911educationprogramme.co.uk finds itself in a very powerful position. It is a leading resource for teachers and academics across the country when guidance is sought regarding the complex and emotive subject of September 11th 2001. Thousands of educators have and will continue to use the site as a basis to present the current official narrative of what happened that day. The facts put forward must stand the test of rigorous evidence-based enquiry. I put it to you that some do not.

We have, I hope, common ground; I seek to establish the truth for our own and future generations. To quote your parent website:

"The 9/11 Education Programme is designed to encourage students to discuss and debate the events and issues surrounding 9/11"

In the spirit of the above statement, please give credit and time to this well-meaning and genuine communication. Please consider the information I present seriously. I urge you to inspect the growing body of evidence endorsed by over 1700 building and technical professionals that supports an alternative hypothesis.

The strongest evidence can be summarised into five key points:

Building 7 was a 47 storey high rise building that collapsed in approximately 6.5 seconds on the afternoon of 9/11. It was not struck by an aircraft but did suffer structural and fire damage as a result of falling debris from the North tower. It has been measured collapsing at free fall acceleration for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent. Since a body in free fall can do no other work, the 40,000 tonnes of structural steel supporting the building must have been removed by some other force. The phenomenon of free fall has been acknowledged but not explained by the subsequent NIST investigation.

Complied footage of the destruction of the third worst structural failure in history:

2. The downward acceleration of the top section of the North tower defies Sir Isaac Newton's third law: It does not decelerate when it hits the lower larger undamaged part of the tower. Instead of the expected "jolt" as one section of building impacts another, continued acceleration is observed. The falling mass of the top section of the building does not slow down; rather it accelerates smoothly through the path of greatest resistance. What removed the structural integrity of the undamaged section of the building?

Engineer Jonathan Cole discusses Newton's Laws in relation the NYC events of 9/11:

3. Molten Metal was discovered at ground zero after the collapse of the twin towers. Molten metal was also observed pouring from the side of the south tower prior to its collapse. No explanation of the molten metal has yet been put forward by defenders of the official story that has not been disproved by experiment. What caused the molten metal in light of the fact that jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel?

John Gross of NIST is informed of eyewitness testimony of molten metal at ground zero:

4. Evidence of un-reacted nano thermite has been discovered in the dust of the World Trade Centre along with evidence of its reaction in the form of billions of iron rich micro spheres. As the iron is spherical, the metal must have been molten at some point. Again, there is no explanation as to what caused molten metal to exist within the dust before it cooled, forming the spheres.

Professor Niels Harrit discusses the evidence of nano thermite present in the WTC dust:

5. Eyewitness testimony to explosions is numerous. Fire-fighters, WTC employees and journalists all report hearing explosions. Explosive events are heard on video footage but not explained by the official story. Shall we ignore this rich testimony? What could account for these explosive observations?

A compilation of eye witness testimony to explosions at the WTC complex on 9/11:

To disregard the above evidence as a simple conspiracy theory is to discredit legitimate enquiry. Clearly from the above evidence, not all conspiracy theories are unreliable and without scientific merit.

In your publication Guidance on teaching sensitive and controversial issues you give clear and explicit instructions on how to "tackle" conspiracy theories, advising teachers to:

"Counter conspiracy theories with evidence-based enquiry and do feel comfortable about not giving much weight to these conspiracy theories. Don’t allow them to dominate your lessons."

Surely a meaningful discussion of the issues surrounding 9/11 would include advocates of the official NIST investigation along with those supporting alternative hypotheses such as controlled demolition?

Lastly I would question why your website fails to embrace 9/11 teaching and learning from a scientific perspective? It's a core subject and would improve the breadth and depth of your website, especially from a cross curricular standpoint. I challenge you to provide teachers with accurate information regarding the collapse dynamics of the three worst structural failures in history: WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.

The world is slowly coming to terms that a new investigation is necessary. The implications of the outlined evidence are dark but will you lead the way by amending your website to include it in a non-bias neutral manner? Our youth is capable of independent critical thought, please present the evidence and allow them to make up their own minds.

I urge you to change before you lose the respect of the young people you intend to educate.

Yours Sincerely

Jade Resmoy