The 911 Commission investigation is a fraud and must be reopened.
Questions that must be answered and are not:
1. Billions of iron rich microspheres were the defining characteristic of the dust found in the vicinity of the 911 attacks. For the billions of iron micro spheres to be formed, the iron must have been super heated to make it liquid. Iron does not naturally form itself into spheres without being acted upon mechanically or by being heated and then aerosolized in molten form. The iron in the World Trade Center dust wasn't mechanically manufactured and distributed evenly through the dust so it must have been super heated and liquefied. Following super heated liquidation, it was explosively ejected into the atmosphere where the surface tension of the finely aerosolized molten iron mist pulled the molten iron into microspheres. The tiny molten iron droplets formed and the droplets then cooled as they fell to the ground and rested with the other dust from the collapses. The 911 attack presented iron rich microspheres in copious amounts, forming the hallmark of the 911 attack's dust and differentiating the dust from the multiple collapses from preexistent background dust. The existence of this microsphere laden dust is confirmed by numerous government reports as well as contractors who examined the dust for the government. None the less, the iron microspheres go unexplained and unaddressed in the 911 Commission's fraudulent report. Where did the iron microspheres come from? It's a question that deserves to be answered by a new, honest investigation.
2. Explosive thermitic material was found in the dust of the 911 attacks. The material was examined by a team of scientists led by University of Copenhagen Professor Niels Harrit. Their investigation was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. The material they found in the 911 dust demonstrated highly energetic characteristics consistent with thermite, a highly energetic material used for various industrial processes. The existence of thermitic material in the dust from the 911 attacks is not addressed or explained in the 911 Commission's fraudulent report. Where did the thermitic material come from? It's a question that deserves to be answered by a new, honest investigation.
3. Eye witnesses reported explosions on 911. Hundreds of first responders and victims of the attacks, including firefighters, police officers, reporters, and emergency management personnel, reported explosions prior to the collapse of the buildings and during the buildings collapse. The existence of countless eyewitness reports of explosions surrounding the 911 attacks is not addressed or explained in the 911 Commission's fraudulent report. Where did the explosions come from? It's a question that deserves to be answered by a new, honest investigation.
4. Melted steel, evaporated steel, highly corroded steel and extraordinarily hot temperatures were observed at the center of the 911 attack's rubble piles and molten steel was video taped pouring from the building prior to the collapse of the building. The existence of molten steel in the rubble of the 911 attacks is not addressed or explained in the 911 Commission's fraudulent report. Where did the molten steel, highly corroded and evaporated steel, and the extraordinarily hot temperatures at the collapse sites come from? It's a question that deserves to be answered by a new, honest investigation.
5. Symmetry of collapse is an impossibility for a building that has been asymmetrically damaged. If you kick one leg out of a chair or a 3 legged stool, or pull the supports out of one side of a building, which way will it collapse? Straight down? Of course not. It will collapse into the area where it's structural support was removed. Obviously, if the buildings on 911 were struck by a plane on one side and the columns supporting the building were observably severed on the side of the building impacted by the plane, the remaining portion of the building above the damaged or severed columns should have been expected to fall over into the side of the building where the columns were removed. Despite the government's own admission that the building was damaged heavily on one side and minimally damaged on the other side, it fell straight down into the path of highest resistance. The existence of symmetric collapse after asymmetric damage to the structural integrity of the building during the 911 attacks is not addressed or explained in the 911 Commission's fraudulent report. Why did the collapse proceed symmetrically through the path of highest resistance rather than toppling over as we would expect? It's a question that deserves to be answered by a new, honest investigation.
6. If the crush down, crush up, "pancaking" gravitational collapse theory of the buildings is true, as NIST claims, the laws of physics must have been violated. Newton's Third Law of Motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the top 30 floors of the building destroyed the next 30 floors below, they would have been simultaneously destroyed as well. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So if the top 30 stories were pulverizing and exploding the next thirty floors, they would have also been pulverized and exploded. But such a scenario leaves 50 stories of building standing after all the upper stories of the building were destroyed. How did 20-30 stories of the lighter and less robust upper portion of the tower destroy 80-90 stories of the heavier and more powerful lower sections of the towers without simultaneously being destroyed themselves? In the first 20-30 stories of the collapse Newton’s 3rd Law demands that they should have been destroyed along with the lower floors that were destroyed. This is a question that deserves to be answered by a new, honest investigation.
7. Most people are unaware that another massive skyscraper collapsed on 911. Building 7, a 47 story steel framed sky scraper, collapsed around 6 hours after the twin towers had collapsed. When it collapsed, it entered absolute free fall for 2.7 seconds, or around 120 feet. Videos made prior to the collapse and eyewitnesses in the buildings prior to the collapse reported multiple explosions in the building. Numerous individuals stated that the building was “about to blow up.” Jane Stanley, a reporter from the BBC, stated that the building had collapsed but the building was standing directly behind her as she proclaimed it had collapsed. No steel framed skyscraper has ever universally collapsed due to fire in the history of modern steel framed skyscrapers. But it happened three times on 911. How did so many people know that an event that had no precedent, other than the Twin Towers on the same day, was about to happen? The only way anyone could have known the building was going to collapse was if they were aware the building had been rigged for controlled demolition. The limited office fires ignited by the collapse of the twin towers were mostly out when Building 7 collapsed at 5:21pm. The building sustained relatively minor damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers. NIST claims it wasn’t structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers or diesel fires that brought down Building 7. They claim it was office fires. However, if office fires were the cause of collapse of Building 7, why didn’t the building collapse at the height of the fires hours prior when the fires burned hottest? It’s impossible that the column that supposedly was pushed off it’s seat and initiated the collapse would have been pushed off by thermal expansion after the fires had cooled down.
NIST’s claim that a single column being pushed off it’s seat was responsible for the symmetric, sudden free fall collapse of Building 7 was studied and modeled using sophisticated modeling software by the University of Alaska’s Dean of Structural Engineering, Leroy Hulsey, and several graduate students. Using a comprehensive, dynamic mathematical modeling system, they worked for over 3 years to determine if a single point of failure could have been responsible for the initiation of the symmetric, free fall collapse. They determined it was impossible for a single point of failure to precipitate the observable behavior of Building 7 on 911. They also created a model that did match the observed behavior of the building. This model required severing, or eliminating, all columns of the building simultaneously at their base, as would be consistent with a controlled demolition, in order to achieve the well documented behavior of the building. These findings are combined with eye witness reports of explosions, video and audio taped evidence of explosions, observable explosion of exterior walls, instantaneous white smoke pouring from instantaneously opened holes along the column structures of the building, white smoke pouring from windows that previously showed no sign of fires, and finally the most obvious evidence of all - a building entering sudden, symmetric, free fall. Despite the obvious necessity to investigate the possibility of explosive demolition, NIST claims that there was no compelling evidence pointing to the possibility of explosive demolition of the building. NIST’s theory of office fires causing the collapse is the least plausible scenario while the explosive demolition theory is the most plausible. The fraudulent 911 Commission Report does not even mention Building 7. Whoops! Just forgot that. The facts pointing to controlled demolition deserve to be addressed by a new, honest investigation.
There is nothing conservative or liberal, red or blue, or anything politically divisive about calling for a new investigation. Every single person in this country wants an honest explanation of this horrific, historically seismic event. Until the facts of this event are addressed, we do not have an honest explanation of the events of 911 and our society cannot heal. We deserve an honest investigation of 911. I hope you will join me and many others calling for an honest investigation into the terrorist attacks of 911.
God will Bless America if America seeks the truth.