Nom de Plame,

You've thrown everything but the kitchen sink in your response to my letter, but you haven't addressed the facts. You have also ignored the explicit thesis of my letter.

First, let me reiterate: I don't care what hit the Pentagon, because it is irrelevant.

In response to the FACT that no steel-reinforced highrise in history has collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, and that on 9/11 this allegedly happened 3 times, you write: "If the moon was made of green cheese, would you like a slice?" Since it is a FACT the moon is not made of cheese, your analogy makes no sense. You can use all the schoolyard taunts you like, but they won't erase the scientific evidence that demonstrates 9/11 was an inside job (whether they let it happen or made it happen, I don't know).

For example, you mock the FACT that WTC 1,2, and 7 fell at freefall speed into their own footprints ("it's really lucky that the good architects of New York City know how to design a building so that it will collapse into its footprint in the event of a disaster, eh?"). These FACTS are meaningful because if you want to believe the official version of 9/11, you have to defy the laws of physics on several accounts. Buildings don't fall into their footprint of their own volition. A building falls in the path of least resistance, which is why natural collapses tend to tip over. They certainly don't plummet straight down in a freefall, unless they are packed with explosives. If fires could bring down highrises, demolition companies would be unnecessary.

Natural collapses also don't shred every piece of metal into portable segments (which are conveniently removed from a crime scene before being analyzed), and they don't smash tons of concrete into a fine dust. Such events require the introduction of large amounts of energy. Natural collapses also don't require the secondary explosions heard by police, firefighters, and a host of eyewitnesses in the WTC (www.911revisited.com for video of these interviews on the day).

Perhaps your snark will allow for a professor of physics to explain:

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html

For the sake of compression, I also direct you here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html

And here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/index.html

You seem to accept the "coincidence theory," ("There isn't a *plan*. There's just this minute. Would that it weren't so. But it is."), so I direct you to a demonstration of how ridiculous that theory is:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

Ad hominem attacks will not suffice. The evidence is too compelling.

Nom de Plame,

I appreciate your response, and I'm not here to be belligerent, so please allow me to identify the location of our impasse and then move on.

If you won't look at the most credible evidence 9/11 skeptics have, then there is nothing I can do to make this a productive exchange. You're basically saying, "I have my ideas, and that's all that matters."

The analyses of scientist Jim Hoffman (www.wtc7.net), based in part on physicist Steven Jones and MIT engineer Jeff King, are, to my mind, the most sober and scientific proposals from the 9/11 Truth Movement. Jeff King's talk is available in the free film at www.911revisited.com, a film that focuses solely on the question of controlled demolition.

I also recommend Dr. David Ray Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor, with one caveat: He forwards the No-Boeing Theory, and I think that's the one misstep in his analysis, which is otherwise quite sound and balanced.

There are other capable scholars in this field. The problem is there are too many additional voices, many of whom contribute nothing to the provable questions of substance that surround 9/11. This makes it easy for people like yourself to point to the fringe dwellers and say, "See, this is just tinfoil hat wearing lunacy." Try, if you can, to ignore the talk of New World Order, Illuminati, Zionist cabals, Satanist orders, Holocaust denial, and whatever other stuff is beyond the scope of scientific investigation into the controlled demolition of WTC. That is what I ask of you.

You write: "I did advance an alternate thesis for your collapsing buildings--that it was not fire which destroyed the neigboring towers, but repeated concussive blasts that came from the Twin Towers. I'm no physicist, but I imagine that kind of concussion would cause a (heavy) steel-and-cement building to collapse the same way an earthquake causes buildings to collapse."

Well, Larry Silverstein is on tape admitting he ordered firefighters to "pull" WTC7, and the FEMA report on why WTC7 fell could not explain it. In other words, it wasn't a "concussion," as you write, and FEMA couldn't explain it, and the building's owner is on tape saying he had it demolished, and the video evidence should convince even the biggest skeptic that WTC7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

As for your conclusion that if I'm right, then the truth will be known: well, that's a non-sequitor and you know it. "Truth" is concealed all the time. What matters here is that a proper investigation of 9/11 never took place. That is, there was never a chance for "truth" to emerge. The best average people can do is make demands of their government. If they don't even do that for a world-changing event such as 9/11, as in your proposed abstinence, then the "truth" will most certainly remain buried.