http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860....
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?
But...I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11...I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.
I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September?
Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East.
Fisk seem to be playing both sides of this. This is a strong critique of the movement, while also a stark acknowledgment of our concerns. He states his support for the incompetence hypothesis, but then goes on to undermine it himself. He knows full well that, yes, they might do that. In some ways this is the most mainstream and respectable acknowledgment the movement has received.
Rather than griping about how he didn't go all the way, let's consider having a positive attitude about this. We all must understand that he wrote the article exactly the way he did for a specific reason. And its quite obvious that the reason was not to dismiss our concerns. I think his intention was to bring those concerns right up to the mainstream boundary line in a manner than allows more moderate folks to take the issue seriously. So before we get too critical, let's consider how strategic his approach may have been.
This is quite a positive step in people accepting the inclusion of this issue in more broad appeals for truth, such as the General Strike. Any effort to make 9/11 truth seem less obscure in the eyes of the public is one step closer to unification of those who all seek more truth.