Read other letters about this article
Manjoo writes:
All rely on photos to make their case, the same images that the rest of us use to support our version of the story.
My doubts -- and those of many, many, many others -- rely on the fact that Building 7 was clearly demolished. There are a lot of other problems with the official conspiracy theory, but you don't have to get farther than Building 7 to know that it's fucked up. You start there and the rest unravels.
I don't have to prove exactly how 9/11 was pulled off. I only know the official conspiracy is bunk, which is what matters -- that's the useful information. Was the Pentagon hit by a missile or a plane full of people from Dulles? Who cares? Building 7 was demolished and the official conspiracy theory denies this -- indeed has no explanation for this.
Once you get that far, you have your information: it was an inside job. It is a distraction to feel obligated to try to show how it was carried out -- does that really matter? How could you in any case without access to the crime scene?
Tip to Manjoo: it is the urge to follow the herd and deny facts that leads people to embrace the official conspiracy theory. The official theory just doesn't hold up:
Why do buildings fall at the speed of gravity? Why would the one hit second, the one hit more off center, the one that had the least amount of fuel burning inside of it (we all saw it shoot out the other side) fall first? Why did news reporters and firemen report major explosions in the basements (base charges, common with demolition)? Why was the steel at the bottom of "ground zero" liquefied for days, as you would expect in a demolition? Why did members of the official investigation team have to fight to even get access to the site? All of this is more suspicious, again, because Building 7 was obviously demolished.
None of these questions come from pictures or make conclusions based on shaky science; they all come from the public record.