NY Times Attempts To Debunk 9/11 Truth; Fails Miserably

NY Times Attempts To Debunk 9/11 Truth; Fails Miserably
More mainstream coverage, more ignorance of the facts
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, May 17, 2007

[align=left] [align=center] [align=left] [align=left] In a report detailing Rosie O'Donnell's confirmed plans to have 9/11 truthers debate the attacks on The View before she leaves in June, The New York Times has responded by penning an extremely poor attack piece which cites previous shoddy debunking efforts while completely ignoring key evidence often referred to by the many scientific experts, ex government officials, whistleblowers and truthers in general that have declared the event an inside job.
Skipping over the fact that some guys in a cave in Afghanistan were able to coordinate a total stand down of US air defenses, and completely ignoring the mountains of evidence of prior knowledge, the Times makes four main points in an effort to debunk solely the controlled demolition aspect of the 9/11 truth movement's assertions.
Here are those points with our counter points:
1. The buildings collapsed from the top down and because controlled demolitions are carried out from the bottom of buildings they were not controlled demolitions.
Many witnesses, including WTC janitor William Rodriguez and firefighters, reported explosions at the base of the buildings and white smoke was also seen emerging from the base of the north tower immediately prior to its collapse and after a boom shook cameras and registered on microphones. Initial reports cited FBI statements which suggested they believed some form of explosion had occurred at the base of the towers in addition to the plane impacts above. I posted videos of these reports in this recent article.
The Times also ignores the fact that all 3 buildings fell at almost free fall speed with no resistance whatsoever, a feat which defies the laws of physics.
2. The steel did not melt, it was weakened by fire which caused the buildings to gradually collapse.
Molten steel was found under all three collapsed buildings. Firefighters described "rivers of molten steel, like flowing lava". According to, among other experts, former Brigham Young Physics professorSteven Jones buildings not destroyed by explosives would have insufficient directed energy to produce the large quantities of melted melted that was discovered. The molten steel was found five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the siteâ??s hot spots.

3. The reason 7 World Trade Center collapsed straight down was most likely the large amounts of diesel fuel stored in the buildingâ??s lower levels. The fuel was meant to power emergency generators.
The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by a New York Times article in 2002 and is pure speculation. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on 9/11, â??No diesel smells [were] reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areasâ? of WTC 7.
Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. In any case raging fires could still not cause simultaneous and symmetric damage needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.
4. Explosives would have had to have been pre-placed in the buildings and no witness has ever reported such suspicious activity taking place.
Yes they have. Power downs of both towers were reported the weekend before 9/11. In addition rescue workers, EMT's and witnesses on the ground were warned WTC 7 was going to be intentionally brought down by explosives.
The Times article, like any other poorly researched piece, cites Popular Mechanics, the now infamous Hearst Publishing yellow journalism rag that is edited by a tabloid TV critic as their bastion of credibility for standing up to 9/11 truthers, despite the fact that the magazine's 9/11 hit piece has been debunked over and over and is the target of Professor David Ray Griffin's new book , Debunking 9/11 Debunking.
Although it is easily countered, the Times exposure highlights the fact that 9/11 truth movement has exploded into the mainstream. It also underlines the fact that the debunkers are losing the battle to quell the public's desire to uncover the lies and discover what really happened on 9/11 as their line of argument becomes more diluted and weakened with each ill informed and poor researched attack piece they produce.[/align]

[/align]
[/align]

[/align]