An Aversion To Scientific Facts?
Is the Washington Post involved in the 9/11 Cover-up?
— Graham Pardun
The Washington Post recently published an editorial raging against a well-respected member of the Diet of Japan, Councillor Yukihisa Fujita. The 'hit piece' titled "A leading Japanese politician espouses a 9/11 fantasy," 3/8/2010, struck me, even in this age of melodramatic sound bites, as especially baseless and exaggerated.
"Mr. Fujita's ideas about the attack on the World Trade Center…are too bizarre, half-baked and intellectually bogus to merit serious discussion," writes the Post. What are his "bizarre, half-baked and intellectually bogus" ideas about 9/11? Well, for one, Councillor Fujita "hints that controlled demolition rather than fire or debris may be a more likely explanation for at least the collapse of the building at 7 World Trade Center." The Post then wonders how a "man so susceptible to the imaginings of the lunatic fringe" could occupy such a high position in the government of a "nation that boasts the world's second largest economy" – and ends the piece by suggesting that the US-Japanese alliance, the "cornerstone" of Japan's security, could be threatened, if Prime Minister Hatoyama "tolerates elements of his own party as reckless and fact-averse as Mr. Fujita."
But who is really "reckless and fact-averse"? Councillor Fujita, in harmony with over eleven-hundred professionals associated with the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, agrees that the forensic evidence associated with World Trade Center Building 7, for example, corroborates the explosive controlled demolition hypothesis. And, that it contradicts the government's hypothesis (espoused by only a dozen NIST team members) that normal fires primarily brought the building down. And so he is also calling for a new investigation. So, are his ideas "half-baked"? Let's reiterate some of the many relevant facts about Building 7 and the Twin Towers:
1. WTC 7, a 47 story skyscraper, not hit by an airplane, collapsed at nearly free-fall acceleration in under 7 seconds; this is only about a second more than the time it would take a bowling ball to drop from the roof to the ground.
2. WTC 7 collapsed vertically, symmetrically, and neatly into its own footprint.
3. Numerous credible witnesses heard explosions.
4. The steel-framed structure was almost completely dismembered; as pyroclastic-like clouds carried thousands of tons of pulverized concrete away. Several tons of molten iron were found under the debris pile, but office fires can't melt steel or iron. Where did the molten iron come from? FEMA finds and documents "evaporated" beam ends like "Swiss cheese" in their Appendix C of the BPAT report in May 2002, and evidence that can only be explained by thermite – an incendiary used to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. Thermite releases molten iron at 4,500° F.
6. Scientists found previously molten iron microspheres in all of the dust samples throughout lower Manhattan (evidence of what must have been billions of microspheres) as well as actual chips of undetonated nano-thermite composite explosives, and published these findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
The "fire and debris" hypothesis explains none of this evidence, while the controlled demolition hypothesis explains all of it. And yet The Washington Post calls Councillor Fujita's position "bizarre, half-baked, intellectually bogus," the product of the "lunatic fringe," and "reckless and fact-averse." Who here is truly averse to the facts? We don't expect The Washington Post to agree with the implications of the scientific evidence regarding the collapse of Building 7 – but a newspaper of its stature should at least be willing to look at and report the evidence. The Post's omission here may in fact be evidence of a continuing cover-up of an extremely serious crime that Councillor Fujita is seeking to expose.