An Evidence-Based Response to Peter Barber regarding his article, "The Truth is Out There", Financial Times, June 7, 2008

Dear Mr. Barber:

I am a professional medical librarian who delivered "best evidence" literature to the public health officers of the British Columbia government for 25 years.

Your article, "The Truth is Out There", is an "ad hominem" approach to a critically serious matter, and it unfortunately fails to deal with the evidence involved.

You will no doubt agree that 9/11 has changed the world. It is a seminal event which has grossly undermined trust and erected enormous barriers between the West and the Middle East. And it has led to widespread mayhem and death in that region. Obviously, questions concerning our understanding of the event are of the utmost importance.

The US government has steadfastly refused to release the evidence which it claims to have. Evidence, which, if in existence, would settle once and for all the questions which are being raised, nearly 7 years later, on the front page of the Financial Times of London.

There were 85 cameras rolling outside the Pentagon, whose film could be offered to save the Times the trouble of running these articles.

There are small, indestructible time replacement parts in all aircraft which allow for positive identification, and these could be offered to silence critics about Flight 77.

For several years NIST has been promising its imminent report on the strange collapse of Building 7. This could be completed and released.

You say the 9/11 truth movement has taken over from the peace movement. Why don't you ask why the government doesn't do the obvious thing and produce the evidence to silence this vast new movement?

A full, credible, transparent account would be the responsible thing for the US government to do. Without such an account, or even the evidence which would allow for one, many concerned people have stepped into the breach.

It is unlikely, as you point out, that everyone will agree. But because the Bush administration has elected to withhold its purported fact-settling evidence, its citizens are dealing with a mystery. The best the public can do is conduct its own investigation by working with available media reports, witnesses, and forensic samples.

There is a natural temptation to ponder what actuallly happened, and some people succumb to developing theories, it is true. But the scientific people in the 9/11 research community simply advance the "best evidence", then demonstrate that it is incompatible with what we have been told, and call for a new investigation.

Having long provided Web-based literature to health professionals, I believe the links below to be truthworthy. If you, Mr. Barber, are interested in dealing with the facts themselves, rather than where Dr. Griffin lives, or what his dogs do when you come to the door, you might wish to pass this sample evidence-based information along to your readers (that is, if the FT has no agenda in running your long "ad hominem" piece as a front page feature article):

  1. Dr. Steven E. Jones Boston 911 Conference 12-15-07 Red chips. Re the chemical signature of the highly explosive incendiary thermate found in the dust at the World Trade Center. Lecture at:
  2. In 2006, over 700 human bone fragments were found on the roof of the adjacent Deutsche Bank building, some less than a centimeter long. How does a simple gravitational collapse splinter and disseminate human bones in this manner?
  3. Oral histories from first responders at the WTC scene indicating ground-shaking explosions from beneath the buildings were released in August 2005 by the New York Times, at There is a summary by Dr. David Ray Griffin at
  4. The 9/11 Commissioners themselves have said that they were denied access to key witnesses, and that their formal investigation was obstructed by the C.I.A. See:
  5. My own article on the Military Drills of September 11th, which shows that there were 29 different reports of hijackings that morning, has 58 references, at

Thank you for looking this over.

For you, who seems interested in the event, the question is: if all this evidence does indeed point to US government complicity, would you want to know about it? And the answer to that is your worth as a journalist.

Elizabeth Woodworth

Professional Librarian/Writer

Victoria, BC


Yeah! Now that's what I'm talking about!

GREAT WORK, super professional job! Nice to see this turkey get roasted. The movement is growing, the truth is on our side, we cannot be stopped, we will have justice for the victims, the families, the country,the world!

Very Good Letter...Thanks to Elizabeth for Writing

... and thanks to Rep for sharing !!!

Very good size (not too long) and packed with information.

Thanks and best wishes


PS... Just spotted over at :

A Scanned PDF version of the FT article (Looks very impressive, including front cover full page of the magazine !!!) at :

Link :


Avoids the histrionics derided by our critics, and lays out the facts in an undeniably powerful way.

time bomb

>>There were 85 cameras rolling outside the Pentagon, whose film could be offered to save the Times the trouble of running these articles.
>>There are small, indestructible time replacement parts in all aircraft which allow for positive identification, and these could be offered to silence critics about Flight 77.

Unfortunately the reason this information is withheld is not known (unless you own a crystal ball), literally. And it's not hard to realize that if this information actually showed that a plane never hit or that something else hit, any video tapes or parts showing this would have been destroyed, just like every other cover-up going on like the torture tapes, the FAA tapes, etc.

What holding onto of this information does is create a time bomb for us -- because we won't know if they have destroyed the evidence or are merely holding onto it, they can release it to CNN, TIME, NYTimes, etc. at will when the time is right to show FL77 clearly impacting the Pentagon and blow us out of the water as a movement. All it takes is timing and a press release. Simple.

It's good of everyone who writes to debunk these attack pieces though -- thanks.

I am quite certain that the 80+ videos of whatever blew-up the

Pentagon are being withheld because AA-77 was not there on 9/11! The more I looked into the Pentagon, the more impossible it seemed for AA-77 to have struck it.

It is instant checkmate, game over for the "official story" if anything other than AA-77 is on those videos! That's why they're being withheld, IMO.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

What the withholding could mean

It could be, as you say, that withholding the evidence is part of a plan to set us up.

But what might well be most interesting is that the film would likely show virtuoso maneuvering by the jetliner which even a seasoned test pilot would be hard-pressed to achieve, far less an inept amateur pilot.

Of course, seeing what we do of the CGI faked Osama, we may also have reason to anticipate that such videos will be analogously CGI-falsified.

Still witholding

I used to worry about this witholding of footage as a way of setting up the truth movement scenario. But I can't help but think that, as they've gotten as they've watched the movement grow over the past couple of years or so, wouldn't they have played that card by now if they were actually holding it? It would have been much more effective than these sporadic hit-pieces.

Logical somersault

If the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, there is no time bomb. And because there is ample evidence by now (thanks to the CIT research) that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, neither Flight 77 or another one, we don't have to fear anything.

Additionally, we have ample evidence by now that Flight 77 did not fly back to Washington from the point where it disappeared from radar. The NORAD tapes reveal that the controllers of the Air traffic Control Center in charge - Washington Center - had no clue where it was. It didn't appear on their radar screens. It was not there.

Nailed his ass

Good stuff, Elizabeth.

For some additional ideas, please see this:

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Very effective letter

Very effective letter.

I agree that there should me more focus on the existing facts and omissions that show the official story is nothing more than a weakly supported conspiracy theory.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

The apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous

A model letter and a great example of the approach we need to take.

Another one that might raise some eyebrows at the Financial Times:

The meticulous study of the put option phenomenon in the The Journal of Business, 2006, vol. 79, no. 4 that concluded "there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks." versus the 9/11 Commission's bland paragraph that fails to disclose the identity of the traders but invites us to take on trust that "the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous".

Barber was seeking to be dishonest

Wonderful as a short rebuttal to the two propaganda pieces in the Financial Times.

Unfortunately, so far as its intended recipient is concerned, it falls entirely on deaf ears.

The Financial Times pieces were carefully calculated, slyly crafted disinformation releases for the Mockingbird media, likelier composed by a team of psychological warfare operatives than some "reporter."

There's no reasoning with them: It's war for the hearts and minds of the masses, pure and simple.

Excellent response

Excellent response Elizabeth! You bring up some basic points that need some basic answers. If the US government can't provide it, how can they justify carrying out genocide in the middle east? They lied to get into Vietnam, they lied to get into the Gulf War and we all know they lied about WMD's. When will the public and the mainstream media say enough is enough already?