9/11 Debunking E-mail

I have decided to add some reader e-mail which I feel adds to the argument. Below are some of my favorites. Yes, they are one sided, just like the ones on conspiracy theorist sites. I will be updating this page periodically.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Recently, a friend of mine sent me a link to the now-famous "documentary" Loose Change. After watching about fifteen minutes of it, I had to stop the video, as I was becoming physically ill from watching it. The reason for the knot in my stomach was not the sudden realization that the Bush administration had knowingly led nearly three thousand of my fellow countrymen to their fiery deaths - it was because I realized that even liberal cynics (amongst whom I often count myself) can be raging morons.

First, I offer a little background information on myself. I am a 25 year old theater director living in Chicago (raised in New York). I was educated at one of the top 20 liberal arts schools in the country, where I graduated with honors with a degree in performance theory. My parents (a tax lawyer and an English teacher) taught me to make decisions a) for myself, and B) based on corroborated evidence. Thus, I am loath to blindly accept "facts" peddled by news sources owned by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, et cetera. Thankfully, I am equally loath to blindly accept "facts" peddled by self-aggrandizing fear merchants such as the makers of Loose Change. My background is not in physics, structural engineering, or emergency response theory and execution. My background is in theater, which is exactly what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are creating. Without getting too deeply into performance theory, I will simply say that it is my job to craft compelling lies that will fool a group of people into thinking that they have experienced something that they have not. An actor dies onstage, and if I've done my job, the audience will believe in this death, albeit only for the time that they are in the theater. The only difference I see between what I do and what the creators of these conspiracies have done is the fact that somehow, they've convinced their audience that the actor is still dead after the curtain falls. I believe it was PT Barnum who said, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

In the spirit of fair play, I eventually watched all of Loose Change and visited several "9/11 Truth" websites in order to fully understand their claims. The more I read, the more infuriated I became. With such tripe circulating the public consciousness, is the vilification, nay, demonification of the Left any surprise at all? How can we defend ourselves when these fools have made it not only possible, but PROBABLE that the revelation of Liberal leanings will be met with, "Oh, so I bet you think that 9/11 was a government conspiracy." My vitriol soon gave way to a burning desire to have the factual evidence to refute my various friends who are foolhardy enough to buy into "scholars'" claims of wrongdoing on the part of the government, and it was at this point that I came across your website. I began reading at about 11:30 this evening, and finished about 2:00 in the morning. Admittedly, there was a lot of technical detail that I, as someone with limited scientific knowledge, could not follow, but that does not change the fact that it reinforced what common sense dictates: the Bush administration, despite their horrible opportunism, did not engineer the 9/11 disaster. Did they know that we were going to be attacked at some point? Probably. Did they knowingly weaken our terror response and prevention initiatives? It's possible. Did they plant a bunch of thermite charges in the World Trade Center, then blame it on Islamic Fundamentalists? I'd have to be a grade-A idiot to believe that.

I think that the most lucid argument in favor of common sense comes from Noam Chomsky in the clip you linked. His argument that unexpected events take place even in meticulously controlled scientific experiments had deep resonance, and immediately made me consider the following:

Given the fact that "scholars" believe that unexplained phenomena are evidence that the towers were not destroyed for the reasons given by every scientific body that undertakes the study must also mean that they don't believe in Penicillin or Radium, both of which were unintentional discoveries that arose from experiments attempting to prove hypotheses unrelated to said discoveries. Must be tough being a "scholar," not being able to use antibiotics or get X-rays and all.

But my real reason for writing is thus: as a theater professional, I'd like to shed some light on one of the more subversive tactics used by conspiracy theorists to prove their 9/11 agendas, specifically by the makers of Loose Change. The tactic is the use of what we call a "Play World," that is, an alternate reality wherein the events of a play can be seen as truthful depictions of events and people. The benefit of a Play World is that it does not require a grounding in actual reality as long as the aberrant reality of the play is maintained. Take, for example, Shakespeare's "The Tempest." It's the rare moron who'd believe that Shakespeare was documenting actual magical events on some island inhabited by spirits and monsters. Yet, we accept the basis of this alternate reality as part of the experience, meaning that he doesn't need to provide systematic evidence to prove the existence of this fictitious island or its inhabitants.

What the creators of these conspiracies have done, the makers of Loose Change in particular, is choose a Play World that is nearly inscrutable from our own. The basis for their alternate reality is that the United States government is an omniscient and omnipotent entity, a machine so well-oiled and organized that elaborate conspiracies fall into place like clockwork (a side note - interesting that these are the same people who daily flaunt the incompetence of the current administration, isn't it?). They've chosen their Play World well - it's generally considered to be an un-disprovable "truth of the world" that we'll never know the inner workings of the government. Even better, it doesn't require any factual or experiential evidence to corroborate such a claim - they're able to argue that while our daily lives continue unchanged, this malevolent, shadowy force is constantly conspiring in the background. Thus, they've created a perfect stage upon which to bilk the misinformed and intellectually lazy.

Given the striking resemblance that their Play World bears to actual reality, it's no wonder that so many people have bought into their fallacious arguments and outrageous claims. Were they to have instead asserted that 9/11 was the result of an interplanetary war between space chickens and a highly intelligent shade of the color blue (a la Douglas Adams), I doubt they'd make nearly as much money in donations and DVD sales. Part of the problem is that their Play World contains aspects of reality within it. We're all aware of government involvement in such "conspiracies" as the Chilean debacle of the 60's and 70's, the Iran/Contra scandal, et cetera. There IS EVIDENCE to point to the fact that we are not informed of all the government's wheelings and dealings, but to point to this as evidence that 9/11 was engineered by the Bush administration is essentially the same as asserting that the world ceases to exist when we close our eyes. "Well, I can't see anything." No duh, pal. You've got your eyes closed. They're using microcosmic examples of corruption to retroactively prove a point, banging square pegs into round holes all the while.

Add to this the compounding effect of the human drama of 9/11. If there's one thing that will blind an audience to reality, it's emotion. We leave our cognitive faculties behind in instances of extreme duress - it happens every day. Were my girlfriend to suddenly break up with me, I doubt my first thought would be on how to objectively assess the causes of such an event. It doesn't take an enormous leap of imagination to understand the impact of 3,000+ deaths and the violent, unanticipated destruction of a national landmark on the human psyche. The maelstrom of emotional confusion rages, and out of the disarray, an immensely entertaining and seemingly compelling argument arises at a time when most Americans are struggling to believe in something....ANYTHING. It's a cold, calculated maneuver, and truth be told, I almost respect them for their theatrical ingenuity. I'd be a world famous director were I able to pull off a fleece job like that. Uh oh...I said "pull." That must mean that I was the one who ordered the demolition of WTC 7, right?

The final aspect of this piece of theater is the basic need of entertainment. We NEED outrageous stories and intricate timelines of events to pull us away from the tedium of daily life, and there is no better entertainment than human misery. It allows us to rail against the unfairness of the world as it is, and yet remain safely at home, doing very little to change the nature of our situation. The more intricate and outlandish the the story, the more attention it garners - not because there's any truth to it whatsoever, but because it's immensely entertaining. This is also compounded by the fact that the "scholars" have, in addition to choosing the perfect play world, have also chosen the perfect target. Half the country hated Bush long before 9/11, and the "scholars" have supplied us with a tale that a) has blood, guts, explosions and clandestine dealings and B) allows us to blame the whole thing on Bush. That makes for some pretty great television.

I'll end my letter here, as it is now 4:00 in the morning and I fear my objectivity may be giving way to plain old idiot-bashing. Before I close, however, I'd like to thank you again for crusading for REAL truth in the face of unabashed sensationalism. I hope my comments have been enlightening. Feel free to use this email in part or in its entirety on your website. Any dissenters are welcome to contact me at juxdefinitely@yahoo.com .

Sincerely,

To: debunk911@hotmail.com
Subject: ASP claim of 462 interceptions before 9/11? Is it refuted?

Your web site is great. Thanks for doing all that hard work.

I am also reading the Popular Mechanics “Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story”

In that article they said that only 1 flight had been intercepted before 9/11. Yet the ASP seems to claim that 462 interceptions occurred.

Popular Mechanics apparently made the statement that there was only 1 intercept.

Would you care to help me understand this a bit better please?

Yours Sincerely,

-----Original Message-----
From: Debunking 911 [mailto:debunk911@hotmail.com]
Subject: RE: ASP claim of 462 interceptions before 9/11? Is it refuted?

First, you/they are wrong, it doesn't say NORAD intercepted planes 462 times. It says AFTER Sept 11 they "SCRAMBLED or DIVERTED" jets, Air force jets 462 times. It also says they Scrambled jets 67 times before Sept 11. It doesn't say they caught up to any of them as in "Intercepted".

That conspiracy site is feeding people lies. They're lying "in plain sight" Read it again...

From Sept. 11 to June, [edit - Read: post 9/11] NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, [edit- that happened after 9/11 Obviously they changed the way they do things because of 9/11] almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001 [edit - Read: pre 9/11. They scrambled or diverted air force jets but that doesn't mean they caught any.], Martin said.

Hope that helps...

Best Regards
D911

Reader
Thanks for clearing that one up for me. I felt that either the article was wrong or I was not reading it right. I see now that the conspiracy site says that some of these were intercepts, but that is speculation as you have pointed out from the very facts cited in the article itself.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Best Regards,

How conspiracy theories hurt real people.

My husband started with the 9/11 Truth bandwagon. I will try to spare you the details, because we our situation is probably pretty typical. He is a 9/11 conspiracy nut, I am not. I found your site some months ago and tried to show him the real truth, but nothing will convince him. We are in marital counseling now. This is not our only problem, but it is a big part of it. I write to you to ask if you have any advice on how to bring somebody back once they have obviously flipped like he has. Our counselor, a Psychologist (PhD), has told me that we are better off not trying that route because it is very difficult. I am hoping that with your extensive knowledge and experience with these people, you might have some advice. Please, my situation is real and I am pretty desperate for help.

_________________________

Any advice?

Eyewitness research into crash

From: Barry Drogin (barry@notnicemusic.com)

Sent: Mon 9/10/07 7:07 AM

To: debunk911@hotmail.com

Since shortly after 9/11, I have maintained a "Personal September 11
Page." I was an eyewitness to the second twin tower crash, standing
at Battery Place. I had self-evacuated from my workplace at 2 Broadway, and was standing next to a colleague at the time. Rumor on the street was that the entire top of the first hit tower may have been blown off, and I was staring very intently at WTC 1 to determine if that was correct. I could glimpse, through the smoke, the rest of the tower above the fire line, and I was pointing at the tower, concentrating very closely on the scene, when the second plane came over my shoulder and slipped into the second tower. Along with many others, I screamed, ran, and went into some form of shock.

My symptoms in the days, months and years to follow included acute
traumatic stress syndrome, post-traumatic stress syndrome, pneumonia
(after I returned to work at 2 Broadway) and chronic bronchitis (what
my pulmonologist and others have come to refer to as "World Trade
Center cough"). I created the website initially as a way to stop
reliving the event - when anyone learned that I was an eyewitness
(from a position South of the towers, rare for the metropolitan
region), they would inevitably (and, due to their natural curiosity,
somewhat insensitively) ask me to recount my experiences, and I found
it convenient to merely direct them to read what was on the website.

I am involved in new music (what used to be called "contemporary
classical music"), a very small but tight-knit group within the vast
world of musics, and I took the lead in organizing and publicizing a
survivors' message board. An e-mail posting of mine was used,
without my permission, as the lead in "21st Century Music" magazine
(now defunct), and I would at times refer to myself as "the 9/11
poster boy for new music" (Eve Beglarian being the "poster girl") due
to my many post-9/11 activities and writings.

As a professional musician, a composer and performer, I have been
struggling for 6 years to complete a song cycle, "September 11
Songs," of which 3 of 4 are completed (and been performed in various
venues). My "September 11 Songs" are not philosophical or political
or a requiem for the dead, but are autobiographical, an attempt for
me to try to express my own experience and emotions relating to my
living through (and with) the trauma of 9/11. If there is an element
of self-promotion in this corner of my website, it is inevitable, and
my conscious intention is certainly not to exploit myself. On the
contrary, I have been working on biographical and autobiographical
forms of new music-theater my entire life (others working in my genre
have had their work labeled as "CNN operas"), and have felt chosen to
create this work, although a series of enormous emotional blocks have
still, so far, kept me from putting the final touches on the one
incomplete "September 11 Song" (actually the third in the cycle),
which deals directly with the eyewitness experience at the center of my trauma.

On 6/7/2007 I received an e-mail from a (edited) asking about my belief that the "CNN video" was shot by a tourist "20 paces" behind me. He added some nonsense about the video being shot from the Hudson, and asked whether the cameraman was "part of a TV crew." He pointed me towards a disturbing GIF that had been created from the so-called "Michael Hezarkhani" video (I
have no way of knowing the name of the actual source of the video). I attempted to explain to him the basis for my statement, and used some crude tools (Google Earth and Google Maps) to spell it out for him.

Over two months later I was in Battery Park with my children and
attempted to take some photographs to further justify my
claim. There were problems, and I returned again a couple of weeks
later to take some more photographs. Then I created a new page on my
website explicating my findings. It was then that I learned that the
"9/11 Truth" movement was performing some kind of nonsensical
frame-by-frame analysis of the video, which they referred to as the
"ghost plane" video. I found this highly disturbing and added some
choice words to my website. I was also distressed that (edited) completely ignored my detailed response to him.

I found a link to your page. I have read your FAQ, and
believe it is appropriate to offer you a link to my page. The new
page, titled, "Where Was I Exactly?", is at
<http://www.geocities.com/bdrogin/battery.html>. "My Personal
September 11 Page" is at
<http://www.geocities.com/bdrogin/war.html>. Unlike you, I have
taken the risk of not being anonymous in my writings, and my e-mail
address is not private. Two of my children's grandparents are
Holocaust survivors (on my ex-wife's side), and many of my relatives
on my father's side perished in the Holocaust, and I understand the
importance of them to speak out as witnesses and debunk the horrible
Holocaust denial "movement." The subjects of groupthink, propaganda,
paranoia, and what you call "logical fallacy" have been life-long
interests of mine, and are a primary subtext under one of my most
famous pieces, "Alamo!" completed in 1998 (it took me seven years to
finish). My 1985 "Typhoid Mary" also relates to these subjects (it
will be available on CD soon).

There's that stupid self-promotion again. And the emotional
proximity of the anniversary (tomorrow) is making me ramble, I hope
you can forgive a victim's compulsive behavior.

What I am meaning to say is that I was looking very closely at the
twin towers when the second plane hit, and my memory of that moment
was very vivid, to the extent that I could look at the CNN video and
tell that the angle of the building was slightly different from my
angle. I am extremely offended that this video is being referred to
as the "ghost plane" video, with the presumption that it was
fabricated by CNN or someone else. I can assure you that in many,
many details, none of which would have been available a few hours
after the morning of 9/11, the video is completely authentic and
matches my vivid personal eyewitness recollection of the event - the
internal "video" that, for me, haunted me and played over and over in
my brain throughout the day, and for months afterward. Six years
later, and due to the availability of the video, my brain is now
starting to fuse the two memories, but I assure you that for years I
had no doubt of its authenticity, and never imagined that anyone else
would be insane enough to doubt it, either.

Barry Drogin

Thank you for your website! My dad has gone crazy and I have to hear everything new the conspiracy theorists come up with. Sites like yours help keep me sane so I can keep up with the propaganda thrown at me in my own house.

I thought you might enjoy the compliment as payment for your work, sir.

I’m a former special operations operator, I have a BA in business and one in Poli Sci with a certificate in international studies.

I’ve studied the 911 conspiracies more then most and enjoy having logical debates with the people who propel this stuff forward.

I’ve actually set off tons of thermite and regular demolitions.

My biggest argument against these people is the way they claim the attacks happened;

From a tactical point of view, meaning if my platoon was tasked with carrying out a false flag attack like 911, we would never do it the way they claim.

How do you insure the demo charges go off and are not knocked off course when the airplanes hit? How do you make sure the radio signals reach there charge?

!!!!The firemen’s radios didn’t work in the towers.!!!

If one charge doesn’t go off, how do you make sure it isn’t later found in the rubble?
Why not use car bombs and trace them back to terrorists?
Why not implicate Iraq?
Why not exploit Salman Pak to tie Saddam and Al Qaeda together? ( goggle Salman Pak if its unknown to you)
If the goal is Iraq, why not implicate Iraq?
Why use a missile on the pentagon? Did they run out of fake airliners? Missiles do not look anything like airliners. At least in real life they don’t, I’ve shot them before.
Why blow down wtc7 at 5:20 pm instead of when it was totally engulfed in debris and dust clouds and completely invisible? When the smoke cleared the tower would be down and no questions would be asked. Instead, they waited tell all the worlds news agencies were down there reporting and when thousands of aid workers had flocked to the site to do it?
Bombs in the tower????..If you set off a firecracker in your ear, it might sound like a bomb…but its not, it is just really loud and really close. Real bombs are very loud and would have been very audible and very noticeable for miles away. The sounds they heard, which are commonly reported in massive building fires, were electrical circuits, batteries, computers, fire extinguishers, floors, steel snapping etc.
The melted stuff flowing from the side of the building, commonly called thermite. Why would they put it on the outside of the building? I once stuck a dive knife into an electrical circuit in Indonesia…Long story. The point is, the electricity instantly melted the tip of my STEEL knife. Each tower had its own zip code and millions of watts of electricity flowing through it.
Pods on the planes- If there were pods, then they were fake airliners. If they were fake, then they had no passengers. If no passengers, why not put the POD inside the plane?????Why put it on the outside to be caught by eyewitnesses? Doesn’t make any sense.

Again, I can go for a long time doing this.

Hi there

I just went thru your site and it was interesting to say the least, but to the point , my comment is on the use of thermite that supposedly caused the core of the building to remain hot for a long time.

Well here in South Africa we have a company that makes steel and a while ago ( I was still a kid then) a stockpile of steel caught fire ( please note this was basically a dump with everything from fillings to big steel beams, but all metal) and as water would cause a violent reaction they bulldozed it closed with sand (to cut off the O2) it still took 3months for the pile to cool down.

Now I asked some engineers at the time how this was possible, and they told me that metal also burns at certain temps, and that the small fillings most likely caught fire first and then ignited the bigger pieces. Now the same would apply to the WTC. “core fires” as the jet fuel would ignite other flammable materials and start the chain reaction that would cause molten pieces of steel to be found. Thereby debunking the theory of thermite usage.

Just my little comment

To the person who runs this web site:

First, let me say I enjoyed skimming through the information on your site. The reason I didn't get into the details therein is that I don't care to spend a whole lot of time confirming what I already know. In other words, from what I saw, I think you have done an admirable job of debunking this nonsense.

My purpose in writing to you is to pass on a little information that you may have missed. Please forgive me if it is included, but in my limited search of the site I didn't see it mentioned.

Perhaps I should start by saying that I appreciate your defense of Rosie O'Donnell. What's important to understand here is that these people -- every single one of them -- cannot fathom what they don't know about the art and science of structural engineering. They don't have a clue. Yet, they freely offer their lame opinions about technical matters based solely on the opinions of others who are just as ignorant as they are. This phenomena forms the "body of knowledge" of the 9/11 CT crowd.

In witnessing the effects this CT has on people, it reminds me of one of my life experiences -- the day I entered college. What I knew about structural engineering back then (at the ripe old age of 17) could have been written on a 3 x 5 post-it note in number 18 Arial font. Five years later with my degree in hand, I had just enough knowledge about the profession to be dangerous. After working for over 4 years under the supervision of professional engineers, as required by law to take the PE exam, I got my license to practice the profession. Only then was I confident that I wasn't going to build a monument to my ignorance. (That's a term for the mess caused by screwing up a design -- it's what a structural failure can turn out to be.) By then, I had learned the difference between what I knew and what I didn't know. Above all, I learned that structural engineering is partly an art based on science, so I learned where to go for information, and how to interpret that information -- and when and where to go for help if I needed it. Like Dirty Harry once said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

And that's the point. People like Rosie have no clue what their limitations are simply because they cannot fathom what they don't know. They are precisely where I was at the age of 17 . . . a total and complete ignoramus about the subject of structural engineering.

I might also point out that structural engineering is a highly specialized field -- a combination of several sciences that overlap with other disciplines. At one point during my formal education -- my junior year -- I was actually closer to getting a degree in mechanical engineering that one in civil engineering. Of course, the basis to many engineering disciplines is math and physics, but neither mathematicians nor physicists are qualified by education or experience to practice structural engineering. Such is the case with several of the 9/11 Truthers. What they don't know becomes readily apparent in their lame attempts to formulate a reasonable argument. Of course, the Rosie O'Donnell's of the world accept these people as experts. That's partly because they are so damn ignorant they can't recognize real expertise, and/or partly because they NEED to believe the CT.

Given all of the above, I think it's important for people to understand certain realities regarding 9/11.

The first is this: There isn't a single person on this planet that can PROVE why the buildings at the WTC suffered catastrophic structural failures. It isn't possible. Such is the nature of forensic engineering.

Second: Anyone claiming otherwise should be regarded with suspicion.

And last: Some theories regarding these failures are more credible than others.

These realities make the 9/11 CT possible. To ignoramuses, the official explanation regarding the failures is simply insufficient which, of course, leads them to believe there is some final universal truth about the matter that needs to be discovered . . . or uncovered. That's when the chimeral notions of a conspiracy take flight giving birth to the CT. What ignoramuses don't understand is that only when they deviate from sense does the official explanation become less credible. The fact is, the official explanation is the only explanation that lies within the realm of reason. Meanwhile, their nonsense knows no logical boundaries.

To be more precise without going into detail, the 9/11 CT has all the credibility of the theory with the premise that the rings of Saturn are made up of lost airline luggage. Only a naïf thinks controlled demolition is the best theory available to explain the failures.

Another aspect to this nonsense that people need to know is how structural steel is fireproofed. There are several methods available, but the two most common methods were used in the WTC building, that being spray-on foam and gypsum board (or sheetrock). All interior support columns for these structures were layered in gypsum board which acts as an insulator to slow heat exchange from a fire to the steel. The thickness of the gypsum board determines the fire rating of the column. For example, a given thickness of gypsum board will provide heat protection for a specific amount of time. All building codes require fire protection for some -- not all -- steel structures.

What most people don't know is that gypsum board or sheetrock is the same material used to construct the walls and ceilings of their home. And any fool knows you can put a hole in sheetrock with minimal effort . . . just miss a nail with a hammer. Sheetrock isn't exactly impact resistant. This means the mindless nonsense used by the 9/11 Truthers to discredit the idea that the fireproofing was lost at impact is nothing but wishful thinking. Hell, both planes went through the exterior steel walls of the towers. How in hell could the insulation have possibly survived the impact?

I might also note that I have been to several burn outs involving structural steel buildings (warehouses for example) that had NO fireproofing. Even a small local fire in a large building will produce a local failure of the roof system . . . even when that roof system is supporting zero live load. In other words, with sufficient heat structural steel will fail under it's own weight.

Now, maybe some or all of this is on your site. If not, and you deem it appropriate, then feel free to post it.

P.S. You should know I am a registered professional engineer with over twenty year of experience in structural engineering. Today, I no longer practice, but I still keep my license current, although my status is "inactive". (In other words, I have forgotten more engineering science than Rosie O'Donnell will ever know.) And I also have a hole in the sheetrock in the wall of my son's bedroom . . . which was never hit by a jet airliner going mach 0.7.

I want to thank you for your website and your excellent work. I, too, am a flaming liberal. My parents have a thick FBI file, most of which is redacted for “National Security” reasons. But I despair at the seemingly intelligent people among liberal 9/11 conspiracy theorists. A friend of mine who headed up a department at a major university is now buying up dozens of David Ray Griffin’s books and donating gobs of money to him. What disturbs me most is the realization that he is not engaging in critical thinking when buying Griffin’s assertions. A couple of years ago I was invited to a screening of a film about 9/11 by a friend that teaches film. She wanted me to provide the media literacy perspective on this film called “Loose Change.” I found myself the lone skeptic in a room of 100 truthers and the “filmmakers.” I told the crowd that their acceptance of this piece of propaganda was as dangerous as the very thing they claim to fear. They couldn’t understand what I was saying. Common sense disappears around discussions of 9/11.

I have also encouraged my friends to direct their energies toward change that will actually make an impact on people’s lives. Even if their theories were true, what value is all of this discussion and outrage? It seems like so much mental masturbation coupled with righteous indignation. I suggested that if they truly believe the scoundrels now running the country did this, then they should put their energy into reclaiming our democracy. Fight for public funding of federal elections so that we can cut the ties between our elected representatives and the huge industries that now fund their campaigns.

Thanks again. I live in Phoenix where this poor guy is on a hunger strike over all of this. There are so many more worthy issues he could have chosen as the object of his protest.

I want to thank you for your website and your excellent work. I, too, am a flaming liberal. I despair at the seemingly intelligent people among liberal 9/11 conspiracy theorists. A friend of mine who headed up a department at a major university is now buying up dozens of David Ray Griffin’s books and donating gobs of money to him. What disturbs me most is the realization that he is not engaging in critical thinking when buying Griffin’s assertions. A couple of years ago I was invited to a screening of a film about 9/11 by a friend that teaches film. She wanted me to provide the media literacy perspective on this film called “Loose Change.” I found myself the lone skeptic in a room of 100 truthers and the “filmmakers.” I told the crowd that their acceptance of this piece of propaganda was as dangerous as the very thing they claim to fear. They couldn’t understand what I was saying. Common sense disappears around discussions of 9/11.

Thanks again. I live in Phoenix where this poor guy is on a hunger strike over all of this. There are so many more worthy issues he could have chosen as the object of his protest.