|
Monday, November 8 2004 - Articles
New York Times Reports on 911Truth.org
Monday, November 8, 2004: Today our Web site is receiving thousands of new visitors, presumably because The New York Times printed a story that reports, for the first time in "the Paper of Record," on:
The piece by Ian Urbina represents the longest hearing given to date given by The New York Times to skeptical theories about what really happened on September 11. Urbina reports on an ongoing TV-ad campaign in the New York City area, financed by millionaire James W. Walter. The two commercials in the campaign promote the ideas that World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed due to an intentional implosive demolition, and that no full- size airliner could have caused the pattern of damage visible at the Pentagon. While not all staff members of 911Truth.org endorse either idea, we are especially convinced that the collapse of WTC 7 merits intense investigation. We are archiving the Times article below, under fair use provisions. We welcome all of our new visitors... We invite you to explore 911Truth.org and the sites we link to, like The Complete 9/11 Timeline at cooperativeresearch.org, the physical evidence research site at WTC7.net, and the growing compilation of general evidence at Justicefor911.org. If you live in or near New York City, we urge you to visit the Web site of NY 9/11 Truth at ny911truth.org and the "Summer of Truth" events calendar at summeroftruth.org to find out about 9/11 truth actions in the New York area. If you live outside New York, you can find out about 9/11 truth groups and events in your area by visiting the 9/11 Visibility Project at septembereleventh.org. The sheer mass of research contradicting the official story of 9/11 may at first bewilder the newcomer. The following selection of some of the most popular articles on 911Truth.org provides an introduction to alternative research about the events of September 11, the burgeoning 9/11 Truth movement, and what we mean when we say there is a 9/11 cover-up that must be exposed, if democracy in America is ever to be realized:
We congratulate the editors for finally acknowledging the existence of legitimate, skeptical views about September 11, even if this did take three years. While we hope to see more of this in the future, we also hope the Times will not limit its reporting on the 9/11 Truth movement to personality pieces about rich and famous individuals, however admirable they may be. The most important story is not about the people who are skeptical about the official story of the 9/11 attacks, but why they are skeptical. We therefore hope the Times and other newspapers will in future consult with the scientific and research experts of the 9/11 truth community, and not only with experts who support official accounts, like Prof. Corbett of John Jay College, who is cited by the Times. With regard to Prof. Corbett's comments, we wish to point out the deficiencies in the reasons he gives for the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on the afternoon of September 11:
Let us first reverse the tired phrase, "conspiracy theorists," which is invariably used to block inquiry: The official story of the 9/11 attacks was itself a conspiracy theory. We happen not to believe it. More important, however, is that if Prof. Corbett is right, then WTC 7 was the first steel-frame skyscraper in history to collapse smoothly into its own footprint entirely due to a building fire. In doing so, WTC 7 perfectly mimicked the implosion effect of a controlled demolition. Documentation of significant structural damage to Building 7 from flying debris has yet to be provided; other nearby buildings were heavily damaged by debris and did not collapse, let alone into their own footprint, or even catch fire. Prof. Corbett neglects to mention that a FEMA report of May 2002 ("World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations") specifically ruled out the diesel-fuel hypothesis, which he has revived, as unlikely. FEMA arrived at a rather vague conclusion: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collpase remain unknown at this time." The FEMA investigators, a group of engineers hired as freelancers and working only part-time, were given strictly limited access to a few steel beams from the WTC buildings. They were allowed only brief tours of the Ground Zero site. The vast majority of the actual crime-scene evidence - the rubble and steel from the Ground Zero site - was shipped off to furnaces in Asia, before scientific examination or a reconstruction of collapse mechanics. This destruction of evidence was in violation of existing disaster regulations, and prompted a blistering critique from Bill Manning, the editor of the nation's oldest firefighter's magazine, Fire Engineering. To no avail. The actual physical evidence of course remained unavailable to the subsequent studies by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, due for publication later this year. The owner of Building 7, Larry Silverstein, seems to admit the collapse was an intentional demolition in a videotaped interview that was broadcast by PBS in 2002. (All of this information and clips of the WTC 7 collapse and the Silverstein interview are available at the well-documented Web site of Jim Hoffman, wtc7.net.) If WTC 7 was intentionally demolished on September 11, this of course raises many other urgent questions. It is presumably impossible to wire a building for an implosion in the few hours' time between the beginning of the 9/11 attacks and the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 p.m. on the same day. Why would anyone have wanted to prepare WTC 7 for a controlled demolition in advance of September 11? Were any other buildings similarly prepared? (The following is a fair- use archive of an article originally published by the New York Times on Nov. 8, 2004 in the Metro Section and at the URL?http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/nyregion/08ads.html?pagewanted=print&position=. The article is copyright (c) 2004 by The New York Times. It is used here under fair- use provisions, for the non- commercial purpose of providing information of relevance to the readers of 911Truth.org, which is a subject of the article.) The New York Times A Hidden Story Behind Sept. 11?? By IAN URBINA WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 -The grainy
30-second commercials are eerie and cryptic, and they suggest a government cover-up of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. One implies that no plane flew into the Pentagon. The other suggests that 7 World Trade Center, which collapsed late in the afternoon that day, was detonated from within. Original URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/nyregion/08ads.html?pagewanted=print&position= ^
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. |
||||||||||||||||
| home | about us | contact | research | store | grassroots | calendar | links | search | email signup |