8 October 2019

Greg Rzesniowiecki

gregfullmoon013@gmail.com

Newshub

Email: news@newshub.co.nz

Subject: Complaint re article “9/11 attacks: The conspiracy theories the internet used to
believe” by Dan Satherley; published 12 September 2019.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2019/09/9-11-attacks-the-conspiracy-
theories-the-internet-used-to-believe.html

The article was published in the early afternoon of 12 September. I note the Newshub
twitter page tweeted the article at 1:15pm, link to tweet:

https://twitter.com/NewshubNZ/status/1171955334317056000

Additionally I published a media release and sent it to a number of NZ news media

organisations via email including Newshub at this address news@newshub.co.nz at
10:02am 12 September 2019. Copy of dropbox link to the emailed media release indicating
timestamp and verifying that Newshub was a recipient.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/av0vpq21xmk19kw/Gmail%20-%20Media%20release_
%20Alaska%20Fairbanks%20Uni%20World%20Trade%20Centre%207%20study%20findings
%20-%20truth%20in%20a%20sea%20of%20spin.pdf?dl=0

Newshub did not publish the media release nor did it refer to any of the substantive
content of the media release. Your Newshub editor would be aware of the existence of my
media release when the article attributed to Dan Satherley was published.

The media release provided the following information to New Zealand news media
organisations, and a copy of the pdf. 11 September 2019, open letter to New Zealand
academics – full text reproduced here for ease of access;

1
Open letter to NZ academics on the occasion of the 18th anniversary of the 9/11
crime

Much has been said of 9/11, by US Authorities, NZ's Government and the
mainstream media both in NZ and abroad.

9/11 has been employed as pretext to launch the global war on terror.

Most of the world and 99% of legacy news media reported faithfully the US
Government narrative that the whole story and sole perpetrators of the 9/11 crime
were 19 mostly Saudi Arabian hijackers who commandeered 4 planes and flew two
of them (AA 11, UAL 175) into the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, one (AA 77)
into the west wing of the Pentagon and the remaining flight (UAL 93) into a field in
Pennsylvania.

Most of that narrative is false. It is false in respect to many of the stated facts, more
importantly it is a lie by omission, as the official conspiracy theory doesn't account
for the WTC destruction and many further anomalies.

Citizens and professionals who act with integrity are uncovering and disclosing the
facts of the 9/11 crime.

US Authorities undertook no serious forensic examination of the overall crime, nor

was the World Trade Center destruction true cause faithfully investigated. Citizens
and vigilant professionals are investigating and providing their scientific findings.

Never in the history of modern civil engineering have massive steel framed buildings
been destroyed by fire.

Nevertheless after most of the initial fires were extinguished and the force of the
plane strike absorbed and accommodated by the twin towers the building's
rendered to dust and chopped up steel in dramatic fashion 56 minutes (WTC2) and 1
hour 42 minutes (WTC1) later. WTC7 was part of the World Trade Center complex
demolished in spectacular fashion at 5:20pm 11 September 2001 hours after the
demolition of the remainder of the WTC complex, the Pentagon attack and the Flight
93 plane smash at Pennsylania.

2
An open minded observer might reasonably compare the WTC collapses with
controlled demolition of other redundant structures.

How to unpack the truth of the 9/11 matter is a concern – does the NZ news
media share the desire to report truth?

I have written and forwarded an open letter/essay to NZ academics on the occasion

of the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 crime. It reports the timely news of the draft
findings from Professor Leroy Hulsey and associates' Alaska Fairbanks University
WTC7 evaluation study, published Tuesday 3 September 2019.

The WTC7 evaluation draft findings

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 Summary of the study findings are twofold;

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC
7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that
studied the collapse.

The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global
failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

The self evident implication is that an hitherto unknown agency was employed to
demolish the buildings removing all the core columns. One can speculate about
what that was. When one watches video of the WTC7 demolition captured at the
moment of the free-fall collapse and compares that with a controlled demolition of
other similar buildings one could reach no other conclusion than “the building's
demise was as a result of planned demolition by whatever method.”

Demolition charges used at WTC 7 undermine the US Government narrative in

respect the 9/11 attack. That in turn creates doubt in respect to the pretext for the
war on terror, its merit and its justification under rule of law.

I urge academics, journalists and professionals who care for truth and integrity, to
take the time to consider the contents of the paper and act to ensure the world is
move toward a just and sustainable tomorrow.

The paper asks how NZ can support militarism and seek cooperation for climate
action as these appear to be opposed or contrary objectives.

3
 Attached: NZ Academy - 9/11, Militarism, Climate - will you promote truth or lies?

Paper to NZ academics also available as a blog:

https://values-compasspointsinaposttruthworld.blogspot.com/2019/09/nz-
academy-911-militarism-climate-will_11.html

Ends.

-----000---000-----

Your article “9/11 attacks: The conspiracy theories the internet used to believe”

published 12/09/2019 Dan Satherley

I provide detailed critique which underpins my complaint in respect to your journalist's

assertions - (My observations) (Dan's article content)

The Dan Satherley piece opens with the following information;

A.

Within minutes of realising the US was under attack in September 2001, suspicions fell
on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist movement.

Eighteen years on, they remain the likely perpetrators of the deadliest terror attack of
modern times.

The FBI didn't name Osama bin Laden as wanted for the 9/11 attacks. Individuals within
the US Government part of the George W Bush administration quickly asserted bin Laden
was the culprit, however no proof was ever provided. Nor did the US Government provide
proof of Osama's involvement in the 9/11 attack to the Taliban Government of Afghanistan
when they demanded that bin Laden be handed over to US Authorities.

B.

'Truthers' - those who dispute the official version of events - are few and far between
these days. But 9/11 happened just as the internet was going mainstream, allowing
people with dissenting views to come together and swap alternate explanations of
varying credibility.

4
This passage contains several ideas, the one fact is that the 9/11 attack occurred at the
commencement of the internet age. In that sense the internet was establishing its
protocols and means of communicating information amongst peers, groups and discrete
individuals. The internet was born late 20th Century looked forward with active hope for a
new age of cooperation and collaboration, thus the remarkable surge in open source
publicly available software applications, information and knowledge produced.

The 9/11 attack occurred before a majority of people were actively engaged in gaining their
information and news content direct from the internet. Most gained their knowledge of
the 9/11 attack directly from the mainstream news media communication channels.

The proliferation of people with dissenting views who came together to swap alternate
explanations of the 9/11 attack wasn't a large phenomenon until several years after the
attack. Up till then it was only those with a deep sense of physics, forensics, or those who
were witnesses to the events, active as 9/11 first responders, Ground Zero workers or
family members of the 9/11 victims that carried on an active discourse about the many
anomalies in respect to the 9/11 attack. It was these who demanded an official
investigation into the circumstances of the 9/11 attack. To draw a parallel, the New Zealand
Government determined to hold a royal commission of inquiry into the 15 March
Christchurch Mosque terror attack within a month of the attack. This was additional to the
police criminal and forensic examination of the crime. The US Authorities resisted a formal
public investigation of the 9/11 attack until the 9/11 Commission was formed 27 November
2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#History By that time the US had
demanded Osama bin Laden from the Afghanistan Government, refused to provide proof
of his involvement, had bombed and invaded Afghanistan and was actively planning to
invade Iraq on a series of pretexts one of which was based on Iraq's support for Al Qeada (a
false assertion). Further there was much publicly available information about criticism of
the 9/11 Commission; it's processes, the degree to which authorities such as the CIA
cooperated and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

C.

The hit film Loose Change, first released online in 2005 before undergoing a number of
revisions as its claims were debunked, popularised the movement.
Here are some of the theories that used to be discussed in all seriousness on the early
internet.

5
 The buildings were brought down in controlled demolitions

A popular theory is that the Twin Towers didn't collapse because they were hit by
jumbo jets - instead, they were deliberately destroyed in a series of controlled
explosions.

The evidence: You might have heard the popular internet phrase, 'Jet fuel can't melt
steel beams.' Essentially - and correctly - truthers believe jet fuel can't burn hot enough
to melt steel beams.
The Twin Towers also fell relatively straight down, like you see in a controlled
demolition; and a third building - WTC7 - also collapsed, despite not being hit by a
plane.

Lastly, lobbies in both towers were visibly damaged when first responders arrived on
the scene, despite the planes crashing into the buildings dozens of stories above.

The truth: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, but it can burn hot enough to severely
weaken them. A Popular Mechanics article first published around the time Loose
Change came out said at 600C, steel would lose about 50 percent of its strength - and
jet fuel can burn a lot hotter than that.
WTC7 took a hit from falling debris, as well as experienced its own blaze that wasn't
attended to, firefighters busy with everything else that was going on.

And the lobbies were damaged because much-burning fuel fell down the elevator
shafts, sending some elevators plummeting to the ground.

"The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," one
expert told Popular Mechanics.

The central theme and piece of information provided to Newshub from my media release
was the “fact” of the 'World Trade Center Building 7 evaluation' study which determined in
its draft findings the following scientific observations. Here is the content from my media
release to counter the false assertion within the Satherley article;

I have written and forwarded an open letter/essay to NZ academics on the occasion

of the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 crime. It reports the timely news of the draft
findings from Professor Leroy Hulsey and associates' Alaska Fairbanks University
WTC7 evaluation study, published Tuesday 3 September 2019.

6
 The WTC7 evaluation draft findings

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 Summary of the study findings are twofold;

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC
7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that
studied the collapse.

The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global
failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

The self evident implication is that an hitherto unknown agency was employed to
demolish the buildings removing all the core columns. One can speculate about
what that was. When one watches video of the WTC7 demolition captured at the
moment of the free-fall collapse and compares that with a controlled demolition of
other similar buildings one could reach no other conclusion than “the building's
demise was as a result of planned demolition by whatever method.”

Demolition charges used at WTC 7 undermine the US Government narrative in

respect the 9/11 attack. That in turn creates doubt in respect to the pretext for the
war on terror, its merit and its justification under rule of law.

I urge academics, journalists and professionals who care for truth and integrity, to
take the time to consider the contents of the paper and act to ensure the world is
move toward a just and sustainable tomorrow.

Satherley undermines his apparent thesis that the US Authority account is the whole truth
with this acknowledgement in the text above – testimony from First Responders; “ Lastly,
lobbies in both towers were visibly damaged when first responders arrived on the scene,
despite the planes crashing into the buildings dozens of stories above.” which indicates that
more than mere jet planes were the cause of the World Trade Center destruction.

D.

The Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane

While there's video of both plane impacts in New York, some have claimed the
Pentagon was actually struck by a missile.

7
 The evidence: There is no good footage of the Pentagon strike, with security video
showing little but a white blur before an explosion. The hole punched into the side of
the building also appeared too small to have been made by a Boeing 757.
The truth: It was a plane. Its wreckage was found - including the black box. But that's
not all.
"I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts," a
blast expert told Popular Mechanics.
The magazine also pointed out a crashing jet "doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of
itself into a reinforced concrete building". One wing broke off when the plane hit the
ground, and the other was broken off by one of the recently-renovated Pentagon's
load-bearing columns. The fuselage would have been "in a state closer to a liquid than
a solid mass" due to the impact.

There has been a lot of controversy in respect to the truth of the Pentagon Strike.

Whatever Popular Mechanics says about any part of the 9/11 event needs to be viewed
with scepticism given they misrepresent the demolition of the World Trade Center Towers
and complex including WTC7. Where an authority such as a government, scientific body,
media institution or any other preeminent group lie about an important public matter it
can be generally extrapolated that they would lie about other parts of the matter. Where
Popular Mechanics asserts that; “ The fuselage would have been "in a state closer to a liquid
than a solid mass" due to the impact ” one is assured that there is more lying going on.
Whatever struck the Pentagon, solid elements of it were located within the Pentagon
following the attack. Also many columns within the Pentagon building were destroyed as a
result of the forward motion of the wreckage as it progressed toward a stop as its
approximate 540 miles per hour momentum was dissipated through impact resistance.

E.

Flight 93 was shot down

One of the four hijacked planes didn't make it to the terrorists' target, with passengers
fighting the terrorists and the plane crashing into a Pennsylvania field.

But truthers maintain that's not what happened, some instead claiming it was shot
down by the US government.

8
 The evidence: A military jet was seen in the same area as Flight 93 beforehand; parts
of the plane were found far from the crash site; President George W Bush gave the
order to shoot down hijacked planes after the Twin Towers were hit.
The truth: It's not known exactly what happened, but cockpit recordings suggest the
account shown in filmUnited 93 to be largely accurate - the passengers knew terror
attacks had been carried out in New York and at the Pentagon, so decided to fight the
hijackers rather than let them continue to their target.
It's generally believed the hijackers deliberately crashed the plane, rather than let the
passengers take control.
Experts said at the speed the plane was travelling, the fact debris was found hundreds
of metres from the impact site wasn't surprising at all.

It doesn't require much effort to discover that flight UAL 93 or whatever the plane, was
shot down by either a missile or cannon fire from a fighter jet. My 12 September media
release references my open letter to New Zealand academics which provided historic
accounts of the debris field amongst news reports from the day of the 9/11 attack;

The 9/11 event had additional attacks (which this paper doesn't address in detail);

Against the US Defense Force headquarters Washington DC where the

Pentagon building's West Wing was struck by a plane which the 9/11
narrative said was American Airlines flight 77, and;

At a rural location in Pennsylvania where United Airlines Flight 93 came to

ground.

However UAL 93 came to ground in many pieces separated by kilometres as though

it was destroyed in mid air and the respective parts coming to earth across a vast
field. The fact of the wide debris field including across Indian Lake's lake informs the
discerning public that the US Government narrative on this part of the 9/11 crime
was false.

The 'wide debris field' hyperlink goes to this webpage;

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93site.html which provides a deeper

analysis; http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html

The 'fact' of the dispersed debris field disposes of the official conspiracy theory that the
Flight 93 passengers rushed the cockpit and forced the alleged hijackers to fly the craft into

9
the ground. Were that thesis about the craft's demise accurate the debris field from the
crash would be confined to a specific location, not dispersed across miles of territory.

F.
The US let the attacks happen

Some believe the US government turned a blind eye, knowing a devastating attack
would give them pretext to invade the Middle East - or that it was an inside job.

Evidence: In hindsight, there were plenty of warnings an attack like 9/11 would happen
- as early as 1998 there was talk of hijacking planes.
The US had previously considered staging 'false flag' terror attacks during the Cold War
and blaming them on Cuba, to justify an invasion of the nearby Communist nation.
There was also an "abnormal" amount of trading in shares of American and United
Airlines, and defence contractors, in the days leading up to the attack.

And the authorities took a suspiciously long time to respond to the emergency once the
planes had been hijacked.

The truth: The 9/11 Commission found no evidence the trading was suspicious, with
most of it being traced back to a single investor.
The planes couldn't be tracked once they'd been hijacked, as the terrorists turned off
the transponders.

NORAD didn't track airspace over the US at the time, and literally had to wait for phone
calls from local civilian operators before it knew anything was amiss. Its focus was
outwards "like a doughnut" around the country, one expert said.
As for deliberately ignoring the months of warnings beforehand, that's generally been
considered incompetence, rather than anything sinister.

A warning in August was dismissed by National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice

because it was non-specific, and "did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use
airplanes as missiles". In July Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected evidence
suggesting an attack was likely, believing it was intended just to gauge how the US
would respond.

In April, a NORAD wargame simulation in which a plane would crash into the Pentagon
was rejected as "unrealistic".

10
 The passengers from Flight 11 and Flight 175 were put on Flight 93 and killed

Now we're getting into truly wild territory. There's a theory out there that not just the
Pentagon was hit by a missile, but the Twin Towers too. This theory holds that the two
jets which hit the towers were actually missiles, and the passengers who were
supposed to be on those planes were secretly bundled onto Flight 93, which was then
deliberately crashed, disposing of the eyewitness evidence.

Evidence: None, really - just a lot of chatter in internet forums.

The truth: The biggest argument against this is the same used against claims the US
didn't go to the moon - the sheer scale of the cover-up would be impossible. It would
require thousands of people working together, not a single one of them screwing up or
spilling the beans - something no government is arguably capable of.
The aftermath

Even the makers of Loose Change would go on to admit they made several errors.
"We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so
that people discredit us and do the research for themselves," one of the makers once
said.
Newshub.

In respect to the remainder of the article's assertions, and conjectures, I draw your
attention to the following observations of mine to New Zealand academics;

What happens to the official conspiracy narrative where intrinsic elements of the
whole story are proved false? Where does the lie stop and truth enter the frame?

It is important to note at the time of the respective collapses the WTC towers had
survived the initial shock of the plane strikes and the resultant combustion of the
surplus plane fuel.

The only fires remaining were the result of the combustion of materials in the WTC
offices. Never have office fires caused a steel framed building to collapse.

11
The catalyst for the sudden onset of WTC 1, 2 and 7's collapse remained a mystery
without positing some additional agency.

WTC 7 suffered some fires at or below its 13th floor. The building survived these for
many hours and the fires were effectively extinguished by the onset of that late
afternoon. At 5:20pm WTC 7 was demolished in spectacular fashion. It lost all
structural support in its lower floors and descended to ground including a 2.5
second portion of its descent at free fall velocity. Free fall velocity can only be
attained where there's no resistance to falling.

A building's structure is a lot of resistance in a non magical world. For WTC7 to

descend at free fall it requires that; “all support columns in the steel structure must
fail prior to the onset of collapse.” which is a peculiar observation for a large building
structure that the official narrative asserts suffered damage by fire only.

Additionally the observed collapse or demolition was symmetrical in its effect

whereas the fires would have had an asymmetrical effect on the building's structure.

The problem of WTC7 gained serious traction with critically minded architects and
engineers who sponsored a study to assess the nature and likely cause of the
building's demolition. The result was that Professor Leroy Hulsey and associates
from Alaska Fairbanks University were contracted to undertake the WTC7 evaluation
study. The draft findings of that study were published Tuesday 3 September 2019:

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 Summary of the study findings are twofold;

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of
WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering
firms that studied the collapse.

The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a
global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the
building.

The full report is a pdf file at this link:

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf

12
Professor Hulsey features in a video presenting the WTC7 evaluation findings
Tuesday evening 3 September at Alaska Fairbanks University. The video is available
here:

https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_xf8c7khp

and via it's embed code here:

https://cdnapisec.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/preview/partner_id/1909371/u
iconf_id/43661902/entry_id/0_xf8c7khp/embed/dynamic

For those in the academy who wish to provide comment, critique or otherwise
engage with the study the following information is important;

The research team is currently organizing and uploading all of its data into a
format that can be readily downloaded and used. We expect to post the data
sometime between September 16 and September 30, 2019.

There will be a two-month public comment period from September 3 to

November 1, 2019, with the final report will be released later this year. During
this period, we welcome any and all members of the public to submit
constructive comments intended to further the analyses and presentation of
findings contained in the report. Designated reviewers external to UAF and
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth will also review the report during this
period. Commenters are asked to send their comments in an attached PDF or
Word document to publiccomment@AE911Truth.org

New Zealand's academic professionals including those who have already made prior
observations about the World Trade Center demolitions might study and critique the
WTC7 evaluation method and findings. Through contributing you provide your
professional perspective before the draft published study findings become final.

I have previously engaged with individual NZ academics about this matter from
engineering, international relations, psychology and journalism/media study
faculties. Invariably those who I have engaged have either uttered no comment, or
replicated the narrative promoted by the US Government or offered only nuanced
dissent from that “official conspiracy narrative.”

13
World Trade Center building 7 demolition – what are implications of the study
findings?

The secondary conclusion of WTC7 study is that;

“the collapse of building was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous

failure of every column in the building,” which;

<> means that an hitherto unknown agency was employed to demolish the
buildings removing all the core columns. One can speculate about what that
was. When one watches video of the WTC7 demolition captured at the
moment of the free-fall collapse and compares that with a controlled
demolition of other similar buildings one could reach no other conclusion
than “the building's demise was as a result of planned demolition by
whatever method.”

<> means that the perpetrators must have been given a pass by the WTC
security services. Ordinarily controlled demolition projects take considerable
planning and time to ensure cutting and or demolition charges are placed at
appropriate points in a building's structure to attain a clean destruction.
Note: it is generally the case that demolition contractors work on vacant
buildings and or structures. The WTC 7 building and the remainder of the
WTC complex were close to full occupancy.

<> means inside job. An inside job is generally a reference to a conspiracy by

insider personnel to commit an act and present it as the result of some other
agency or scapegoat. Where US authority personnel provide cover for and lie
about the 9/11 crime, where explosives are a necessary component to create
the observed event, then it is clear that US authority personnel were assisting
the 9/11 project.

<> means the terrorist narrative is likely a lie.

<> means the global war on terror is a lie also.

<> means the whole world was hoaxed.

<> means stay hoaxed and live in a world narrative built on lies or do
something to remove the terrible lie and its false narrative.

14
 -----000---000-----

My complaint is that the Dan Satherley article;

1. Incorrectly and mischeviously lumps general disquiet and distrust of the official
narrative and US Government conspiracy theory about what occurred in respect to the
9/11 attack and uses that to belittle genuine critical observations which disprove the US
Authority conspiracy theory narrative.

2. Ignored my media release which provided facts that if included in the article would
have provided a more comprehensive and factual account of the reality of the 9/11 attack
namely; the fact that the WTC7 demolition undermines the official narrative, and where
WTC7 was demolished with pre-placed explosive or cutting charges then it is reasonable to
extrapolate that similar occurred to WTC1 and WTC2. Satherley's article notes witness
testimony of explosions in the lower regions of the 'Twin Towers' that appeared unrelated
to the plane strikes in the higher floors.

3. Provides a fake picture of the Pentagon strike by stating that the plane's fuselage
turned to a liquid under the stress of the impact, when that is clearly a nonsense.

4. Provides a fake narrative about the demise of UAL Flight #93 in Pennsylvania, as it is
clear that the plane was destroyed mid air and came to ground in clumps distributed over
many miles.

5. Where one or more parts of an asserted narrative are proved incorrect, it is more
than reasonable to hold a healthy scepticism about the entire narrative. The reticence of
the US Authorities to commission an open public investigation into the 9/11 event is a
further indication of the cover-up of the truth of the matter. The 9/11 Commissioners
reported they were lied to by US Authorities.

6. That it paints an inaccurate picture of the efforts by many to uncover the truth of
the 9/11 attack. Satherley's employment of the term 'Truther” in the following context;
“'Truthers' - those who dispute the official version of events - are few and far between these
days” is a false and unsupported statement. Consider the following;

15
 ◦ Is the WTC7 Evaluation study team lead by Professor Leroy Hulsey a mob of
“truthers?”

◦ Are the thousands of professionals who are members of Architects and

Engineers for 9/11 truth to be denounced through the derogatory employment
of the term “truthers?”

◦ Are the lawyers who form the committee, “Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry”
to be denounced through the derogatory employment of the term “truthers?”

◦ Are the many scholars, military, ex intelligence and security personnel or the
millions such as myself, independent folk who have seen through the false
narrative of the “official 9/11 conspiracy theory” propagated by governments
and most of the mainstream media to be denounced as “truthers?”

Accordingly;

1. I seek that Newshub issue a public apology for running the article in the form that you
did, given the 'fact' that you know it is a misrepresentation of the current knowledge of the
9/11 attack and its cover up by authorities.

2. That Newshub run my media release with hyperlinks intact to enable the New Zealand
public to access the information contained.

3. That Newshub undertake a serious investigation of the 9/11 attack, including through
interviewing serious 9/11 researchers and publish that to better inform the New Zealand
public as to the truth of the 9/11 event. Further that Newshub make clear in that truthful
article (where the finding merits the observation) that 9/11 was falsely employed as
pretext and justification for the Afghanistan War commenced 7 October 2001.

Many thanks for your consideration of my concerns outlined in this formal complaint.

Greg Rzesniowiecki

16
17