I thank Jerry Leaphart, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Wood for their very helpful suggestions.
Dear Newspaper Investigators, Reporters, and Personnel, in the State of:
I have a question for you: If I supplied you with information you have not seen, information that is vital to expose to the American public, would you report it?
I ask for you to read this letter in full. After reading the letter, please check the links I provide. If you actually take the time to look through the information, I guarantee, you’ll be surprised.
This letter concerns the real scientific evidence behind the 9/11 attacks.
What is the real scientific evidence? Dr Judy Wood is a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University. On June 7, 2006, Dr Wood made a presentation at the 2006 Society for Experimental Mechanics Annual Conference in St. Louis. She presented her paper titled “A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory”. Her presentation passed peer review and proved scientifically that the official story of the WTC destruction was false. She received no media coverage whatsoever.
Their hypothesis, which is based on the available scientific data, is that a directed-energy weapon was responsible for the destruction of all seven buildings at the World Trade Center on 9/11. (Just in case you’re not aware that directed-energy weapons exist and are being used, see this link for over a dozen articles and videos of the technology.)
One key part of their paper is analysis of the bathtub (slurry wall) at Ground Zero, and its apparent lack of functional damage. If one million tons of steel, concrete and other building material collapsed at freefall speed onto the bathtub, it would have broken through and flooded downtown Manhattan.
They also note the low seismic readings, and show calculations proving the readings should have been much higher.
Another section in their paper reveals large round holes in the roof of WTC 5 and WTC 6.
The photographs also show very little debris where the towers were. Each ¼ mile high tower had 47 massive core columns that if laid end to end, would stretch over 20 miles. There’s no sign of these columns in any of the photographs. They couldn’t have been removed overnight.
One of the highlights of their paper is the dozens of photos of toasted cars. Some 1,400 cars received damage that cannot be explained by conventional weaponry. Take a look at the pictures for yourself and note the anomalies.
Drs Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds frequently do radio interviews. (MP3s downloadable from Judy’s site.) Perhaps you’d like to interview them? The people in your community would benefit from knowing the actual evidence of 9/11.
Another courageous person speaking up is attorney Jerry Leaphart. On December 14, 2006 he addressed the NCST Advisory Committee Meeting. Also, on February 6, 2007 he wrote NIST regarding the “quality” of their final report. He also filed a FOIA request for NIST documentation.
(If you’re convinced that NIST did a thorough investigation, you should be aware that NIST did not even analyze the so-called “collapses”. NIST admits this themselves in the footnote on page 82 of their report. Page 132 of the PDF version.)
Many of you have heard of Professor Steven Jones, formally from Brigham Young University. He’s one of the most well known people to speak up for the “controlled demolition theory” on 9/11. Unfortunately however, Jones’ misrepresentations of Drs Wood and Reynolds’ research seem to mirror that of his previous free-energy work in 1989. Based on the repeat pattern, the original cold fusion research by Drs Pons and Fleischman should be reexamined.
Steven Jones called his WTC demolition theory a “hypothesis to be tested”, despite Judy Wood’s successful peer reviewed presentation. Jones has been on TV many times, Wood has not.
In early 2006, one of Dr Wood’s students, Michael Zebuhr, was murdered under very suspicious circumstances. Not only was Michael doing 9/11 research with Dr Wood, but their research was specifically to prove Dr Jones work faulty. After the murder, Wood received an email stating “we've done it before and we will do it again if need be”.
There is a new site devoted to 9/11 research: http://www.911researchers.com
Looking through this site, you’ll see a treasure trove of scientific analysis. One example is an analysis of the dialog of TV newscasters, which has been shown to be scripted. Another example is the footage from CNN showing an aluminum airplane gliding smoothly into the steel/concrete tower as it glides through the air. (We believe this CNN footage to be pure 2-D animation.) One final example is an article in Technology Review magazine. This article details how the military and TV networks have the ability to alter live video, and that the evening news can no longer be trusted!
Please look at the information in this letter instead of automatically jumping to conclusions. Again, if you look through the information, I guarantee you’ll be surprised.