Read other letters about this article

• Monday, March 17, 2008 03:48 PM

  Another 9/11 debunking attempt in sheeps clothing

  Look I am middle of the road when it comes to the 911 truth community. It comprises some elements that obviously reach for divisive answers but at the same time, I think its dismissive at best to make broad sweeping remarks that trivialize the legitimate science and engineering research that has very effectively discredited the official story. To make the insinuation that all the proof cited by disbelievers has comes from pictures like the one showcased in your article (hardly a widely supported theory in the 9/11 truth movement btw) is blatantly inaccurate.

  I understand your position on this, I mean regardless of what you do or do not believe, it is hard to give something so controversial the slightest bit of credibility when you work for a major publication and can have your job stripped away from you for pushing extremities. Still, whenever anyone tries to pursue "objective" reporting on this topic, it’s almost always formatted in a way that distances the writer from the possibility of being lumped in with the "crazies" out there and thus the writing is subconsciously if not intentionally subversive and critical. What you have essentially done is set up a straw man argument here to prove something that certainly has relevance but does not account for every facet of these counter theories.

  If you want to bring legitimate arguments about images into question, let’s take a more hi-resolution approach to this. When CNN was filming correspondent Aaron Brown, how can you account for his reporting that building 7 had just fallen, yet behind Mr. Brown the building was still standing and continued to stand for some 10 minutes after? Maybe just a premature speculation, maybe something more ominous but a British correspondent made the same mistake.

  How about the molten steel that survived a month after the attack, which all the physics and math in the world couldn’t account for by the official theory. There are videos right now on the web, both very clear in quality of video and audio. The video shows firefighters drawing attention to the numerous pockets of molten steel around ground zero, and as luck would have it, mention how long it’s been since the attack.

  There are literally volumes of questions raised about that day that cannot simply be reduced to biased sensory perception. That said, I personally wouldn’t want to be swayed by my own fears, assumptions, or any irrational feeling that may make me draw conclusions prematurely. I have to look over information and stay objective no matter what. I want real oversight, and if new information released by this administration offers a solid explanation, which there hasn’t been to date, I will gladly concede at that time.

  Unfortunately I think that this write up, was more of a means to an ends for your book, and in the process you marginalized something far more sophisticated than you give credit to.

  —universe42 Read universe42's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel