Read other letters about this article

• Monday, May 12, 2008 06:22 PM

  It's true this is no place to display 9-11-itis

  It's also true that within the "9-11 movement" there are large numbers of people promoting silly or sinister theories, so much so that the more moderate elements have to spend a lot of time disavowing them, which is presumably the point. The more moderate elements, as I put it, concentrate on the mechanics of the collapses (of the Towers, as well as of Building 7) and seem to me to have made convincing engineering points. I am especially impressed by the work of Gordon Ross, who is himself a structural engineer. There is a 25-minute video of him on googlevideos explaining why the towers fell in the bizarrely spectacular way they did, which really doesn't make any sense at all on the conventional view:

  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615

  and he covers the same material on his website at

  http://gordonssite.com/index.html

  The merit of this type of argument is that it doesn't require any hypothesis about "who" or "why", except the minimal obvious one, which is that whoever-it-was had access to the maintenance areas (such as the liftshafts) of the three WTC buildings for a few dozen hours over the weeks before the events.

  One can, however, easily develop a circumstantial argument regarding motive, as Jerry Mazza does here:

  http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3135.shtml

  Incidentally, from the psychological warfare point of view, the '9-11 Truthling' community is really interesting (the derisive term comes from the video troll who currently glories in the nickname of 'Nicointelpro Haupt').

  —Rowan Berkeley Read Rowan Berkeley's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel