Newcastle Herald on 9/11 "Pivotal Moment in History Remains Unclear" by Greg Ray
Pivotal Moment in History Remains Unclear - Greg Ray
IT’S been said that nobody who researches the subject of the so-called September 11 terror attacks in the United States ever ends up
believing the official story about what happened.
If that’s true, it puts the event in the same class as the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Both events have been regarded as pivotal hinges of history, both are surrounded by intense controversy and neither are satisfactorily explained by official accounts.
After many years, enough of the raw emotion has gone out of the JFK killing for more people to be able to acknowledge that the official ‘‘lone gunman’’ story is rubbish. But even though that story is as demonstrably full of holes as the proverbial Swiss cheese, I’m not sure that a definitive truthful account will ever emerge.
A decade after the September 11 attacks it still isn’t fashionable in many circles to draw attention to the defects in the official account of circumstances surrounding the disaster. That’s a shame, because this event has had immense consequences.
I’m always leery of official stories. That’s just as true whether it’s about the alleged risk posed to the public by ornamental fig trees, the sudden urgent need for a new dam that everybody said just months before might never be needed or airplanes whacking into buildings thousands of miles away.
I’m always irritated to be presented with some pat story whose proponents want everybody to believe them but who resist scrutiny of the basis of their claims.
And that was always the big problem with September 11. As soon as it happened, the authorities were ready with the story that a bunch of half-trained amateur pilots, at least some of whose names weren’t even on the passenger lists of the planes they allegedly hijacked, flat-footed the entire US defence apparatus.
Two skyscrapers that were specifically designed to withstand aircraft strikes pancaked to ground zero after being hit. The explanation
was that burning jet fuel melted the structural steel – including the colossal columns that ran up the middle of the buildings –and lower floors gave way as higher ones crashed onto them.
But hundreds of engineers and scientists say that story defies belief. They say jet fuel doesn’t burn at temperatures hot enough to melt the steel that was in the buildings.
Scores of people said on the day of the disaster that they heard explosions in the lower parts of the building. Firefighters, in particular, swore black and blue that they heard and saw these explosions close up and even TV reporters could be seen breathlessly describing them as they happened.
I’ve read volumes on this topic since I last expressed some doubts about the official story (and copped it from people who insisted the
official story must be true).
My reading has only served to increase my doubts.
I’m not saying all we’ve been told about the attacks is untrue. But I feel that big parts of the story are probably false and that other big parts remain untold.
Greg Ray, a senior journalist with the Newcastle Herald for more than 25 years
You may contact Greg at firstname.lastname@example.org