In 2011 I published the Ebook online entitled National Swindle of the World Trade Center. On 10/15/2011 I submited an ad for the book to the New York Times (see Appendix for text of the ad). Here is the incredible response I got:
"The New York Times accepts and publishes opinion advertisements from a wide variety of sources that wish to offer their views on numerous subjects and issues of the day. We do so because it is important not only to bring our readers impartial news and editorials, but advertisements that speak to the ideas and opinions that make our lives important. As such, we have found over the years that accepting every ad does not make us a better newspaper, but at times can be used as a voice for those who wish to promote hate, conspiracy, and racial mistrust.
That is why we instituted some rules and exceptions in our opinion/advocacy advertising policy. Included in those rules are policies that decline ads that are of a personal dispute nature, that are hate speech, those that deny events like the Holocaust, and those that trivialize great human tragedy. Our advertising acceptability policy on this last type states 'Advertisements to be declined by this policy must concern themselves with an event of substantial historical proportions or a crime of recent vividness such as the Holocaust, the bombing in Oklahoma City, or the destruction of the World Trade Center. Secondly, the event denied must run into the wall of historical certainty as judged by reasonable people.'
Thus, your advertisement while not denying that planes hit the building, does deny that the planes caused them to fall. The event denied is that the World Trade Center destruction was caused by planes hitting the buildings. That is why we are declining to publish your opinion advertisement."
Steph Jespersen, Director Advertising Acceptability The New York Times 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 (212) 556-7171 email@example.com Alex Minkow Senior Product Manager The New York Times (212) 556-7152 firstname.lastname@example.org
I found it incredible that "denying that the planes caused [the buildings] to fall" is judged equivalent to denying the Holocaust! Science shows the planes did not cause the buildings to fall, and this lame-brain response shows there is no consideration of scientic facts & evidence in this policy.
For your information I have appended the ad I submitted to the NYT for them to publish for a fee. It advertises my online book (which is now available at
"The news story appeared October 9 in the New York Times that scientists, analyzing the anthrax mailed in letters by an Army doctor back in late 2001, determined that the bacteria were mailed after using specialized processing and expertise in industry of microencapsulation. This has significant implications, because scientists similarly determed that the planes running into the buildings and the fires they created on 9/11 could not have caused the buildings to fall. The paper in 2009 by an international group of scientists led by Danish chemist Neils Harrit, analyzing why the buildings fell, concluded that the Towers & Building 7 came apart from explosions by nanothermite -- the production of which also requires specialized processing and expertise. Papers from Lawrence Livermore Laboratories after 2000 were cited on developing the capabilities for nanothermite.
The terrorists that were blamed for hijacking the planes into the Towers were capable of neither act involving specialized processing. Although they would have been capable of hijacking the planes, the crashes could not have caused the buildings to fall, and they did not send out the anthrax. The placing of the nanothermite to bring the buildings down, just as the anthrax that was mailed out, apparently came from US sources and were disguised to look like they came from the terrorists.
As an experienced physicist (PhD in Applied Physics at Caltech, 1978) I put out a correct account of the WTC disaster from the scientific facts and evidence in my the recent online book: National Swindle of the World Trade Center. I worked on it over 2 years, beginning while completing almost 30 years as research scientist at the University of Iowa, showing & describing 37 color-photo figures in its 7 chapters. Anyone can order a download of it..." NOTE: The book is now at