http://youtu.be/J3WR6Bld0kc
Tell the NY TImes:
The Evidence Isn't Hard to Find...
If You Just Look
Yesterday
New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent David Sanger was the
guest on CSPAN’s Washington Journal, where he had this to say about
Building 7’s collapse:
“We
have not found any evidence so far – that doesn’t mean there’s none
there – but we’ve not found any evidence so far to suggest that the
building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes
that flew into them.”
Sanger
was responding to a question from a caller who wanted to know why,
despite the massive billboard standing right outside the New York Times
Building, the paper of record had failed to “fairly and objectively
cover this crucial issue.”
Now
with a senior representative of the New York Times on the record
saying, “We’ve not found any evidence so far,” it is time to let Sanger
and the editors know that the evidence is there. All they need to do is look and they’ll easily find it. Contact the NY Times Today!
Contact the NY Times Today
Last
week over 1,000 people contacted the BBC in response to our action
alert regarding the BBC’s one-sided article on the ReThink911 campaign.
Let’s surpass that level of support today. Please take 2 minutes right
now to contact David Sanger and the NY Times editors. Just copy-paste
the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at
AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.
|
Dear Mr. Sanger and Editors of the New York Times,
On
Sunday, December 23, 2013, you, Mr. Sanger, told a caller on CSPAN’s
Washington Journal that the New York Times had not found any evidence so
far to suggest that the collapse of WTC Building 7 was caused by
anything other than an indirect result of the airplanes flying into the
Twin Towers. I am writing to tell you that the evidence is indeed there,
and I urge you to look into it. 2,100 architects and engineers have
signed a petition at AE911Truth.org calling for a new investigation
based on this evidence. The following points are just a few from among
the growing body of evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Building 7 came down by controlled demolition.
- Building 7 accelerated downward at absolute free-fall for the first few seconds of its 7-second symmetrical collapse.
- However,
a building cannot undergo free-fall if it is meeting any resistance
from any of the columns below it, as any resistance would slow the
building’s descent.
- Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been “crushed” by the upper freely falling section.
- The
destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building
had to have been accomplished by other means, i.e. explosives or
incendiaries, to allow the upper section of the building to fall through
it in free-fall. Learn more about the free-fall of Building 7.
- There is clear evidence of melted steel at Building 7, first reported on by the NY Times, and incendiaries in numerous dust samples from Ground Zero.
As
you well understand, the implications of the controlled demolition of
Building 7 are extraordinary, since it is integral to the 9/11 events,
and therefore the question of what happened to Building 7 is of the
greatest importance. I thank you in advance for taking the time to
seriously examine this crucial issue.
Sincerely,
[Name, address]
|
Thank you as always for your tremendous support.!
| Support ReThink911 with a donation today |
 |
|
|
|
About ReThink911 |
ReThink911 is sponsored by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and Remember Building 7, a campaign by 9/11 family members to raise awareness of Building 7.
Donations are tax-deductible as allowed by codes and restrictions.
|
|
