by Elizabeth Woodworth
Global Research, June 11, 2008
An Evidence-Based Response to Peter Barber regarding his article, “The Truth is Out There”, Financial Times, June 7, 2008 (see Annex below)
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 7 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 forensic samples.
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):
- 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
- 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? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/nyregion/15letter.html
- 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 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192. There is a summary by Dr. David Ray Griffin at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
- 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
- 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, at The Military Drills of September 11th: Why a New Investigation is Needed by Elizabeth Woodworth
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.
© Copyright Elizabeth Woodworth, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9287