This does not address any of the contradictory evidence. It just
reasserts the official story.

Let's interview the woman whose son saw the plane go into the
Pentagon. In fact, let's interview the son, and ask how to describe the
fact that the hole in the Pentagon is far too small for the plane they say
hit it, to fit. And, where's ANY of the debris? None has been recovered,
far as I've seen. Have you?

Hearsay accounts (a woman told me her son saw .... etc.)

And the WTC events: OF COURSE the collapse BEGAN at the top. But
numerous fire officials said they heard and experienced explosions on
lower floors, among many other salient features left out of the official
story. We have sworn affidavits from some of them. And WTC was
taken down by a controlled demolition. How do you account for that?

At the very least, you should open your mind and demand that the
Questions be asked, let alone answered, which is what is
doing with the NY State Attorney General.

Mitchel Cohen

Original Message:
From: Adkins, Daniel [log in to unmask]
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:51:03 -0500
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 911 Conspiracy Theories

        This is bunk.

        1.      I met with a woman whose son saw the plane go into the

        2.      Watch the Tower fall.  They collapse from above.

Daniel C. Adkins

US DoEnergy  EI-45

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Leigh [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 911 Conspiracy Theories

We have a situation in NYC where some people who have been
productive and strong in opposing the war and the Bush agenda have
gotten caught
up in accepting particularly strong assertions about the
complicity in the events of 9-11.  The key document is a book called
"The New
Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffen.  It has a forward by Richard Falk
encomiums by Howard Zinn and Marcus Raskin.  I have only skimmed
it and talked to
people who have read it, but the book lays out the case for believing
that the
Bush junta actually knew 9-11 was about to happen and let it, or maybe
planned it.  It includes claims that the towers and Building 7 were
brought down
by previously placed explosives rather than the fires resulting from the
and that a missile, rather than AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

This is a big, complicated mess and poking around on the Internet,
can get you very excited.  Several people claim that UA 93 was actually
shot down
over PA rather than crashing as a result of the heroic struggle of the
passengers.  I'm not convinced of this, but it's not preposterous, since
the Air
Force would much rather let the hijackers take all the blame, and they
know where the plane might go or who was in charge, so (if they knew
where it
was) they might have felt they had to shoot.

My biggest problem is with the notion that the towers didn't fall from the
Griffen's description (p.16) is based on the erroneous notion that the
smouldering fuel fires couldn't heat the steel enough to soften it to the
where it couldn't carry its load (~1200-1300F), hence the explosives.
The whole
description seems pasted together by technical auto-didacts who really
don't know
their stuff.  They even claim that the fact that the South Tower, hit
fell first, shows that explosives were used.  (It fell first because it was
much lower down, so the weight on the weakened steel was much
greater.  They may
also have been differences in exactly where and how the fires burned,
of course.)

Griffen also makes a case that a missile hit the Pentagon and AA 77
somewhere else and disappeared.  This seems really silly in the light
of all the
witnesses who report having seen a plane fly into the Pentagon (check
the above
web site, e.g.), but since the clean-up was apparently carried out in "top
secret" mode, the military have only themselves to blame if people
don't believe

I have no problem with a massive conspiracy to hide the
incompetence, lack of
coordination, etc.  We spend a trillion dollars on the military and they
even figure out that we're under attack?  My Pet Goat?  Of course they
had to
dodge and obfuscate and deny.  And they are evil enough to do
anything.  But I
don't think they are capable of the out-of-the-box thinking it would take
to ally
with al Quaeda, and the conspiracy theorist's technical argumentation
(the parts
I have read) seems really contrived.

Has anyone in the group spent any time on this and come to a different
conclusion?  Any explanation for Falk and Zinn and Raskin going for
this story?

All the best,

mail2web - Check your email from the web at .