Let me say first that I think the whole "conspiracy" term has been bandied about way too much. The word now immediately conjures negative connotations. A citizen should be able to question their government without instantly being labeled a "kook". We, on this site, should be able to engage in fact driven argument without labels and stereotypes. I joined this site because I am interested in a variety of issues and enjoy exploring various explanations for historical and current events and in general the discussions here seemed reasoned and respectful. In the late 60s and 70s many people, myself included began to question our involvement in Vietnam. We pointed to evidence, flimsy as it was, that the President was part of a conspiracy regarding the break in at the Watergate. And yes, we were "kooks", we were "conspiracy theorists". But we were right. So before we write off an explanation for an event that runs counter to the "official story", let's look at history which has shown time and time again that the official story is often incorrect. For the record, I do not embrace the proposition that 911 was a false flag nor do I accept the official story, which has already been conclusively shown to be inaccurate. There is no disagreement that at least some of the statements made by GWB and/or others in his administration were false. There is strong evidence to suggest that a cover up of some sort occurred. Able-Danger conclusively proves that the intelligence community had prior knowledge of the hijackers, a claim denied by the Bush admin. Now, we know politicians will cover their butts. Right now we don't know if they were covering incompetence or something more nefarious, but there is NO questions they were covering SOMETHING. Which begs the question, "What were they hiding!" The question remains open but there is a lot of material concerning the Bushes, the Saudis, and the intelligence communities as well as trillions of dollars "missing" from the Pentagons budget.
Anyway, as to the rope; I think the question "Why would you need a rope to lower it down" is self evident. I'm not saying the rope in anyway says, "conspiracy!" What I'm saying is that in any crime scene, all evidence pertaining to the crime and found at the site must be explained as best as possible. The onus to explain the rope is not on us, the citizenry, it is on the professional investigators. I make no inference other than to say that the official explanation seems far fetched. Period. If you want to draw some other conclusion, feel free. I just think it's really odd that if someone had found the piece earlier and tried to retrieve it, that they didn't tell anyone. After all this was a HUGE piece of wreckage wedged between two buildings. Wouldn't you at least let the buildings owner know?