Don't believe the official 'conspiracy' theory

Response

We have to ask who stood to gain the most from the appalling events of 9/11, says Tim Sparke

Tuesday February 13, 2007
The Guardian

George Monbiot's explicit attack on the film Loose Change (A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world ..., February 6) has no basis in fact. While we accept that there are flaws in the current version of the film, we stand by its overarching theme that the official "conspiracy" theory of 9/11, constructed in the hours, days, weeks and months after 9/11, is false.

In uncritically endorsing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, Monbiot neglects to say that the collapse mechanism for the entire World Trade Centre building was never documented by NIST - it didn't see it as its job. Additionally, in accepting that the towers collapsed at virtually free-fall speed ("the weight of the collapsing top storeys generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest"), Monbiot shows no awareness that this explanation violates the law of conservation of momentum.

Monbiot also appears oblivious to NIST's failure to explain that, although fire could not have melted any steel, there were pools of molten metal under the rubble, and these pools remained molten for weeks after the collapse; that dozens of people, including firefighters, news reporters and fleeing victims, all reported massive explosions; the clear video evidence of explosions taking place; that virtually all the concrete was pulverised into tiny particles; the apparent disintegration of the central steel core; and the destruction of all the evidence from America's biggest crime scene, which was covertly transported to Asian and African shores before any forensic examination could take place.

Monbiot then endorses the idea that Building 7 collapsed because "thousands of gallons of diesel [were poured] on to the fire" - oblivious to the fact that, even if an enormous fire could have caused a symmetrical collapse (which required all 81 steel columns to miraculously fail simultaneously), there was, as photographs and eyewitnesses reveal, no enormous fire. Monbiot also appears unaware that several engineers and demolition experts, after studying videos, have declared that this collapse can only have been caused by explosives.

Monbiot suggests that thousands of people must have been involved in the conspiracy, as if the official story must therefore be true. We have no clue as to how many (though some suggest probably fewer than 1,000); but wasn't the Manhattan project, involving 100,000, kept secret, even from Vice-President Truman, until weeks before the first atom bomb was dropped?

Monbiot then suggests that CounterPunch - by refuting the film's claims - has to be correct, because it is a left-leaning newspaper. But acceptance of the official "conspiracy" theory is not a left or right political issue. It is about whether we should accept unconditionally a story which defeats the laws of physics, denies the abundance of witness testimony, and rejects video evidence put forward by an organisation, which, in hindsight, we know had the means, motive and opportunity, and also has a record of being economical with the truth.

We agree that our movie can't answer all the questions that millions of people now have - but the fact that Loose Change is the most downloaded film in internet history is the strongest argument for an honest public debate, and a truly independent inquiry. As we say in the 9/11 Truth Movement: ask questions, demand answers, investigate 9/11.

Tim Sparke is executive producer of Loose Change Final Cut. tim@joiningthedots.tv

· If you wish to respond to an article in which you have featured, email response@guardian.co.uk or write to Response, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER. We cannot guarantee to publish all responses, and we reserve the right to edit pieces for both length and content