Irish examiner to run 9-11 letter

[JonC]

Hello everyone. My name is Jon, I'm a former Royal Marine and current medical student. I was made aware of the truth campaign about a week ago. Since then I've thought of little else.

My girlfriend and I sent the following letter out to over 2000 addresses. The Irish examiner have said that they are going to run it.

Please, please, follow this up when it is printed with a paper storm of supporting letters. Particularly you academics out there (as opposed to the conspiracy nuts!!!).

Best wishes

Jon

(letter is as follows)

Sir:

We are writing to enquire whether you or other members of the mainstream media
are aware of the growing organisation in the US and Europe that is questioning the
official findings of the 9/11 commission.

Naturally, stereotypes of 'conspiracy theorists' will immediately spring to mind. However, a large number of this organistion are comprised of eminent physicists, structural engineers, fire officers and high ranking military officials as well as broadcasters, political analysts and celebrities . . .

"Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures
in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation
of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it.

"Over the past two years, scores of highly regarded individuals have gone public to express their serious doubts about 9/11. These include former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, BYU physics Professor Steven Jones, former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow, former MI5 officer David Shayler, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term
Morgan Reynolds and many more."

From: prisonplanet.com

As you may well remember, three buildings fell on that awful day as well the
Pentagon sustaining significant damage. The official explanation offered for the
collapse of WTC buildings 1 and 2 are that the steel structure, having been
weakened by the impact of the planes, was then further weakened by the resulting
fire, causing it to fail and the building to 'pancake' in on itself. Building 7, (rarely
referred to anymore)apparently collapsed after fire damage, without structural
damage from the impact of any plane, caused precisely the same phenomenon. It is
only the third building in history to have collaped from fire. The first 2 were WTC 1
and 2.

An organistaion on the UK has provided a compilation of documentaries that have
been shot on this subject (please see link below).

http--www.911truthbristol.com-videos-911truthbristol_facethefacts.wmv

We also have included links to two of the most respected sites on this topic.

http://www.physics911.net/index.htm

http://911review.org/ScholarsforTruthabout911/


Of course controversy over this subject has run high with both sides arguing the evidence. We would ask you to simply consider what we believe to be the two most
troubling aspects of the commission findings:

1/ Building 7

The only steel framed building in history to have collapsed from fire damage alone.
Building owner Larry Silverstein is on record as stating he and the fire commander made the decision to 'pull' (slang for controlled demolition) the building yet the 9/11
commission finding make no mention of this stating that fire damage is what caused the implosion, clearly visible on the tape.

2/ WTC 1 & 2 - Speed of Collapse

Through all our research, we have been unable to find a satisfactory explanation for how these two buildings collapsed at freefall speed (under 10 seconds) through a path of maximum resistance, ie, straight down through the undamaged floors beneath. The speed at which they fell is one of the few things that is agreed on by
both sides. It is a matter of physical impossibility that the upper floors could have fallen through steel and concrete at the same speed that they would have fallen through air (ie, freefall speed). The only hypothesis offered thus far which explains
this phenomenon is that of controlled demolition, troubling as that may be.

Either of these points, as well as a number of others regarding the heat at which the fires burned vs the melting point of industrial steel, should be of great interest to the media or to the relevant authorities in the USA, yet the silence seems to be deafening.

When this matter has been reported in the mainstream press it has, as far as we
have seen, completely failed to address these, and other, important undeniable
discrepancies. Indeed, the tone of most articles that we have seen has been
dismissive, if not completely derisory, for example making reference to "conspiracy
nuts" and "people who believe in faked moon landings". We are neither. Nor are the
majority of people to whom we have spoken who share our concern.

We are concerned that no item in the mainstream media has doggedly pursued these
two issues as well as the other undeniable discrepancies in the offical explanation
without becoming distracted by some of the more frivoulous and irrelevant claims
made by both sides.

If you do not find this newsworthy we would be fascinated to understand why. If you have information that satisfactorily contradicts all of the points that we have highlighted we would be most appreciative if you could direct us to it as this issue, with its potential ramifications has caused us marked distress.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours very sincerely.

[andyb]

Good work Jon(and your girlfriend). I look forward to the article and will definately follow it up with a leeter of support. How did you get a list of 2000 contacts to send the article to, and was it via email? Would it be possible for anyone else who would like to write their own letter to obtain this list from you?

Cheers
Andy

[Andrew Johnson]

Jon,

Great to have more hands to keyboards! Well done - I will try and follow up too.

We can maybe use the upcoming Flight 93 movie (release date 2nd June) as a focal point and there are others who are planning something "big" for 5th September.

Quite a few of us now feel the momentum is building more rapidly now.

Keep up the campaigning.

Andrew

[andyb]

re United 93, I am busy trying to find out Premiere details as this will be our biggest chance of being ignored by the BBC. I'll post any details when I find anything out.

[andyb]

Jon, Hope you don't mind but I plagiarised your letter slightly while writing to my MP.

[kbo234]

People might phone 'The Irish Examiner' about this to encourage them to make a big deal of the story.
The first newspaper to do a front page spread on the WTC collapses (say) will create a legendary edition of their newspaper.

Please God, the sooner the better.

Irish Examiner Newsdesk 00353 2142727222

[JonC]

Hi guys,

Thankyou all for the support. The fella at the examiner e-mailed me today and told me that, following editorial approval, the letter would go in on monday ( i can paste the e-mail if anyone wants).

The 2000 list of adresses came from the myspace 9-11truth group. I've got to dash off now but i'll endeavour to get it on here (be warned about 500 ish of them come back as undeliverable but I'm buggered if I'm going to sort through them!).

The examiner, unlike a lot of papers publishes it's letters online. You can find the site through google.

Glad you all liked it. We're rather new at this.

Regards to all

Jon

[JonC]

WE'RE IN!!! Go to this site and start writing replies. The longer we can keep this on the letter page the better. Can someone contact David Shayler and get him to write to them?


http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/sectiondynamic.aspx-q qqg=opinion-qqqm=opinion-qqqa=general-qqqtt=letters_top-qqqc=6.15.0.0- qqqn=20-qqqx=1.asp

Cheers guys

[Garrett Cooke]

Jon,

Congratulations upon getting your letter published by the Irish Examiner. I shall certainly be writing to them supporting its inclusion and congratulating them on their good sense in publishing it. Just a point of detail: I understand (according to Griffin) that the collapse of WTC 7 was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Comission report. I also understand that a NIST report concluded that they (NIST) did not know how WTC 7 came to collapse. However fire is widely proposed as the 'officially accepted' reason for the collapse. We of course know better....

Garrett

[Andrew Johnson]

Jon,

This a super "hit" - I will e-mail tomorrow and ask them to do a feature on ST911 - Morgan Stack is a member, so they may already know about it.

Great Work!

Encore please?

[JonC]

Hi guys

Garrett, yup I know that now, sorry!!

But in fact one of you could point that out and write a reply along the lines of
...Mr Clark and Miss Colliss' letter, in fact, does the 9-11 far more credit than it deserves, stating that the report blames fire for the collapse of buiding 7. In point of fact NO mention is made of the collapse of this multi-million high rise building in the 9-11 report; a document that claims to be the "Final report on the events of 9-11." It is only subsequent 'official' postulation that has suggested fire as a cause. As they correctly state this is a suggestion that has been branded as preposterous by many engineers, fire officers and phycisicts and, if true, would make it the only steel framed building in architectural history to collapse from fire damage alone, much less neatly implode into it's own foundations.

Given that the 9-11 commission report is intended as a complete forensic analysis of the greatest criminal act ever to befall the US (if not the world) this complete omission of a key and troubling event does nothing short of beggar belief. That this incomplete document has been used to shape american public opinion, foreign policy and the subsequent world events we have all borne witness to, should be of marked concern for us all.

At the very least it is sickeningly incompetent, if not, as is now increasingly suggested, an attempt by the authorities involved to cover up something far more sinister."

Uh, sorry to put words in peoples mouths!!!!! But you get the idea!
(bit new to writing, getting a bit carried away with it!!)

Cheers guys

[Graham]

Good work