Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Should Bin Laden be wanted by the FBI?
[Read the article: The 9/11 deniers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"did you know that bin Laden isn’t even wanted by the FBI in connection to 9/11"
Seriously, why would he be wanted by a domestic agency? The FBI does not have jurisdiction over international affairs of this sort. The FBI is a criminal investigation agency and this matter is being treated as an act of war, not a crimanal manner.
Now, you may argue that it should be treated as a criminal matter, but if it's true that the FBI isn't after Bin Laden that does not in the least surprise me since he's not on US soil and is unlikely to travel here or anywhere the FBI has jurisdiction.
This is the type of cherry picked "facts" that are behind most types of distortions. While they may be truthful in their own right they are designed to hide the overall truth.
-
19 zealots
[Read the article: The 9/11 deniers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"At the very least there had to have been an insider here that led the attackers to know that the day to attack was a day where we had basically zero defense against this kind of attack. The odds of the attack coincidently happening on the day of far-flung military exercises are astronomical. No way 19 zealots, no matter how well prepared, could have pulled that off alone."
What exactly is hard about what the 19 zealots did? Let's see, take allowed items on an airplane, hijack the plane, fly it into buildings.
What exactly is hard about that? Absolutely nothing.
As to not having planes nearby, we did, but they were on the ground as they had been for years. Planes were launched, but it's not as easy to catch a plane going 500 mph as you might think. You can't take the top speed of a fighter because they can't maintain that speed for long and rules at the time prevented them from exceeding the speed of sound over land.
Plus, wargames are happening all the time in the US, that's not unusual at all.
9/11 worked for one main reason, that passengers on the planes didn't expect the planes to be used as weapons. By the time of Flight 93 that was already over and the passengers fought back.
-
Toppling Sideways
[Read the article: The 9/11 deniers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I believe it's plausible that after the 1993 Trade Center bombing, certain people realized that if something did happen to those 2 buildings, it might be preferable to collapse them on purpose rather than risk them toppling sideways, literally destroy half of downtown Manhattan (where I happen to work). The 2 buildings were literally about 1/4 mile tall each and if you'd ever been to lower Manhattan when they where still standing, you quickly realize how catastrophic a sideways toppling would have been, both physically and economically."
I can see how someone make come to such a conclusion, but it requires that you not understand that such tall building are designed to progessively collapse rather that topple over.
The conspiracy people are quick to point out that fires rarely bring down such buildings, what they don't bother to look for is whether any such contructed building has failed other than in the manner at the WTC.
Every such building I've even heard of or read about failing has failed in the same manner, a progessive collapse mostly inside it's own footprint. This is to be expected since designers understand that having a 1/4 mile high building fall over is far more dangerous than the building collapsing on itself.
Let's find some buildings of these type that have fallen in a manner unlike that at the WTC.
-
Hook line and sinker'
[Read the article: The 9/11 deniers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The rest of us don't always swallow official information quite so readily and with such gusto as you seem to have.
-------------------------------------------
The problem is you have entered into the Bush bunker where those who are not with you are against you.
Do I believe everything in the offical report? No, because it is obviously incomplete and that's because a complete report would show massive incompetence on the part of the Bush administration.
The problem is there is a huge difference between incomptence and what the conspiracy people are claiming, because what they are claiming violates the laws of physics.
When you claim 1+2=5 you are wrong, and most of the "questions" raised by the conspiracy people are as wrong as simple math.
I'm sorry, but saying, "Look at how the buildings collapsed it proves it was intentional" is not proof, it's stupidity, since all such buildings collapse in the same manner.
When you claim a missile hit the Pentagon, despite the fact that hundreds upon hundreds of people saw the plane, could indentify the plane, some even could tell you the ID number, you are an idiot, not some enlightened person showing the truth.
You want to claim that perhaps someone knew about the attack and looked the other way, well, I see no evidence for that, but at least it's not demonstrably disprovable.
Evidence requires that you take all facts into account, when you have hundreds of eyewitness you can't claim it wasn't a plane. It's as simple as that.
I agrue against this type of logic all the time, because you see it in Holocaust deniers, that someone other than Oswald killed JFK, that someone other than Shakespeare wrote his attributed works, and that we didn't land on the Moon. They all follow the same easily recognized poor reasoning and logic, and they are all easily refuted point by point. The problem is that the people who believe in them do so with religious ferver, they become invested in the belief and lose the ability to think rationally about it.
That's why you feel the need to attack, because to you its the same as if your religion is under attack, but strength of belief does not equal truth, for you nor Holocaust deniers, and when false claims are presented it is imperative that they not be allowed to stand unchallenged.