From:   Ishfaq Ahmed
Sent:   03 February 2006 14:30
To:     Devan Maistry
Subject:        RE: I read

Lets talk about this later today mate …

_____________________________________________
From:   Devan Maistry
Sent:   03 February 2006 13:19
To:     Ishfaq Ahmed
Subject:        FW: I read

Hi
This is the correspondence with Hussain in your absence. I think we should go for a 5x 10 min series of documentary reports because the extra length will be necessary if we are to do justice to the story even if only as an exploratory piece; also because by running it on Drive over a week we may make more of an impact and give listeners a greater chance to respond. The idea of soliciting support from David Ross in Manchester is appealing but given that we have Hussein buying-in- I don’t think it necessary as yet.

We already have some very useful audio re the Griffin and Nafeez interviews and I intend to do most of the additional US stuff over the phone. There will be British interviews reflecting 9/11 developments on this side of the Atlantic.

What we are looking at is why the movement to re-open the 9/11 enquiry is growing despite the publication of a substantial official report purporting to explain what happened on the day.

Devan

—–Original Message—–
From:   Devan Maistry
Sent:   02 February 2006 09:28
To:     Husain Husaini
Subject:        RE: I read

Hi Hussein

We can opt for a documentary or a series of documentary style reports, 5 x 10 mins broadcast across the week in Drive. The latter is a format we have used quite often in the past. There are obvious pros and cons. I’m going to talk to Ishfaq and get him to speak to you.

I’ll organise time and will get down to this immediately.

I like your growing list of guests

Talk to you soon

Devan

—–Original Message—–
From:   Husain Husaini
Sent:   02 February 2006 09:01
To:     Devan Maistry
Subject:        RE: I read

i don’t think i can commit to listen to them all…

where will you place this?? will it be a documentary?? if so you need to persuade someone to commission it. When will you do this…presumably your job keeps you busy….I want to hear the editors of “popular mecanics”… a steel expert… a demoliton expert.. victims of 9 11.. former mayor of new york…

—–Original Message—–
From:   Devan Maistry
Sent:   01 February 2006 14:00
To:     Husain Husaini
Subject:        RE: I read

Excellent: Of couse we can do that, and I can make time. We can also use telling bits of audio reflecting the official position etc.  Griffin’s two books are worth reading – for economy of time – but of course they rely on some superb research by a number of other serious writers, like Michel Chussodovsky. I’ve also noticed that Nafeez Ahmed’s previous book ‘The War on Freedom’ has played a seminal role in catalysing concern. And of course scrutinising whether a 9/11 cottage industry is burgeoning is an incisive way to begin. And  we would need to get the 9/11 Commission to respond in a meaningful way. I’ll send you a preliminary brief in a couple of days. Should I also send you CDs of the Griffin and Nafeez Ahmed interviews.  It might help as they contain a summary of some of the major points of interest and address probably all of the questions you raised.

Thanks

Devan

—–Original Message—–
From:   Husain Husaini
Sent:   01 February 2006 13:42
To:     Devan Maistry
Cc:     Ishfaq Ahmed
Subject:        RE: I read

i could hear something… maybe an extended piece somewhere that looked at the phenomenon of alternative theories about 9/11…looking at it as a cottage industry… discussing whethher it is building up a head of steam and posing some of the deep difficulties it has… but it would have to be done by a reporter with some time on his or her hands and in a very careful way.

—–Original Message—–
From:   Devan Maistry
Sent:   01 February 2006 12:01
To:     Husain Husaini
Subject:        RE: I read

Thanks Hussein

The point about matter flying out of the building horizontally is that it contradicts the idea that when the buildings collapsed the only force acting on them was gravity. But of course as you rightly point out -and even with some knowledge of the principles involved- this is better a matter for physicists. I’m persuaded that the ‘explosives hypothesis’  needs to be seriously considered as a far more coherent – if not indeed the only- explanation for the collapse itself in the absence of an alternative that is equally compelling.

However even if the physicists conclude that controlled demolition brought the buildings down the rest of your questions are absolutely pertinent.

Over the past four and a half years possible answers to these questions have emerged. There are a small number of books that summarise and contextualise the evidence usefully. My feeling is that if you read some of them you will have wished you’d never have asked these questions or bothered to survey the evidence –  its truly disturbing.

Meanwhile there is growing apprehension about what really happened among the small groups of people on both sides of the Atlantic who have become aware of the inconsistencies; for instance on Friday the Scholars for 9/11 group was launched with some 50 US academics who want a new 9//11 enquiry, and over the week-end the Oxford Students Union hosted a debate on the issue.

Thanks

Devan

—–Original Message—–

From:   Husain Husaini
Sent:   01 February 2006 11:28
To:     Devan Maistry; Ishfaq Ahmed
Subject:        I read

the document you gave me. I’m sorry if you aren’t going to like what I think.
I’m afraid I am far from convinced.

I am not a structural engineer so I  can’t really argue with much of what he says but I find some of his arguments contradictory. Particularly about molten steel and horizontal matter flying out of the buildings.. I could tell you my  thoughts if you want them.

More importantly is that his alternative theory seems to have no evidence to support it. It also begs even more questions than the official version.

Why would the government fly planes into buildings AND blow them up? Belt and braces?

Why would the government not worry about killing thousands knocking the towers  down BUT worry enough about them falling sideways so much that they would be willing to employ specialist explosives experts to blow them up

Why would the government risk a covert operation that would have to use many many people all of whom could leak. Particularly as he seems to suggest that some emergency services KNEW about the explosives and particularly once those involved realised how many people they were going to kill.

Why are there no witnesses to people going into the building with explosives…it can’t be that easy to stick tonnes of dynamite in a busy public building.

But strangely it’s his theories on building 7 that are most damaging to his case. Why would the government blow up building 7 at all? Let’s face it few people will have heard about it. They had no need to so why take the extra risk of another massive explosives operation. Surely it is far more plausible that it was the knock on effects of the twin towers falling on top of building 7 that brought it down.

My view is that to run these interviews would be a mistake and would make our network look credulous.

Please consult me further before you consider using the material.