Tuesday, November 27, 2012

A 2009 Paper Claims to Have Found Explosive Material in Dust from the 9/11 Tragedy - Please Donate Dust or Money for an Independent Study to Either Confirm or Refute The Paper

By John-Michael Talboo and Ziggi Zugam

Ever more people are realizing that the official account of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 is a cover-up, and that we need a proper independent investigation. One aspect of that investigation will have to deal with the explosive destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, the third skyscraper to disappear that day. Government officials tell us that crashing airplanes led to the exploding Twin Towers, and that normal office fires destroyed a steel skyscraper, Building 7, for the first time in history.

There is no actual evidence behind those theories, only unverified computer animations, since NIST ignored all the evidence or had it destroyed: Plenty of witnesses, including first-responders, have testified that explosions were seen and heard. The government has admitted that all three towers fell to the ground at either free-fall acceleration, or close to it - which is the hallmark of controlled demolition. They never slowed down either, and the expected squibs were also visible. The owner of Building 7 and several other parties may have known that it would be brought down, and some witnesses heard a count-down before the building imploded. The rubble of the towers supports the first-responder testimony with the tell-tale signs of spent incendiary/explosive materials, and the air-pollution provides further evidence - all this is hardly a coincidence.

Finally, a team of scientists has confirmed all these "smoking guns" with a peer-reviewed paper that identifies tiny remnants of active explosives in the dust from the collapsed buildings. The discovery of explosives developed in US government labs is just too shocking for many people to accept, because of its implications. This is why we are asking you to donate money to pay for independent studies that will either support or refute this unchallenged paper.

- Keep reading for a comprehensive explanation of the explosive paper by Harrit et al from 2009. Find out why no one has refuted it, why current attempts are failing and unlikely to produce a credible challenge, and why we need more dust, money and independent scientists...