June 8, 2008
Dear Mr. Barber:
I am a professional medical librarian who delivered “best evidence”
literature to the public health officers of the British Columbia government
for 25 years.
Your article, “The Truth is Out There,” is an “ad hominem”
approach to a critically serious matter, and it unfortunately fails to deal
with the evidence involved.
You will no doubt agree that 9/11 has changed the world. It is a seminal event
which has grossly undermined trust and erected enormous barriers between the
West and the Middle East. And it has led to widespread mayhem and death in that
region. Obviously, questions concerning our understanding of the event are of
the utmost importance.
The US government has steadfastly refused to release the evidence which it
claims to have. Evidence which, if in existence, would settle once and for all
the questions which are being raised, nearly seven years later, on the front
page of the Financial Times of London.
There were 85 cameras rolling outside the Pentagon, whose film could be offered
to save the Times the trouble of running these articles.
There are small, indestructible time replacement parts in all aircraft which
allow for positive identification, and these could be offered to silence critics
about Flight 77.
For several years NIST has been promising its imminent report on the strange
collapse of Building 7. This could be completed and released.
You say the 9/11 truth movement has taken over from the peace movement. Why
don’t you ask why the government doesn’t do the obvious thing and produce the
evidence to silence this vast new movement?
A full, credible, transparent account would be the responsible thing for the
US government to do. Without such an account, or even the evidence which would
allow for one, many concerned people have stepped into the breach.
It is unlikely, as you point out, that everyone will agree. But because the
Bush administration has elected to withhold its purported fact-settling evidence,
its citizens are dealing with a mystery. The best the public can do is conduct
its own investigation by working with available media reports, witnesses, and
There is a natural temptation to ponder what actually happened, and some people
succumb to developing theories, it is true. But the scientific people in the
9/11 research community simply advance the “best evidence,” then demonstrate
that it is incompatible with what we have been told, and call for a new investigation.
Having long provided Web-based literature to health professionals, I believe
the links below to be truthworthy. If you, Mr. Barber, are interested in dealing
with the facts themselves, rather than where Dr. Griffin lives, or what his
dogs do when you come to the door, you might wish to pass this sample evidence-based
information along to your readers (that is, if the FT has no agenda
in running your long “ad hominem” piece as a front page feature article):
1. Dr. Steven E. Jones Boston 911 Conference 12-15-07 Red chips. Re. the chemical
signature of the highly explosive incendiary thermate found in the dust at the
World Trade Center. Lecture at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4&feature=related
2. In 2006, over 700 human bone fragments were found on the roof of the adjacent
Deutsche Bank building, some less than a centimeter long. How does a simple
gravitational collapse splinter and disseminate human bones in this manner?
3. Oral histories from first responders at the WTC scene indicating ground-shaking
explosions from beneath the buildings were released in August 2005 by the New
York Times, at https://911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192.
There is a summary by Dr. David Ray Griffin at https://911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
4. The 9/11 Commissioners themselves have said that they were denied access
to key witnesses, and that their formal investigation was obstructed by the
C.I.A. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html
5. My own article on the Military Drills of September 11th, which shows that
there were 29 different reports of hijackings that morning, has 58 references,
Thank you for looking this over.
For you, who seems interested in the event, the question is: if all this evidence
does indeed point to US government complicity, would you want to know about
it? And the answer to that is your worth as a journalist.