The Truth will prevail, But only if we Demand it from Congress!
9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004
Tale of Building 7's collapse suggests official
complicity, persistent obstruction
May. 3, 2008 12:00 AM
Regarding "Drinking the 9/11 Kool-Aid" (Editorial, April 24):
After three government investigations and more than six years, we
still don't have answers on 9/11.
Why, for example, did Building 7 collapse? It wasn't hit by a plane,
as the towers were. The 9/11 Commission Report completely ignores
Building 7. The Federal Emergency Management Agency report discounts
fire as a cause and concludes that the reasons for the collapse of
Building 7 are unknown and require further research. But when FEMA
issued this report, it already cleared the site and disposed of the
dust and steel (evidence from a crime scene), thus possibly
committing a felony and complicating any "further research."
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal
agency, which evaluated the collapse of the towers, has yet to issue
its report on Building 7. "We've had trouble getting a handle on
Building 7," said the acting director of their Building and Fire
Research Lab.
Yet a number of private-sector engineers, architects, and demolition
experts have not had that problem. They think Building 7 came down
by controlled demolition. The building collapsed suddenly, straight
down, at nearly free-fall speed. People heard the explosions, and
saw the squibs and the characteristic billowing clouds of pulverized
concrete so unique to demolitions. There is no reason to think that
Building 7 came down for any other reason than explosive demolition.
And speaking of pulverized concrete, fire does not pulverize
concrete. Even the collapse of one floor upon another wouldn't
pulverize concrete the way the Twin Towers disintegrated.
Think back to that day: Those towers didn't just fall down. If they
had, we would have had huge chunks of concrete breaking apart and
falling into a massive pile of rubble. The buildings likely would
have toppled erratically sideways and left a much larger pile of
debris.
But that's not what we witnessed. The towers didn't collapse - they
disintegrated.
We watched them explode into dust, not knowing exactly what we were
seeing. Very little intact concrete was found in the rubble. The
sheer energy required to pulverize that much concrete into dust can
only come from an explosive process.
Reputable scientists, engineers, architects and firemen with no
political angle dispute the 9/11 Commission report and say that the
evidence indicates the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down due to
controlled-demolition explosions. Tests corroborate the presence of
thermite, an explosive used in building demolitions, at the site of
the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Thermite also explains the pools of molten steel in the basement,
which no one has been able to otherwise explain and which the
National Institute of Standards and Technology simply denies. Why is
the government refusing to even consider demolition as a
possibility? What are they afraid of?
Time magazine reported in September 2006 that 36 percent of
Americans believe the government was complicit in 9/11. A Zogby poll
reported that 51 percent of Americans want Congress to investigate
9/11 further.
Even the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission are upset with the
commission report. They have accused the CIA and the military of
"obstructing" the investigation. Former Commissioner Max Cleland
resigned, stating that the Commission was "compromised." Former FBI
Director Louis Freeh has criticized the report for its inaccuracies
and unanswered questions.
The events of 9/11 have never been properly investigated. It's about
time they were.
The writer, a Republican from Mesa, represents District 18 in the
Arizona Senate.
