From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2006-05-08 23:56:31
www.irishexaminer.co… Key questions left unanswered by the 9/11 commissionWE are writing to enquire whether you or other members of the mainstream media are aware of the growing concern in the US and Europe over the official findings of the 9/11 commission. Naturally, stereotypes of conspiracy theorists will immediately spring to mind.However, critics of the commissions findings include eminent physicists, structural engineers, fire officers and high-ranking military officials, as well as broadcasters, political analysts and celebrities. The website prisonplanet.com reported: Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it. Over the past two years, scores of highly regarded individuals have gone public to express their serious doubts about 9/11. These include former presidential adviser and CIA analyst Ray McGovern; the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts; physics Professor Steven Jones; former German defence minister Andreas von Buelow; former MI5 officer David Shayler; former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher; former chief economist for the Department of Labour during President George W. Bushs first term, Morgan Reynolds, and many more. As you may well remember, three buildings fell on that awful day, while the Pentagon sustained significant damage. The official explanation offered for the collapse of World Trade Centre (WTC) buildings 1 and 2 was that the steel structure, having been weakened by the impact of the planes, was then further weakened by the resulting fire causing them to fail and the buildings to pancake in on themselves. Building 7 (rarely referred to anymore), having apparently collapsed after fire damage without structural damage from the impact of any plane, caused precisely the same phenomenon. It is only the third steel-framed building in history to have collapsed from fire. The first two were WTC 1 and 2. An organisation in Britain has provided a compilation of documentaries that have been shot on this subject: www.911truthbristol…. Here are links to two of the most respected sites on this topic: www.physics911.net and 911truth.org Of course controversy over this subject has run high with both sides arguing the evidence. We would ask you simply to consider what we believe to be the two most troubling aspects of the commission findings: 1. Building 7 the only steel-framed building in history to have collapsed from fire damage alone. Building owner Larry Silverstein is on record as stating he and the fire commander made the decision to pull (slang for controlled demolition) the building, yet the 9/11 commission findings make no mention of this, stating that fire damage is what caused the implosion, clearly visible on the tape. 2. WTC 1 & 2 speed of collapse. Through all our research, we have been unable to find a satisfactory explanation for how these two buildings collapsed at near freefall speed (under 10 seconds) through a path of maximum resistance, ie, straight down through the undamaged floors beneath. The speed at which they fell is one of the few things that is agreed by both sides. It is a physical impossibility that the upper floors could have fallen through steel and concrete at the same speed that they would have fallen through air (ie, freefall speed). The only hypothesis offered thus far to explain this phenomenon is that of controlled demolition, troubling as that may be. Either of these points, as well as a number of others regarding the heat at which the fires burned versus the melting point of industrial steel, should be of great interest to the media or to the relevant authorities in the USA, yet the silence seems to be deafening. When this matter has been reported in the mainstream press it has, as far as we have seen, completely failed to address these and other important, undeniable discrepancies. Indeed, the tone of most articles that we have seen has been dismissive, if not completely derisory, for example making reference to conspiracy nuts and people who believe in faked moon landings. We are neither. Nor are the majority of people to whom we have spoken who share our concern. We are concerned that no item in the mainstream media has doggedly pursued these two issues, as well as the other undeniable discrepancies in the official explanation without becoming distracted by some of the more frivolous and irrelevant claims made by both sides. If you do not find this newsworthy we would be fascinated to understand why. If anyone has information that satisfactorily contradicts all of the points we have highlighted, we would be most grateful if they could direct us to it as this issue, with its potential ramifications, has caused us marked distress. Jonathan Clark Helen Collis Heavitree Exeter Devon England
