Why are honest 9/11 truth researchers targetted?

[Micpsi]

Why are Honest 9/11 Researchers Targetted

by Chris Bollyn

Global Research, May 24, 2007
bollyn.com/

I am an independent journalist who has investigated the events of 9/11 since that terrible day in which our lives and national political reality were so drastically changed.

My original research and articles have resulted in several discoveries that are central to understanding what really happened at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the reclaimed mine in Lambertsville, Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, because my discoveries do not support the official government conspiracy version, I was branded an "anti-government conspiracy theorist" by those who refuse to investigate any evidence that challenges the official version.

Last August 15, a gang of three undercover cops came to my house and assaulted me during an unjustified arrest. I was TASERed while restrained and my right elbow was broken in front of my wife and 8-year-old daughter. My writings made me a target of those who are dedicated to promoting the lies about 9/11.

Naturally, this brutal assault took a heavy toll on me. I was thrown into a cell with no water and told to "drink from the toilet." When I asked why undercover cops with body armor had been prowling around my house, I was told – "We are watching you."

I was subsequently charged with two trumped-up misdemeanor charges and immediately became the subject of a well-orchestrated international campaign to discredit me – and by extension my writings and research.

I now face a jury trial on May 31st in the Cook County Circuit Court and would appreciate if you would contact the mayor and police chief of Hoffman Estates and express your concern for what happened to me. In today's America, what happened to me could happen to anyone. For that reason it needs to be addressed by concerned citizens.

The contact information is available here: http://www.bollyn.com/index/?id=10451

WHY ARE 9/11 RESEARCHERS TARGETED?

Three weeks after I was assaulted and arrested, 9/11 researcher Professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University, was slandered on the local NPR affiliate as a "anti-Semite" and removed from his teaching position at that prestigious Mormon school.

Jones and I had collaborated in the spring of 2006 on his research into the molten metal seen at the World Trade Center. I had learned and reported about the molten iron found in the basements of the three collapsed towers in the summer of 2002. These reports had piqued the interest of Jones several years later. His scientific interest resulted in a thesis that Thermite-type cutter charges had been used to facilitate the destruction of the twin towers and the 47-story WTC 7.

I took Jones' research to the University of California at Davis where I met with Professor Thomas Cahill. Cahill had collected data and analyzed the smoke (with a Davis DRUM) that rose from the WTC debris pile from early October until Christmas 2001. The extraordinary abundance of nano-size particles in the smoke indicated that the molten metal beneath the towers was hotter than the boiling point of iron and the other metals found in the bluish smoke. This is the kind of evidence that those who support the official version hate.

SMEAR-AND-FEAR CAMPAIGN

Were the attacks on me and Professor Jones related? Were we attacked, slandered, and discredited because we were asking too many questions about 9/11? In her recent article, "War and the Police State: Complicity of the American People," published by Global Research Donna J. Thorne wrote,

"Fearing exposure, the Czars of Propaganda know that 'Truthers' must be branded and discredited if government corruption and corporate fraud is to flourish unabated."

"Fear attempts to silence dissenters," Thorne wrote. "As the Truth Movement gains momentum and amasses credibility, the fear profiteers have begun heralding yet another 'threat' to National Security - inquiring minds. This is both good news and bad news. We are no longer ignorable. Fearing exposure, the Czars of Propaganda know that 'Truthers' must be branded and discredited if government corruption and corporate fraud is to flourish unabated. This said, prepare for an intensified Smear-and-Fear Campaign. Any group or individual who vocally questions the official story of 9/11 or who exercises the right to demand Government accountability will be labeled 'Anti-American and Anti-Patriotic.'"

Will we allow that? Will we stand up for the Truth - or will we quietly submit to the lies?
********************************************************************** *********
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BOL200 70524&articleId=5740

Based on information provided by a former Japanese bank employee, who said that the 81st floor of the South Tower was filled with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries, Bollyn has suggested
http://www.bollyn.com/index/?id=10151
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Thermate-WTC.html
that the cells were filled with thermate. This was the floor that Flight 175 (or its surrogate) hit, so the fires could easily have melted the lead and released the thermate, which then reacted with surrounding steel, causing it to melt. But how could this be effective in severely weakening many girders far from the impact zone if all the thermate had been contained on one floor? To facilitate the near free-fall collapse of many floors (and remember: destruction of floors started well above the plane impact point in the South Tower), thermate had to be distributed on many other floors as well, if, indeed it was ever used at all (see my thread here for my rebuttal of Jones' claim that it was). But the thermate powder could never have reached many other floors if it was all sitting on the 81st floor, even allowing for some scattering by the impact of the plane and resulting fires. So what was the point of it being kept on one floor?! Bollyn's suggestion makes sense of molten iron pouring out of the 81st floor - the floor where the batteries were housed. But why the plotters would load only one floor with thermate does not make sense, as it would not have helped very much in weakening other floors and thus the complete collapse of the tower! On the other hand, if we suppose that thermate was planted in many parts of the skyscraper in order to help destruction of the whole tower, what was the point of having so much of it on one floor, hidden in batteries?! Bollyn's theory does not add up.

Bollyn's suggestion that there was thermate loaded in the North Tower that accounts for the white smoke (aluminium oxide, so Jones speculates) coming from the explosion out of the east side equally does not make sense. Why bother to have so much thermate on one floor (the 95th), much of which was scattered outside the building after the explosion if Bollyn's and Jones' interpretation of the white smoke as the aluminium oxide in thermate is to be believed, when it would have been more sensible to have thermate distributed over many floors, so that it could melt steel girders in them and facilitate near free-fall of all the floors? Indeed, the tower could never have collapsed completely if all the thermate had been loaded on just one floor. How could what was left inside the tower after the impact get distributed to all the dozens of floors below the impact point?! Anyway, there is really not all that much difference in lightness of color between the smoke from the north face of the North Tower and that issuing from the east side - see photo at
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Thermate-WTC.html
The claim that the white smoke has to be the aluminium oxide in thermate is weak. Even if the difference of colour be accepted as real and not merely due to the differences in density of the smoke or how sunlight was being scattered, it could merely reflect the difference between oxygen-starved, weak fire, which generates black smoke, and a much hotter fire in a different area of the tower, which was creating white smoke. It does not necessarily indicate that thermate was burning! Anyway, if it had been, why did no molten metal pour out of the North Tower at the plane impact level, as it did in the South Tower?

The same applies to the South Tower. Bollyn notices that the smoke issuing from the south side (impact face) is white, whereas the fireball issuing from the south-east face is much darker. He fails to understand that comparatively little jet fuel exploded outside the impact area (most was carried inside), so the smoke and concrete dust issuing from the hole was not darkened by the soot which the kerosene vapour fireball turned into as it burnt and exited from the side of the tower. The difference between the colours of the smoke is not necessarily evidence for thermate.

I believe Bollyn made his suggestion to give support to Professor Steven Jones' identification of the molten metal pouring out of the South Tower as iron. They have worked together on this problem. But his idea is wrong, because it would have made no sense to load just one floor with thermate. Even with damage from fire and the plane's collision, the powder could not have been distributed to any more than a few of the 110 floors. How Bollyn thinks this would lead to steel girders many floors further down being weakened because parts of them melted is beyond me! It makes no sense of the very purpose that Professor Jones has claimed for the thermate he believes he has detected, namely, to ensure complete destruction of the tower. I think the lead batteries on the 81st floor were real batteries that melted in the fire, so that it was molten lead (melting point = 327.5 degrees Centigrade - below the temperatures of the fires) that poured out of the 81st floor - the very floor that the batteries were located! Not coincidental, I suggest. Bollyn makes much of the fact that he was told by the Japanese bank employee that the batteries were never turned on, suggesting they were not real ones. But, if they were only meant to provide backup electric current to computers during a power failure, what is suspicious about that?

I have no doubt that Bollyn is being targetted because of his writings about 9/11. But it is because he is a journalist who is raising awkward questions about 9/11 and - more seriously - publicising the research of scientists whose findings seem to contradict the official story. Don't, however, conclude that it necessarily means that he is getting at the actual truth.

[Micpsi]

Christopher Bollyn found guilty
http://www.rense.com/general76/boll.htm