As told in my earlier blog (http://www.911blogger.com/node/21422), I had sent emails to 37 NC State Physics professors asking for help in trying to understand the contradictions of the 9/11 collapse of the WTC. I recieved no help at all after almost three months.

Here is a followup letter that I have just sent to each professor individually, and I have corrected the website for Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. I'm looking forward to some kind of response. I'll let you know.

While I am happy to have suggestions and corrections to my efforts, I think I must remind all of you that I am no expert, researcher, or physicist. There may be a lot of finer points I could make. But I am a layman, asking experts for some basic understanding. I think honest letters from laymen to the experts at universities is the best strategy to try to get academia thinking about 9/11 truth and even supporting it.
I think that getting no, or very little, response to simple questions from an average citizen like me is very telling.
We'll see what the lasted request brings.

But instead of only constructive criticism, I'd like to see others begin a similar campaign of letter writing to our academic institutions, for explanations and asking where they stand. They are public servants, all of them, and have some responsibility to our country. Let's begin a campaign to contact every person of expertise that should have a real understanding of the impossibilities of the official story. This is something we can all do, and you don't even need to get on a plane and take off time from work to do this.

Here is the followup letter:

_______________________________________________________________________________

I was very disappointed that I received no help from your physics department concerning the questions I raised in my email to you (which follows) about the contradictions in the official theory of how the WTC buildings collapsed. I know all of you are busy, but I felt that because of the importance of this issue, and what seems to me a blatant disregard of the evidence in the official story, I would have received some reply.

Actually, two NC professors replied, both saying that their areas of expertise are in different fields. That was surprising, as the contradictions seem to involved fairly basic physics that could be understood by most college and even high school physics students.

I simply would like to know if you:

1. Agree with the official story of collapse, and have some explanation of the nanothermite found in the dust samples at the WTC, the molten metal found flowing for days, the freefall collapse, the explosions, the pyroclastic dust, etc etc. The collapses seem to have all of the 14 characteristics of collapse via controlled demolition, as presented by Richard Gage at his website Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth (www.ae911truth.org, .....I gave the wrong website in my letter) and not collapse by fire. I'd like to know how you accommodate these characteristics with the official story.

2. Do not agree with the official story, and feel that the buildings collapsed via controlled demolition, according to the evidence and eyewitness reports. I think quickly reviewing the information at www.ae911truth.org will give all of the necessary details to help evaluate the controversy.

If you do feel that there are inconsistencies in the official story that contradict science, I would recommend that you sign your name to the list at Architects and Engineers as over 800 scientists have, indicating that you feel there should be a new, independent investigation of 9/11.

More information may be found at www.911truth.org.

Please let me know if you can help me understand, from an expert's viewpoint, the seeming impossibilities of the official story of the collapse of all three WTC buildings.

Thanks,

(my name)

______________________________________
The original letter to you follows:
______________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: "
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:17:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: I need your help

Dear Dr. (name of professor.....each of 37 professors got individual emails),

I need your help.

I am a sixty year old dentist and father, and I am very troubled with what I have learned recently about the attacks of 9/11, specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center. I have come across information and evidence that seems to prove that the buildings did not collapse because of fire and plane crashes, but instead collapsed because of controlled demolition. I am a skeptical person, but I have a fundamental knowledge of physics, and the explanations seem to make sense.

But I am not an expert in physics. I may be wrong. I hope so. If the official story is wrong, it is of huge importance, and very unsettling. I need people with expertise to tell me that what I have learned is wrong, or right. Please take a few minutes to let me know what you think.

One of the most troubling bits of information is that several scientists have found nanothermite, an explosive, in the dust samples take from the WTC collapse area. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan and seven other scientists have presented this information in a paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal] . " Nanothermite, I have learned, is not produced commercially, and could only come from research centers with some connection with the government and military. I cannot think of any way this material could have been found throughout the area unless it had been placed before the attacks. It seems to show complicity by at least some people linked to an official agency.

Also, it has been shown that the Towers, and Building 7, collapsed at nearly free fall speed. Apparently, only a building brought down via controlled demolition could collapse at that speed and acceleration. NIST, which presented the public with the pancake theory of collapse, has not shown how this free fall could be possible with their explanation of the collapse. A building collapsing onto itself would be far slower, as each floor crashing onto the next would decrease in acceleration as it hit against the next floor down, much of the energy of falling being absorbed in each impact. Why no good explanation of this by the government? Why do we hear nothing from our universities and academic think tanks?

And there are other problems with the official story. There are many eyewitness reports of molten metal in the rubble after collapse, some of it days and weeks after collapse. Hydrocarbon fires cannot melt steel. The "meteorites" that were found after cooling were iron, and had traces of nanothermite in them. And there were many reports of explosions, some of them sequential. There was a massive amount of "pyroclastic dust" throughout the city. In fact, the collapses seem to exhibit all of the fourteen characteristics of controlled demolition, as presented on the website, www.ae911.org. This website is supported by the signatures of over 700 architects and engineers, all of whom feel the official story is inadequate. They are calling for a new, independent investigation.

The United States is extraordinarily blessed with experts in physics and other related sciences, in our educational institutions and in industry. When I feel certain that these contradictions to the official story are real and disturbing, I wonder why we are not hearing from these scientists. I begin to think I must be wrong about all of it. But the conflicts between science and the official story seem real. And that is why I am so troubled. If the official story is wrong, if there was government complicity, and coverup, the implications are huge. I feel it is important for the scientific community to express their ideas in this important issue.

I am a good American, and not a troublemaker. I spent 36 years in the Navy and National Guard. But I worry about the future if we have been told a lie about 9/11. I only want the truth, because I think the truth will bring a better future for my kids and grandkids. I would deeply appreciate your time in responding to this letter.

Thank you.

(My name, address, phone number and email address was given here.)