Letters to the Editor
JulieAnna
Published Letters: 31
-
@talesofunrest
[Read the article: 9/11 Commission: Our investigation was "obstructed"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You've obviously confused me with others who have participated in the discussion. I made the mistake of responding to ondelette about the "laws of physics" when ondelette asked somebody else to clarify what they meant. I did so because I believed the person ondelette was responding to had read or heard something similar to what I remembered reading about the basic law that a falling object will follow the path of least resistance. Pardon me for not knowing, specifically, if this is commonly known as a law of physics, a law of nature, or whatever other catagories may exist, but that doesn't make it any less true that a falling object will follow the path of least resistance.
In my response, I didn't claim that it meant, definitively, that explosives were involved -- this may have been mentioned in the post that ondelette originally responded to but, again, it wasn't mine. I've also never once mentioned pyroclastic clouds.
I did state the thermate wouldn't be present in the dust that was examined unless explosives were used. I suppose I did misspeak in that regard, because yes I do realize thermate isn't an explosive. What I meant to convey is that the towers having collapsed due to fire does not explain the presence of thermate. If you think that argument should be summarily dismissed because I accidentally gave the impression that I thought thermate is an explosive, then go right ahead.
My intent, here, has been to try to cause others to begin to wonder and ask their own questions. I know you're probably feeling rather satisfied that my post followed the exact pattern you described, before, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't wonder WHY John Kerry believes tower 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion; it doesn't mean we shouldn't wonder WHY Donald Rumsfeld stated, at least once, in public, that flight 93 was "show down over Pennsylvania." It doesn't mean we shouldn't wonder about all the other matters I've brought up throughout this thread, and all the pieces that don't fit into the puzzle.
I'm rather tired of the attitudes here, all of you who think that in order to question the official story, it means that I have to have the answer to every single silly question you can dream up and, if I don't, that makes my statements ludicrous or that it means I have no arguement and therefore the official story is true and accurate.
That's like saying that, in every single court case that has ever taken place, that it's not enough for an attorney to prove his client innocent -- it's up to him or her to also prove exactly who committed the crime, how they did it, when, where, why, and be able to answer every single question that can be dreamt up relating to the crime, and if that attorney fails to do so, it means his/her client is guilty.
Well, I'm tired of it. I simply wish to urge everybody to look into the matter for themselves. There are many books available on the subject, many websites devoted to getting to the truth, and many, many people who feel exactly as I do -- we don't know what happened, but we know that what we've been told happened doesn't add up.
-
Correction...
[Read the article: 9/11 Commission: Our investigation was "obstructed"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I, of course, meant "shot* down over Pennsylvania." Because show down over Pennsylvania is an entirely different event. :P