDING FIRES.

MR. GAGE: Look at these buildings. They burned much worse, for much longer, and didn’t collapse. Dr. Singer’s explanation of why Building 7 came down is simply impossible.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: In what way?

MR. GAGE: Their final report issued in 2008 claims there were very big, very hot fires covering much of the 12th floor at 5 PM – only 21 minutes before the building collapsed. These fires are essential to NIST’s explanation as to why Building 7 collapsed.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Is that true?

DR. SINGER: Yes.

MR. GAGE: But your interim report issued in 2004 says the 12th floor fire had completely burned out by 4:45 – 35 minutes earlier.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Why did NIST contradict its own report?

DR. SINGER: That’s what we thought in 2004. By 2008 we realized we had been wrong.

MR. GAGE: Professor Fowler, please show those photos I gave you earlier. The images on the screen are photos of Building 7. The 12th floor of the building is highlighted. Dr. Singer, you had this photo in your 2004 report with a note attached that said the 12th floor fires were completely burned out by 4:45. Professor Fowler, if you would please. The image on the video screen depicts Building 7 smoldering with a small fire in the northeast corner.

And this photograph shows the fire in that location was completely burned out by 4:00 PM, except for the northwest corner.

Those are outright contradictions of your official story, Dr. Singer. And they’re no trivial matter. Your theory hinges on a fire that your own photographs show didn’t even exist an hour before the collapse at 5:20 PM.

DR. SINGER: I don’t remember these photos.

DR. SLOAN: I find it hard to believe Building 7 collapsed in a manner that looks exactly like a controlled demolition due to a fire that didn’t exist. If it came down as you claim from ordinary office fires, not explosives, I would expect to see buckling.

MR. GAGE: Professor Fowler, please play those computer simulations. (Various CGI COMPUTER SIMULATIONS are shown next to videos of Building 7 collapsing).

MR. GAGE: Take a look at these NIST simulations. They have the building buckling from the fires like you said. But the videos show the roof and the walls are coming straight down. These simulations are reason enough to question the report.

DR. SLOAN: Let’s be honest Dr. Singer, you could hardly publish a report that contradicted the official story. A report that said anything about explosives would mean that al-Qaeda couldn’t have done it.

DR. SINGER: That’s not true.

DR. SLOAN: That’s why you had to say office fires did it, even though it meant suggesting scientifically incredible ideas and completely ignoring the facts.

DR. SINGER: No.

DR. SLOAN: Trying to convince us that no evidence of explosives had been found.

DR. SINGER: No.

DR. SLOAN: And that ordinary office fires had caused the building to collapse.

DR. SINGER: Our conclusion is the only one that makes sense. There was no controlled demolition, no evidence of explosives.

DR. SLOAN: Did you test the steel or the dust for signs of explosives?

DR. SINGER: There was no need to do any tests. Our reports explain how the buildings came down without them.

MRS. SAWYER: Mr. Chairman, these tests are specified in the National Fire Protection Association’s Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: Then why didn’t NIST do any tests?

DR. SINGER: Let me point out that these are just guidelines published in that book. They are not rules or regulations or laws of any kind.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: But don’t you think for NIST, as the government’s official laboratory for fire inspection, the sensible thing to do would have been to follow the guideline and do a simple lab test?

DR. SINGER: No, because there was no evidence of explosives.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: How can you know there’s no evidence if you didn’t test for it?

DR. SINGER: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time – and the taxpayers’ money.

MR. GAGE: But not testing for explosives is like a homicide investigation not looking at the body that’s lying on the ground after the murder – or trying to find the bullets. Evidence of explosions that occurred during the collapse can only be found by examining the physical scene after the collapse.

CHAIRMAN EISNER: I don’t think doing some simple tests is wasting your time or the taxpayer’s money when three of the biggest buildings in the world collapsed in just seconds killing thousands of people.

MRS. SAWYER: It’s very difficult to find what you’re not looking for.

Howard Cohen, a native of Brooklyn, New York, is the Executive Producer of “A Violation of Trust”. A lifelong entrepreneur, Cohen successfully ran several publishing businesses that produced a variety of educational materials, including the monthly family money management newspaper supplement “Common Cents” that appeared in over 100 newspapers nationally, and the consumer magazine “Better Times” that was sold in supermarkets and other outlets. He has also worked as a consultant with former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, was outed by the Bush Administration as a covert CIA operative. “A Violation of Trust” is Cohen’s inaugural feature film.