By Greg Szymanski

 The day after 911, a Doctor of Physics and well-known explosives expert, claimed the Twin Towers fell from a controlled demolition instead of burning jet fuel as advanced in the official government story.

 Dr. Van D. Romero, vice president for Research and Development at New Mexico Tech, first made his expert opinion known in an Albuquerque Journal news article days after 911. He later recanted, giving no apparent reason why.

 Dr. Romero’s flip-flop, harmless at the time, now lies at the heart of an ongoing controversy between government officials and critics who are both trying to use his opinions to gain credibility for their differing theories. The government claims only burning jet fuel caused the collapse while opponents claim the towers fell from detonated explosives.

 Further, critics suggest Dr. Romero may have conveniently changed his mind after government officials coerced him in an effort to cover-up a flimsy and unscientifically sound story.

 Government officials and Dr, Romero have refused to comment on the allegations.

 Contacted Monday at his New Mexico Tech office, Dr. Romero again refused to comment, refused to even answer the telephone, saying through his secretary that he had nothing to say about 911 ever again.

 “Are you a lawyer? He has nothing to say right now,” said his secretary while abruptly hanging up the phone.

 However, Dr. Romero may some day be forced to talk, since his comments are a part of a federal law suit filed October 22, 2004, by Philadelphia attorney Phillip Berg, accusing President Bush and 54 others of complicity or prior knowledge in the events surrounding 911.

 The manner in which the Twin Towers fell is one example given in the lawsuit of how the government officials may have lied or manipulated facts in order to hide the truth surrounding 911.

 Berg’s massive 237 page RICO action, filed on behalf of William Rodriguez, a maintenance worker at the WTC, claims a broad cover-up existed before, after and during 911, involving high ranking government officials complicit in the attacks in order to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 Berg’s suit claims one example of complicity is how the government created a false story about how the towers fell and then covered their tracks by concealing evidence.

 Berg cites that FEMA never allowed independent investigators a chance to analyze structural components of the WTC, which would have shown “proof-positive” that the massive steel columns were brought down by “high heat” generated by explosives and not “low-heat” producing jet fuel.

  Before this could be done, however,  he claims FEMA obstructed justice by quickly scrapping the steel and shipping it overseas to China, far away from any independent prying eyes.

 Besides FEMA’s actions, Berg also wants to use Dr. Romero’s statements to get at the truth behind a possible government cover-up.

 “Although he would eventually recant his statements that explosives were used, perhaps there was some prodding by government officials,” said Berg in the federal lawsuit, eventually hoping deposition testimony will clear up the confusion behind Dr. Romero’s conflicting statements. “He is stillon the record saying that ‘the collapse of the towers was too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures.’”

 Besides Dr. Romero, the Berg lawsuit cites numerous other facts in the extensively researched complaint, which may raise serious questions as to patterns and actions of government complicity in 911. A copy of the entire text of the lawsuit, as filed in federal court, can be read online at www.911forthetruth.com.

 Although the “911 truth movement” has been relagated to a small group of “internet warriors,” recently the movement is attracting more attention since the 911 Commission’s recent report has been criticized by many in mainstream America for not tackling the “hard issues” and seeking out the real truth behind 911.

 Critics, including some 911 victims, claim the 911 Commission merely “rubber stamped” the government story without answering serious questions that may rest at the heart of a massive government cover-up. By setting an overall agenda of “not wanting to assess blame,” critics add the Commission essentially failed to do its job.

 The Commission members, as well as most in Congress, remain steadfast behind the results of the report, claiming an honorable civic duty has been performed in the face of ongoing terrorist threats.

greg szymanski

Powered by CityMaker.com