Five weeks and five days ago from today, did you remember the controlled demolition that occurred 18 years ago on September 11th, 2001?
First I read the University of Alaska Fairbanks report on the collapse of WTC7, which can be found by searching the internet for "INE UAF WTC7 - University of Alaska Fairbanks". Chapter 2 and 3 were quite convincing and exposed NIST's report as debunked science.
Secondly I watched the video entitled "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" on PBS video online. I remembered how we must understand the greatest honour we can bestow upon those who perished is to discover the truth of what happened.
So, in light of the new evidence presented by UAF, I then chose to pitch my voice in for a re-investigation of 9/11. Because it now looks like a re-investigation is not only warranted, but needed. Especially since we know the official NIST report is false.
Do you also desire a re-investigation into 9/11?
How did you remember 9/11?
Bonus question 1: Why do those who dislike what the UAF WTC7 study exposes, put too much weight in the now debunked science of the NIST report, and in some cases even try to silence the UAF study?
Bonus question 2: What causes people to cling to lies, or resort to fallacies and intellectual dishonesty, when all else has failed them in trying to deny the UAF study?
Bonus question 3: Why do some people ask questions like "what is the motive? Why Would someone do that? Who would do such a thing? How could it possibly be done?" with aim to derail the point and dismiss it, when those questions are what a re-investigation will discover?
Bonus question 4: Why do conspiracy theorists try to assert the findings in NIST's report are true, even though they have now been debunked by UAF's study??
Bonus question 5: Why do said conspiracy theorists focus debunking chapter 4 of the UAF Study when it only surmised what could have caused what was observed, and chapter 2 and 3 debunked NIST's report, meaning someone would have to come up with a reasonable alternative producing same results without the now debunked fire theory?