0 votes

Was the Presence of Thermite Reported in the New York Times?

I have an idea to petition the New York Times, a challenge to really print "all the news that's fit to print." Let their own researchers verify that the chemical signature os correct and authentic. I challenge them to put their scientific credentials on display.

If there is any smoking gun of 911 that in one easy stroke kills the lie, even more than Building 7, it is the presence of thermite residue in the Trade Center dust, both reacted and unreacted. WTC7 requires three different points of agreement: It did not get hit by a plane, the fires could not have been the cause of the collapse, and the collapse was a demolition. In the case of thermite only one point is necessary: there should not have been a speck of this military grade substance which does not occur in nature or urban settings, and even one single speck should have triggered an investigation.

The strategy for 2001 is to settle on a limited number of angles of attack, one of which should include the prosecution through the "effects doctrine," which allows a prosecutor in any county to bring charges when a crime has harmed someone in your jurisdiction, against Rudy Giuliani for destruction of evidence.

Another angle of attack should be to challenge the NYT to explain how the discovery of thermite in the dust is not the story of the century, if not the last 2 centuries. Even WWII did not cost us our Constitution. Keep up the pressure, keep track of every NYT editor and reporter you write to and record their response.

2011: The Year of Truth!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not the 1/10th of it.....

There is voluminous evidence on the intentional demolition of WTC. Not just the thermite, but also the iron-rich microspheres (that even the USGS recorded). What does the other side have? The ravings of their lying government!