- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Your reference to Chomsky, and how he dismisses theories about 911 as a wish for a simple explanation of a complex event, distracted me from the point of your piece. It does, however, give an opportunity to chastise Chomsky for his rather arrogant, and ignorant approach to the topic of 911 in general. Chomsky says, and you quote:
'If you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences, would instantly discount that evidence. There are plenty of coincidences and unexplained phenomena -- why didn't this happen and why didn't that happen? -- but if you look at a controlled scientific experiment, the same thing is true.'
From reading Chomsky's conclusion, it is obvious that he has not actually looked at the evidence. The official story of 911 does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
You have pointed out that the mainstream press has fallen down on the job of exposing the nefarious goings on in the Whitehouse and in politics in general. The area of 911 is another one which the MSM does not want to touch with a barge pole.
The events of 911 allowed Bush to pursue his anti-constitutional agenda. I would love it if you would write about the issue after having reviewed some of the available evidence. I believe it is relevant to Bush's continuing power to manipulate the people anto accepting his goal of empire.
Keep up the good work.
