{"id":18533,"date":"2018-04-27T12:13:09","date_gmt":"2018-04-27T02:13:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/?p=18533"},"modified":"2024-06-29T02:14:38","modified_gmt":"2024-06-28T16:14:38","slug":"families-of-the-9-11-victims-have-filed-a-petition-for-a-new-investigation-citing-conclusive-evidence-of-explosives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/?p=18533","title":{"rendered":"Families of the 9\/11 victims have filed a petition for a new investigation citing \u2018conclusive evidence\u2019 of explosives"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"911_Twin_Towers_Plane\"<\/a>
\nThis month, the Lawyers\u2019 Committee for 9-11 Inquiry, a group representing families of the 9\/11 victims, filed a petition with the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to push for an investigation into the crimes of 9\/11. The committee states that they have \u201cconclusive\u201d evidence that explosives were planted and detonated in the trade center buildings, and that this is the actual reason for the collapse of the towers.
\nAccording to the 52-page petition, which is accompanied by 57 exhibits, federal statute requires the U.S. Department of Justice to review the evidence with a special grand jury. The petition states:
\n\u201cThe Lawyers\u2019 Committee has reviewed the relevant available evidence . . . and has reached a consensus that there is not just substantial or persuasive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted crimes related to the use of pre-planted explosives and\/or incendiaries . . . on 9\/11, but there is actually conclusive evidence that such federal crimes were committed.\u201d
\nThe evidence that is put forward in the petition includes the following:
\nIndependent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and\/or incendiaries in the form of thermite or thermate.
\nExpert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9\/11 prior to the airplane impacts on the WTC Towers, and prior to the building collapses.
\nTechnical analysis of video evidence of the WTC building collapses.
\nFirefighter reports of explosions, and of seeing \u201cmolten iron like in a foundry.\u201d The petition states that the presence of molten iron would require temperatures higher than jet fuel and building contents could create when burned, but consistent with the use of the high tech explosive and incendiary thermite or thermate.
\nThe presence of previously molten iron microspheres, which have been established by electron microscope analysis of WTC dust samples, by both government and independent scientists, is another phenomenon that would be scientifically impossible based on the burning of jet fuel and office contents alone.
\nVideo and eyewitness testimony of the ejection during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 of heavy steel elements laterally from the buildings which would not be possible from a gravity collapse.
\nScientific analysis, eyewitness testimony, and government reports confirming sulfidation and high-temperature corrosion of the steel found in the rubble after the collapse of the WTC towers and WTC 7, a phenomenon not expected in a jet fuel fire and gravity collapse but consistent with the use of thermate and high explosives.
\nAfter the petition was delivered, the Lawyers committee delivered a press conference outside of the New York District Court, along with families of the victims.
\nFootage from the press conference can be seen on the site linked to below.
\nNone of the evidence put forward in the petition was presented or considered in the \u201c9\/11 commission,\u201d which was initially appointed to investigate the collapse of the towers. In the years since the attacks, the commission has been exposed as a fraud, with many of its own members speaking out against the official story.
\nAccording to a 2006 report from the Washington Post, most of the people who oversaw this commission believed they were being lied to, and even held a secret meeting about referring the matter to the Department of Justice.
\nThe report stated that:
\n\u201cSuspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.\u201d
\nOne of the commissioners who expressed doubts about the evidence was John Farmer, who later wrote a book called \u201cThe Ground Truth,\u201d detailing how evidence was intentionally left out of the report and how intelligence agencies lied about important aspects of the incident, including their initial response to the attack.
\n\u201cI was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described \u2026. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years,\u201d Farmer said.
\nThomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey governor who led the commission said that NORAD lied about their response to the attack.
\n\u201cWe to this day don\u2019t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth. . . . It\u2019s one of those loose ends that never got tied,\u201d Kean said.
\nThe two co-chairs of the Commission, Kean and Lee Hamilton, have said publicly that the commission was \u201cset up to fail.\u201d In their book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9\/11 Commission, Kean and Hamilton describe how the commission was intentionally underfunded and not given ample time to sort out the evidence, and how they were lied to by intelligence agencies and politicians who seemed to have something to hide.
\nHamilton said in an interview with the CBC that \u201cWe had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don\u2019t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.\u201d In the interview, Hamilton also revealed that Henry Kissinger was who they actually wanted to run the commission.
\nThere were even members of the Intelligence Community who had similar stories to tell, including Former FBI Director Louis Freeh who pointed out that there were parts of the report that he knew were false. Specifically, Freeh said that some of the terrorists suspected of carrying out the attack were known about by intelligence agencies for a long time, while the final commission report stated these agencies had no prior knowledge of the terrorists.
\nThe commission was so flimsy that a coalition of intelligence whistleblowers was formed to dispute the official story. The coalition consisted of agents from the NSA, FBI and other agencies, who said that there was evidence that was intentionally ignored and left out of the commission report.
\nConsidering the many problems with the commission, a new investigation is long overdue.
\nhttps:\/\/nexusnewsfeed.com\/article\/human-rights\/9-11-citing-conclusive-evidence-of-explosives\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This month, the Lawyers\u2019 Committee for 9-11 Inquiry, a group representing families of the 9\/11 victims, filed a petition with the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to push for an investigation into the crimes of 9\/11. The committee states that they have \u201cconclusive\u201d evidence that explosives were planted and detonated … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Families of the 9\/11 victims have filed a petition for a new investigation citing \u2018conclusive evidence\u2019 of explosives”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general-interest"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18533","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18533"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18533\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51416,"href":"https:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18533\/revisions\/51416"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tomgrimshaw.com\/tomsblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}