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

You have to sign up for a free account before viewing this page at the NY Times. Thanks to Action for sending this in:


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.

Nevertheless, federal officials say they moved to affirm the conventional history of the day because of the persistence of what they call “alternative theories.” On Wednesday, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a seven-page study based on its earlier 10,000-page report on how and why the trade center collapsed. The full report, released a year ago, and the new study, in a question and answer format, are available online at http://wtc.nist.gov.

About a dozen researchers produced the new study over the last two months by assembling material from the longer report that addressed the conspiracy claims.

“With the fifth anniversary coming up, there seemed to be more play for the alternative viewpoints,” said Michael E. Newman, a spokesman for the institute. “We have received e-mails and phone calls asking us to respond to these theories, and we felt that this fact sheet was the best means of doing so.”

A nationwide poll taken earlier this summer by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of those surveyed said the federal government either took part in the attacks or allowed them to happen. And 16 percent said the destruction of the trade center was aided by explosives hidden in the buildings. The survey questioned 1,010 adults by telephone and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points. Details are available at http://newspolls.org.

The demolition theory has managed to endure what would seem to be enormous obstacles to its practicality. Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top, to take advantage of gravity, and there is little dispute that the collapse of the two towers began high in the towers, in the areas where the airplanes struck.

Moreover, a demolition project would have required the tower walls to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up.

All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other.

Those who believe in the demolition theory remain unpersuaded by government statements new or old, and the officials who issued the would-be rejoinders say they are not surprised. “We realize that this fact sheet won’t convince those who hold to the alternative theories that our findings are sound,” Mr. Newman said. “In fact, the fact sheet was never intended for them. It is for the masses who have seen or heard the alternative theory claims and want balance.”

Mr. Newman was correct that the institute’s reports would not convert those who favor the demolition theories, said Kevin Ryan, who is the coeditor of an online publication, www.journalof911studies.com, that has published much of the material arguing that the government’s accounts are false.

“The list of answers NIST has provided is generating more questions, and more skepticism, than ever before,” Mr. Ryan said.

Mr. Newman said, “NIST respects the opinions of others who do not agree with the findings in its report on the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2.”

The State Department report, which officials said was written independently of the new institute study, is titled, “The Top Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theories” and says, “Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet.” Produced by an arm of the State Department known as a “counter-misinformation team,” the report is dated Aug. 28 and appears as a special feature on the department’s Web site, at http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html.

The report brought to light one little-known detail about the morning: a private demolition monitoring firm, Protec Documentation Services, had seismographs at several construction sites in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Those machines documented the tremors of the falling towers, but captured no ground vibrations before the collapses from demolition charges or bombs, according to a separate report by Brent Blanchard, the director of field operations for Protec. It is available online at www.implosionworld.com.

Asked for comment, Mr. Ryan said that his online 9/11 journal would soon publish an article on those seismic recordings. He also maintained that the Protec paper did not adequately address why puffs of smoke were seen being expelled from some of the floors. However, the federal investigators said that about 70 percent of a building’s volume consists of air, and what looked like puffs of smoke were jets of air — and dust — that were pushed ahead of the collapse.

Among those now propelling the argument that explosives took down the trade center is Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, coeditor with Mr. Ryan of www.journalof911studies.com, which published his paper, “Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse on 9-11-2001?”

In an e-mail message yesterday, Professor Jones did not explain how so much explosive could have been positioned in the two buildings without drawing attention. “Others are researching the maintenance activity in the buildings in the weeks prior to 9/11/2001,” he wrote.

He said his investigation was finding fluorine and zinc in metal debris and dust gathered from near the trade center site, and argued that those elements should not have been found in the building compounds. “We are investigating the possibility of thermite-based arson and demolition,” he wrote, referring to compounds that, under controlled circumstances, can cut through steel.

The federal investigators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology state that enormous quantities of thermite would have to be applied to the structural columns to damage them. Not so, said Professor Jones; he said he and others were investigating “superthermite.”

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.”



You can read it here.


"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi


"All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity."

^ LOL, that's meant to be NYT's quality reporting? What a load of horseshit;

Explosives could have been planted at 3 in the morning

And as far as tearing open walls, the perimeter colums were on the outside of the building so "window washers" could have done it, and the core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts. Plus, while tons of "thermite" might have been needed to do the job by itself, RDX or another high powered explosive is not mentioned in this article, and could well have been used.

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

New York Times Article says. . .

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.”

Anyone want to take a stab at that?
I saw the pictures of an excavator picking up glowing hot metal.

Molten metal at ground zero photos.

Photos of excavator picking up glowing hot metal can be found in Stephen Jones paper here. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

execpt from that paper.

The photographs below by Frank Silecchia show chunks of the hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble on September 27, 2001 (according to photographer's aid). Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal -- this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition...

overlooking all the witnesses

How can they say there wasn't molten metal, when it's in every documentary of Ground Zero? If a witness isn't worth a dime to them, then let's also throw all those AlQaeda tapes out the window where they belong.

Shooting themselves in the foot...

No mention of WTC7, and they mention Steven Jones and the title of his paper whjich clearly documents the molten metal.

This is good.

Here, one more time


I noticed NY times had an assumption about the demolitions. They only considered what it would take to rig the buiding to demolish professionally.

But what about a shoddy job? Fewer more powerful devices?

Of course the building was not demolished in a conventional way.
If it had, it would have been obvious.

I'd like to see plan to engineer the way we actually saw the building come down?

I'm not an engineer, but I don't think just crashing a plane would be a practical approach for creating the all effects seen.

molten steel

I saw infra-red satellite pictures ON FOX NEWS for weeks after 9/11 showing the heat generated by the molten steel. I also saw ON FOX NEWS firemen pumping tons of water on the rubble trying to cool off the molten steel. This is a non-issue.

Red hot metal at WTC.

the MSM's historic 'memory loss': Watergate


“My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a Government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule.”

Gerald Ford, August 9 1974

A shorter version of this article appeared in my local paper

They're throwing lots of punches right now.
The article includes many false statements.

I don't understand the seismograph debate. Buildings fall, seismograph registers. Explosions within buildings, no seismograph numbers. Why is this surprising. Anyway, how do we know their claim is even accurate?

contradicting themselves

They say:
"... a demolition project would have required the tower walls to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings..."

If it takes all that to bring the towers down in a straight downfall, then how come a single plane striking each tower had the exact same effect? Can't we then use this technique in the future to demolish skyscrapers at much lower cost?


Security? What security? Marvin Bush was in charge of security. The dunce who wrote the story should check things out before he opens his lying mouth. These traitors piss me off.

Excellent point, Greg!!!!!

Excellent point, Greg!!!!! On the one hand, we're supposed to believe that the job of setting up a demolition would be too huge to even consider, yet a single jet is enough to reduce the whole thing to dust and small pieces of rubble.








Excuse my language, but...


The empire strikes back...

Looks like the powers-that-be are finally beginning to realize the potential threat that the 9/11 truth movement is posing. According to Mr. Newman (Alfred E. or Michael E?), the fact sheet is 'for the masses who have seen or heard the alternative theory claims and want balance'. Perhaps he should have added the words, 'or else' at the end of that sentence. People are starting to wake up, Mr. Newman. Dishing out the obvious disinfo drivel can't change the thousands of videos and eye witness reports garnered from that fateful day.

On a side note, I find it interesting that in the article, the NY Times has actually highlighted some of the questions that the truth movement have been asking about 9/11. This may be enough to incite 'the masses' to start looking for their own answers to September 11th.

Those were my thoughts too...

The article lies about the molten metal.
It fails to mention WTC7.
It mentions Steven Jones and the title of his paper.

This should work to our advantage. Maybe NYT's subtle way of trying to do their part in exposing the lie?

State Dept wants to know what you think of their debunk article

Go to the bottom of this page and respond:


Even though these things are meaningless, there is someone on the other end who has to see them. Same with the newspapers -- even if they never print your letter, someone has to read it.

Molten Metal Not Addressed

Molten metal:


See other proof of the controlled demolition of the WTC:


Very good site. It puts

Very good site. It puts Jones' findings into a nutshell and has some awesome video footage.

Need for coherent Truth responses

i Strongly feel that we should all respond to these articles via emails and letters to the editor. use the simplest, most logical argument and hammer your best point home. a great deal of people, when reading these pieces, will have NEVER have had any previous notion that the official story wasn't true. it's crucial to involve those people in our side of the debate. we need the assistance of our best researchers, esp. Griffin, Jones, et al, whose narratives have already been deemed credible by so many. important not to go off the reservation with holographic planes and similar arcana that confuse the new audience.

obviously we should all take a second to recognize what an amazing moment it is, that the gov't has been forced to respond directly... and then dive in with as much new energy as possible. pound the points home, i.e., 'why didn't the official reports cover these issues in the first place?' 'why is [insert omission] still ignored in these new explanations?'

thanks to everyone!! keep pressing!!!

I agree. I noticed that the

I agree. I noticed that the arguments they put forth are just regurgitations of the crap they initially gave as "explanations." They have conveniently ignored many other questions. For instance, they have never given any reasons why building 7 would collapse when it was not hit by a plane. And they never show video of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Also they lie. An example is that there are NO pictures of debris from a 757. That is why people are questioning the official story. There is so much left unsaid, and what is said are lies that those with a minimum of critical thinking will see through. (Oh, I forgot, the government has been running the schools for years, so there a very few people who possess the ability to use critical thinking. This is another problem we must overcome.)

I think this shows that the 9/11 truth movement has them on the run. We must all continue to press the issue.

Fuck. I read half of that

Fuck. I read half of that and couldn't read any further. What, with all of the utterly simplistic and inaccurate descriptions of "conspiracy theorists" claims. Don't expect that New York Times writer to promote or report alternative explanations in a fair, properly described manner.

Wow. They can only talk

Wow. They can only talk about the demolition. Only the demolition. Only the demolition.

Not any of that Other Stuff, like, oh, say:

types of explosives

I'm not so sure it would have taken a lot of explosives to bring down the towers. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, trying to figure out what method was used because it was clearly unconventional. Thermite was used to sort of cut the core structure and then it was shattered with what's obviously very powerful blasts, pulverizing the concrete floors, but centralized enough to leave the walls and corners standing. But then these steel beams that are still standing just disintegrate after a few seconds. I was looking at Jim Hoffman's 911Research site and he has a list of explosive types that may have been used, and the advantages/disadvantages of each, and i came across thermobaric explosives which release gas and then ignite the gas. Now i'm no expert on explosives by any means, but by watching the videos, that seems to me a much more likely method than standard explosives. This would also leave very little trace, and fewer explosives would be needed. They would just have to be carefully placed.

Any thoughts on this?

Everyone now please

Stop saying "controlled demolition."

It was not controlled. What you are arguing for is bombs in the buildings. There is nothing controlled about killing thousands of people. A "controlled" demolition of the Towers was impossible! One-third or more of the rubble ended up FAR outside the footprint. Using the term CD allows this kind of idiot's "debunking" wherein they talk about the procedures of CD (stripping the building, carving thousands of wedges out of the columns, etc.) and pretend that because these were impossible in the case of the Towers, therefore the Towers were not brought down by explosives. As though the standard procedures were any consideration once killing thousands of people was judged acceptable.

What you are arguing for is that the Towers were brought down by explosives. Bombs in the buildings. Not "CD."


I love how people are trying to pretend pools of molten steel never existed. Among many pictures, video of it dripping from the side of the WTC, and NY's own governor has admitted there were pools of molten steel deep down under the wreckage. You gotta be f****** kidding me. When did i arrive in the twilight zone? Are people's memory and lack of knowledge or learning about the world around them that non-existent? Some patriots. Hey, if others like doing everything and believing anything they are told, then keep bending over for everyone and shut your mouth. Unless you want to get off your lazy materialistic self serving only care if it effects me now god fearing patriotic worship celebrities as gods blind and def ass, and go learn about the history about the place you live in. Stop thinking with the bias stamped into your head. Learn and listen to what is going on as you read this. Realize that information does not stop at FOX news or on our boarders. Understand that an official story by the US government is not the official story in any other country and should not be found reliable until you find other sources to confirm. STOP TAKING SIDES AND UNDERSTAND A DEMOCRAT OR LIBERAL is NO DIFFERENT THAN A REPUBLICAN OR CONSERVATIVE. Ask yourself what kind of democracy, or actually we are supposed to be a republic, only has two parties to choose from? When was having to choose the lesser of two evils a free and by the people's choice? You play into the stupid fights and disgust they over dramatize onto the public, while they block third parties from being able to be included in national debates. How you can condition any animal no matter what sized brain. go fetch boy, go fetch.


OT: Cool...


"WOT" for Dummies

Spectacularly successful debunking

Here it is -- the latest addition in the debunking campaign by the government and its media propaganda mouthpieces. This kind of debunking article, dripping with subtle sarcasm, is possible because the movement is captivated by the sexy physical evidence, especially the towers. Physical evidence is the easiest to debunk, especially because in this case Bush controls it! This article does not address any of the powerful circumstantial evidence, such as that raised by Griffin or Ruppert, because for the government that is getting into dangerous territory. Unfortunately, the 9/11 truth movement will take the bait and continue to concentrate its time and energy in this direction, effectively beating its head against the wall. I hate to admit it, but this article is a masterful stroke by the NYT, and will no doubt convince a lot of fence-sitters that "those crazy conspiracy theorists" are out in left field.

total 911 lie meltdown

The Secret Service at Booker Elementary: The Dog That Did Not Bark
Posted Sep 2, 2006 03:01 PM PST
Category: 911

As the government thrashes around trying to prop up the 9-11 mythology, one of the questions they cannot answer and will not even attempt to answer is this one:
With a supposedly unknown number of planes flying across the nation and crashing into buildings, with Bush's presence at Booker Elementary School announced in the media three days in advance, and with an airport just four miles away, how did the United States Secret Service know that Bush was safe where he sat reading about goats? How did the United States Secret Service know that they were not making targets of all those teachers and children by keeping them in that room with the President? How did the United States Secret Service know that they did not need to drag Bush from that room and toss him into the back of his armored limousine? How did the United States Secret Service KNOW FOR A FACT that President Bush was not a target that day?

Because they knew in advance what the targets would be.

Do-nothing Bush

Yes, exactly. Here is an established fact of circumstantial evidence pointing to government complicity. There is no explanation for Dubya's bizarre behavior that makes sense -- except one: he was buying time to let events play out. There is an incredible mountain of such evidence which points inevitably in one direction.

Good morning Mr. Ruppert

What's the weather like in Venezuela?

Excavator Hydraulics Equipment Failure

Having operated backhoes and excavators on many a job site this line about hydraulic failure is bullshit. Any decent operator working on the rubble pile would pull the debris using the bucket in a controlled fashion. Pulling as much as you could without immersing your bucket in the molten pool. The buckets themselves are made with tempered steel. Though it would not be an easy job using lots of water, making trenches to let the molten metal spread for cooling there would be no reason for hydraulic failure or any other of the moving parts to seize.

Thanks RC for giving some

Thanks RC for giving some fact, OH and the reason the workers at ground zero would be doing this as they clear wreckage.....


Hmmm, looks exactly how RC describes. Those hydraulics seem to be having a REALLY hard time. WOW, who the f--- are these experts and educated people used to lie to the country? Sad thing is most are even dumber than those who use half assed and easy to debunk lies. Hey BUSH and other ASSHOLES in the whit house, what are you going to put out next? You going to say that you have no business ties to the bin ladens? Why dont you say you had no idea the middle east existed? Maybe come up with a bullshit reason for the evidence that actually doesnt exist for Osama's guilt in the attacks, as the FBI admits no strong evidence and five years later is not wanted for the attacks.

Done: LTTE and mailed Jim directly

Dear Editor!

Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

No molten metal at ground zero? Don't trust your lying eyes and ears, eh?


The main problem is: The WTC 1,2,7 were brought down by demolition. There's no way a jet impact and the little fires could bring them down in the way we saw it:

That's about the big picture. Than we have the eyewitness in the dozens who reported bombs going off in the WTC. See: http://www.explosive911analysis.com/
or http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

And, So, what's about the absurd logic, a "controlled" demolition could not have been possible, because of the obstacles to set the charges?

Marvin Bush was CEO of the security company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Bush
Philip Zelikow questions what happened to the US if the 93 WTC attack was performed with WMD back in 98 in Foreign Affairs.
It reads like his personal wet dreams and blue print for the PNAC agenda came true after losing their sowjet enemy.
And Dov Zakheim, another PNAC-buddy, Pentagon comptroller had all the inner plans and security guidelines with the 93 investigation.
It was reported, that the 93 charge could have brought down the tower, if placed a few feet aside.
(BTW: The FBI was on it all the way back then, google Emad Salem tapes. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html )

We have reports about power outages. http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html
William Rodriguez said, there were ongoing asbestos removal works till 2001 ("If you go, obviously, to the supervisors, and you go to the company, they’re going to try to
keep this information. You should go directly to the employees that worked there for so many years, And get their experience. For example, I still have the pictures that I offered the NIST in Congress, on the hearings, of the stairs in the building. I still have them here. And I’ve never been called. I’ve got them all here.
Also, we told – ask the people from the asbestos removal business... because it was going on constantly...”
William Rodriguez in his seriously-edited testimony to the 9/11 Ommission Inquiry)
- but the official reports said none was comitted this year. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6A.pdf
4.2 page 97

Why should I trust a government paid agency like NIST, who works for a government that lies in a row and was already found guilty for omissions and distractions? Appeal to authority, right? Don't think yourself.

So, we have a group of persons who had the motive, the opportunity and the possibility to conduct the demolition.

Are you gonna do something about it, aka, investigate and report about it? Or will you swim with the fish swarm?

Kind regards
Dirk Gerhardt
aka Sitting-Bull

BTW: Read my timeline, many interesting logs, some even from your paper: http://dirk-gerhardt.homepage.t-online.de/Bilder/Timeline3.pdf

Wait, did you get the wrong idea from what i wrote?

I believe everything you wrote, i was making the point that there was molten steel, explosives, CD. Our government, the NEOCONS are behind this. IF you look at the pic of the WTC you can see the steel slowly receding with bright yellow/red hot glowing on the ends. Also notice glass isnt breaking but instead melting. You can see intact windows that have melted holes where thermate has dripped down and touched the glass. this can also be seen on buildings around ground zero.