2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11 - NYT

[goforit]

"2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11"

by Jim Dwyer

"Faced with an angry minority of people who believe the Sept. 11 attacks were part of a shadowy and sprawling plot run by Americans, separate reports were published this week by the State Department and a federal science agency insisting that the catastrophes were caused by hijackers who used commercial airliners as weapons.

The official narrative of the attacks has been attacked as little more than a cover story by an assortment of radio hosts, academics, amateur filmmakers and others who have spread their arguments on the Internet and cable television in America and abroad. As a motive, they suggest that the Bush administration wanted to use the attacks to justify military action in the Middle East.

Most elaborately, they propose that the collapse of the World Trade Center was actually caused by explosive charges secretly planted in the buildings, rather than by the destructive force of the airliners that thundered into the towers and set them ablaze.

The government reports and officials say the demolition argument is utterly implausible on a number of grounds. Indeed, few proponents of the explosives theory are willing to venture explanations of how daunting logistical problems would be overcome, such as planting thousands of pounds of explosives in busy office towers."

con't..............
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/nyregion/02conspiracy... >

The irony about this article is that it was perfectly placed
right next to NYT-regional section article on the recent Fallen fireman.

Is the Gov't trying to convince the NY Firemen that 911 was not a
conspiracy?

[kiahzero]

1. You're kidding, right?

Is the Gov't trying to convince the NY Firemen that 911 was not a conspiracy?

Please tell me this is some kind of joke.

[fooj]

2. Seems like they are busting their asses trying to convince SOMEONE...

anyone who will buy their BS at this point.

[CJCRANE]

3. Even if it was just 19 hijackers...

who paid them the $500,000 that the operation cost?

Who gave them a free pass to roam around America at will?

Who lowered America's defenses etc etc

[HamdenRice]

6. Who paid the cost? Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, associate of Porter Goss

You asked a very good question and one that is not explored often enough. Mainstream media reports say that Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI) sent $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, which was used for flight school training and other expenses. So the 9/11 attacks were funded at least in part by Pakistan's intelligence agency.

Strangely, Gen. Ahmad flew to Washington, DC around September 6, 2001 and had a series of meetings with the senior officials of the CIA, National Security Council and Pentagon.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, as the planes were crashing into the towers, Gen. Ahmad was at a breakfast meeting with Rep. Porter Goss of Florida, former CIA agent and at the time chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, representing the area in Florida in which Atta had been based.

Goss later explained that his breakfast meeting with Ahmad concerned terrorism emanating from Afghanistan.

[Igel]

4. Link's currently at

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/nyregion/02conspiracy.html?ref=nyregion

[bullimiami]

5. as long as they keep hiding the truth we wont know what it is.

and if we dont know what the truth is there isnt much of a leap to suspect that those who wont allow investigations and who love secrecy and coverups have something to hide.

[frylock]

7. fuck them and their reports. i want a REAL investigation

[frylock]

8. molten steel in the rubble..

Professor Jones also argues that the molten steel found in the rubble was evidence of demolition explosives because an ordinary airplane fire would not generate enough heat. He cited photographs of construction equipment removing debris that appeared to be red.

In rebuttal, Mr. Blanchard of Protec said that if there had been any molten steel in the rubble, it would have permanently damaged any excavation equipment encountering it. “As a fundamental point, if an excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, it would completely lose its ability to function,” Mr. Blanchard wrote. “At a minimum, the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up.”

[goforit]

9. I question why the rubble was sent to multiple countries to stock.

Why wasn't it sent to a memorial dumbing ground here in the US?

[RC]

10. Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner as it commences its steady fall) falls to earth in (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds, while an object dropped from the roof (in a vacuum) would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans. Peer-reviewed papers which further analyze the WTC skyscraper collapses, by Dr. Frank Legge, Professor Kenneth Kuttler, Gordon Ross and Kevin Ryan, are recommended and available here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/


This is a good read. It asks and answeres a lot of good questions that should have been asked and answered in the public media several years ago.