Downsize DC announced on Sunday June 10th 2007 that it will be pushing for a new investigation into the attacks of 9/11. "Brian Holtz," a Libertarian candidate for Congress, was less than impressed with the announcement and said as much in his post on the Downsize DC blog. This was my reply to both his post and his website.
 

I know this is beyond the scope of the Downsize DC campaign, still I feel compelled to respond to Brian’s 9/11 “debunking” post. Specifically, I want to address the physical evidence of controlled demolition…References are provided at the end of my post.  

 

Brian, I realize nothing I say is going to convince you the government has lied about the events of 9/11. I’m posting this more for others. My hope is, at the very least, I can demonstrate the difference between “evidence” and unsubstantiated assertions and insinuation.

 

Simply asking questions (as you do at your site) about "why" the buildings would have been blown up or "how" the explosives would have been planted or making claims about “how many people would have been involved” is NOT evidence. Nor does it make the evidence that DOES exist go away.

 

More to the point: There is eyewitness evidence; video evidence, audio evidence and most importantly physical evidence that strongly suggests the WTC buildings were in fact destroyed by more than impact damage and “building fires." Based on information that has recently come to light, senior military, intelligence, law enforcement, and government officials are openly challenging the validity of the 911 Commission Report and are calling for a new investigation. Are they all just dupes?

 

There is also a growing body of architects and structural engineers who agree the collapse times would be impossible without the aid of explosives. The government has NEVER provided "the math" of how the buildings could have collapsed at the speed they did. We’re supposed to just accept an implausible “sagging steel” scenario as what initiated the collapse, and then forget the most incredible aspect of the failures; the rate at which the buildings disintegrated.

 

Perhaps the most damning evidence is the molten metal in the WTC wreckage. The jury is no longer “out” on whether or not molten metal (specifically molten IRON) was present in the debris. The samples now being studied were collected before the clean up operation began and a chain of custody has been established. Since the official account provides NO FUEL SOURCES capable of creating this molten iron, the official account (as it stands) is simply not possible. Something that burns much hotter than “jet fuel” or office and building materials must have been active in those buildings.

 

Alternate theories were developed about what might have caused the molten metal and thermate became one of the most likely candidates. Using X-ray spectrometry to study the WTC debris, Physics Professor Steven Jones has presented evidence that is “compelling” to say the least. If this had been any other crime scene in history, his evidence would be sufficient to have it ruled arson.

 

Again, your assertions and questions are not evidence. Nor is it wise to confuse something that is "difficult" with something that is "impossible." Depending on the level of inside complicity, it might have been difficult to place devices in the buildings...however, it would not have been impossible.

 

On the other hand, what the government is proposing we accept IS impossible.

 

That is to say: It defies the laws of physics to suggest the towers would have fallen in around 12 seconds and building 7 in around 6.5 seconds without the aid of something moving the intact supporting structure out of the way. Until the “math” of that is actually explained and tested (instead of ignored as if it doesn’t matter) the official explanation is woefully inadequate.  In the meantime, we have eyewitness, video, audio and PHYSICAL evidence that points to a far more plausible theory regarding what might have brought the buildings down.

 

Given a choice between that which is "difficult but doable" and that which is literally impossible, we cannot reasonably choose the latter.

 

References:

Professor Steven Jones presenting is X-Ray Spectrometry Evidence of Thermate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ2vAupmooU

 

Structural Engineers Question WTC Collapses

http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

 

Some eyewitness accounts (15 minute clip from “September 11 Revisited – 37 meg”)

http://tree3.com/Video/revisit.wmv

 

From the 1-hour guide to 9/11: Fire initiated collapse, primary arguments against:

http://stopthelie.com/fire_initiated_collapse.html#FireInitiatedCollapse