- 27 Aug 2007

Discuss this article at the 911oz Forum

Dear Mr. Fisk,

I found your recent article published in The Independent on 25th August 2007, very interesting indeed.

It is a welcome change that such a highly respected journalist as yourself, described by the New York Times as "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain", finally has some "questions". Great! However, there are some insinuations in your article that suggest you have not informed yourself about the wealth of factual, undisputed evidence that is available in support of the 9/11 Truth position, while at the same time you have introduced new “evidence” which on the face of it seems rather ill-considered, and for which you provide no references.

Firstly, however, I want to point out that the tone of this article is very self-serving and insulting to many who have been researching this subject for years.  These people you call "ravers", are in reality people like me who got fed up with the stone-walling of mainstream media on the most important single issue of our time. This is enough to make anyone with a conscience angry. I am angry, and you should be angry too. Anger is warranted here.

You said:

“Usually, I have tried to tell the ‘truth’; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan.”

Mr. Fisk, nobody wants to be a “conspiracy theorist”! We are driven to this by conscience, and because we see that if we don’t speak up that the tyrants will simply have their way unopposed. Ultimately, we speak out because we know that if the crimes of  9/11 are allowed then our liberal democratic way of life is over, and we would be fools to expect to be safe from the murderous cabal which is pulling the strings of world governments.

According to your wikipedia entry, you interviewed Osama Bin Laden no less than three times, yet you claim that investigating 9/11 is outside the scope of your professional expertise. Why, for example, have you remained silent all this time about the glaring discrepancies in the famous "Fatty" bin Laden confession tape released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001? Surely you agree that, even if we accept the dubious CIA “authentication” of this tape, the use of a blurry video to justify an invasion of a sovereign nation is a type of propaganda which is worthy of  Joseph Goebbels?

Immediately after 9/11 you were stationed in Pakistan. Surely you are aware of the report from the Times of India that ISI Director-General Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad  authorised the wiring of $100,000 to lead 9/11 Hijacker Muhammed Atta? You probably also know that General Ahmad was in the US when the attacks occurred and that he had meetings at the State Department after the attacks on the WTC, and that he also had a regular consultations with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior to September 11?

I say probably - because you were stationed in Pakistan shortly after 11th September 2001. However, I may be wrong - if so I implore you to investigate this story and write it up in The Independent.

you go on to say in your article:

“My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?”

This is the famous incompetency argument which has been used by every apologist for the official 9/11 story, and it is growing very lame and very stale. Let me point out just one thing: the fact that the government bureaucracy and the field commanders in Iraq are incompetent does not speak to the issue of the rigging of the WTC for controlled demolition, or the stand down of NORAD, or the shoot down of flight 93. Firstly, we don’t know who the demolition team was, but they appear to have done a pretty good job, so, whoever they were, they were competent enough to destroy three massive buildings and kill around 2,700 human beings. Now, we know that the “hijackers” were not competent even as pilots, yet we are expected to believe they got lucky and managed to bring down these 3 buildings exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition? Which is the more outrageous theory?

Mr. Fisk, by your silence all these years, you have been part of the cover-up, and you are still clinging to the shreds of your straw-man defenses of the official position, and by disparaging truth seekers who have confronted you, you demonstrate that you are still the loyal servant of the elites who fund your comfortable life-style.

You have pointed out that WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds - for that I congratulate you, however, you have also introduced pure hearsay as evidence when you say that:

“the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound.”

I find this rather odd, because in the same sentence you say it is easy to “dismiss” claims that explosions were reported in the towers. Wrong! It is not at all easy to dismiss these reports. Please inform yourself by watching this short presentation, or have a read of this article:

118 Witnesses: The Firefighter's Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers
 

Perhaps you are simply unaware of the mountain of factual evidence which can be adduced in support of the proposition that 9/11 was an “inside job” rather than an attack by a foreign enemy. If so, can I suggest you visit www.911truth.org , www.911blogger.com and my own website www.911oz.com without further delay.

Finally Mr. Fisk, are you prepared to take the next step by showing real support for the 9/11 Truth Movement and addressing the real issues? If so, you will have to be prepared to lose some of your current privileges. You may have to quit your job. You may have to face the scorn of your colleagues and the wrath of trained attack-dogs such as George Monbiot, who will surely write an article insinuating you have lost your marbles and need to be "retired"? Are you prepared to be marginalised and ignored by all the press except for these scathing attacks?

This is what you must face.

best regards,
Hereward Fenton
www.911oz.com

By Alan Miller

Original Story: OpEd News

 
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv ]

Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”

Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people i