An open letter to 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


A very fine place to start on 9/11 investigations. Thank you.

Show "Not the strongest evidence" by Wildbear


"The nanothermite hypothesis is largely discredited. The chips are almost certainly paint."
On what basis, Wildbear, do you make this claim?
P.S. I find your assessments of issues 1 and 3 so obviously off base that I hesitate to bother asking. But I would like to know if there are any *serious* attempts to review the conclusions of the relevant paper (Harrit et al 2009).

Show "Re: Really?" by Wildbear

You Ignored Some Evidence

You completely skirted around the calorimetric and and spectro analytic data of the active thermitic materials. As you stated these protocols were: "scientifically proper." While paint is a seductive alternative, there are nano coatings being used, it is a specious argument because these suspect chips are flammable and just the opposite of the intumescent coatings that would have been used. Suggesting that the layering within the material, in a rather glib form follows function argument, is prima facia evidence of paint is incorrect. You see quite discrete layering in an Andes Creme de Minthe but this hardly makes it suitable for paint. The photomicrographs supplied within the Harrit paper and elsewhere are strong indicators of advanced applied research. The homogeneity of the grey substrate and the lack of any kinds of discontinuities or any kinds of extraneous materials or inclusions therein is compelling evidence of advanced manufacturing techniques outside the pale of regular industry. While, personally, I would side with you on questioning the value of the brisance of thermitic materials this inquiry in no way obviates their presence.

Eyewitness accounts

Re your point 5--The strength of the evidence from eyewitness (and earwitness) accounts increases in proportion to the number of witnesses, and to the degree to which they corrobotate one another.

9/11/2001 11 Yrs Later - Explosive Eyewitness Evidence.

RJ Lee Report on Dust Morphology

"Since no samples of the "molten metal" were collected, the composition of the alleged material is difficult or impossible to prove."

RJ Lee report on morphology of dust found Iron Microspheres - one of the key markers of GZ dust. These droplets can only be formed from entering into a molten state. QED there was molten metal, as reported, and its composition was Iron / Steel.

The Accused Terrorists Did 9/11?

"Why not pursue a course which has more solidly recognized evidence, such as the evidence of Saudi involvement in financing and enabling the plot."

There is no reliable evidence that the accused hijackers actually piloted airliners on 9/11, based on any plot allegedly funded by the Saudis - no witnesses, confessions, images or even fingerprints or DNA upon flight controls. The possibility of covert autopilot control of the aircraft by other interests is documented and equally plausible. The AA 77 and UA 93 FDR data files are proven to be suspect and the precision of UA 175's trajectory en route to WTC 2 was noteworthy.

This aspect of the official story (hijacker pilots purposely crashing the 9/11 planes) is simply an allegation, regardless if the media and government have morphed the allegation into "fact" by repetiton.

More Funding

Let's not forget Biden and the ISI meeting before 9/11.

curriculum work needed with

Congrats on reaching out within the educational community.

I am public outreach team leader at We need teachers and former teachers to critique OCT curriculum and design curriculum of our own. We need a team leader to coordinate such efforts

We need teachers and former teachers to attend teachers conferences and conventions to hand out AE911Truth literature during one on one conversations.

We need funding to rent booth space at such conventions

Please contact me at or