www. weekoftruth. org

Call C-SPAN This Week!

Get the New England 9/11 Symposium
on C-SPAN by calling and faxing them and asking them to cover this historic event.

Fax C-SPAN with this info and the flyer and let them know you want it covered!
Fax Number- (202) 737-6226
Main Number: (202) 737-3220
e-mail them: viewer@c-span.org

The New England 9/11 Symposium:
Family Members, Whistleblowers
and Researchers Speak Out

Saturday, May 17th, 9:30 am-6 pm
Keene High School, Keene, NH
General Admission: $15
Students and Seniors: $ 10
Coffee and registration at 9:00 a.m.

Hundreds of credible, credentialed scientists, architects, engineers, scholars, and former military and government officials are now on record
criticizing the official 9/11 report, asking for answers to many troubling questions, and urging a new, independent investigation.

(See PatriotsQuestion911. org). The mainstream media have consistently ignored this criticism, even though recent Zogby International polls have shown that a majority of the public is not satisfied with the 9/11 Commission’s report.

Even the Chair and Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, in a letter to the NY Times titled Stonewalled by the C.I.A.(1/2/08), charge that their investigation was obstructed.

Family members of 9/11 victims and all U.S. citizens deserve truthful answers. That’s why Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth and the Monadnock 9/11 Truth Alliance have invited a distinguished panel of researchers and family members of victims to speak at Keene High School on Saturday May 17. The symposium is co-sponsored by Cheshire TV.

For more information go to www. sst911. org and for interviews contact:
Mike Jackman at 603-899-2783 or Gerhard Bedding at 603-355-2202

Senator to Arizona Republic: We Deserve the Full Truth
The Arizona Republuc
May 3, 2008

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.

Government Apologists Keep Moving the Goal Posts
by George Washington

The people defending the government’s version of 9/11 have continuously moved the goal posts:

• Initially, the government apologists pretended that everyone believed the “official story” of 9/11

• Then, when the family members of the victims and everyday Americans started to publicly question the government’s story, they said “but, all of the experts confirm the government”

• Then, when hundreds of top experts in relevant fields – military officials, intelligence officers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, air traffic controllers, etc. – publicly questioned the government’s story, they said “well, no structural engineers question 9/11″

• Then, when numerous structural engineers decided to risk their careers to question the official version of events, they said “yeah, but no criticism of the government’s claims has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal“

• Then, when papers began to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they scrambled with new arguments . . .

They keep moving the goal posts, which is a sign of dishonesty. Its the old bait-and-switch … come up with one argument, and when it is shot down as false, make up a new one.

Indeed, if Bush, Cheney, and Rummie all confessed under oath that they carried out 9/11, the defenders of the official version would probably try to move the goal posts yet again:

“true, but no one checked to see if they had their fingers crossed behind their backs at the time.

And they’ve been under alot of stress recently. Maybe they’ve suffered from short-term memory loss.

And you don’t have any video actually showing them ordering the stand down, do you?! Why should we believe you if you don’t have video of them doing it?!”

If you have questioned 9/11 for a couple of years, you’ll know that the above-described history of goalpost-moving is accurate. If you haven’t, google around and you’ll probably see what I mean. -GW

9/11 theorist not curtailing his research
By Tad Walch
Deseret News
Saturday, May 3, 2008

Sixteen months ago, Brigham Young University and Steven Jones parted ways, but he said this week he isn’t bitter about the academic divorce.

He certainly hasn’t curtailed his volatile research on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

(Yes, three towers fell, not just two. If you didn’t know that, Jones is particularly interested in reaching you with his message that some other group, in addition to al-Qaida, likely contributed to the collapses.)

In fact, Jones is the lead author of a paper on the collapses published April 18 in a civil engineering journal.

The journal article does not list his past tie to BYU, and that’s a big Mission Accomplished for university leaders, who felt they acted to protect BYU’s reputation when they worked out a retirement package with Jones and he left at the end of 2006.

But Jones is sharing a cramped BYU office with some professors. He also does research in a BYU lab as an outside user with a student who works with him.

Most importantly, he is preparing several more papers that, if they pass peer review and are published, will give him the peace of mind that his case reached the public.

Jones was energized in November when he and others received a response from the national lab charged by Congress to determine why and how the towers collapsed. The letter contained the following phrase:

“We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”

“That,” Jones said, “really was progress. It made me believe we could talk with them.”

It is striking. After producing a 10,000-page report, the National Institute of Standards and Technology can’t explain the collapse. And on its Web site, NIST clearly states that nowhere in its report did it say that steel in the Twin Towers melted due to fires. In fact, the fires reached only 1,000 degrees Celsius. Steel melts at 1,500 degrees Celsius.

Meanwhile, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has said that its best hypothesis for the fall of the third tower, WTC 7 — diesel fuel stored in the building caused fires that collapsed the building — has a “low probability” of being correct.

At the time of his separation with BYU, which he admitted was painful, Jones found himself burned by his association with a loose confederation of 9/11 truth-seekers, some of them clearly kooky conspiracy theorists, and by some of his own statements.

Now, he and a number of scientific colleagues are taking a more cautious, mainstream approach.

His new peer-reviewed paper in the Open Civil Engineering Journal doesn’t rip NIST or FEMA or the government. It does just the opposite. It lays out 14 points of agreement Jones and his colleagues have with the official government reports.

“We’re getting to a higher level of discussion with this paper,” Jones said.

The open paper can be found for free on the Web at www.bentham.org.

So what does Jones think happened?

Jones wants NIST to look at new evidence he found in Ground Zero dust samples since leaving BYU. The dust is full of iron-rich spheres and red-gray chips with the chemical signatures of high-tech cutter-charge explosives that he said could explain the collapsed towers. The spheres come from molten metal that Jones said could be caused by cutter charges.

“It’s like when you spray water into the air, you get droplets,” Jones said. “These spheres are evidence of extremely high temperatures beyond what the fires could have reached.”

He’s offered samples to NIST and invited NIST to visit one of his group’s labs. A NIST spokesman has said that would be a waste of taxpayer dollars, though Jones said the cost would be less than $5,000.

Jones is cautious with money himself. He and his wife are selling off their real-estate investments to make ends meet, but he said they are comfortable and about to move to Sanpete County.

“I haven’t profited a penny off this,” he said. “I don’t want to, and I’ve been careful not to. I’m concerned about the country, and I’m worried the truth is being covered up here.”

He’s careful not to speculate about a cover-up, though he said the growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has made many more people receptive to his research.

Would it really hurt the people at NIST to talk to him once?

Original article here.