9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h letters

The Salt Lake Tribune

On September 12, 2006 The Salt Lake Tribune published this letter by Jack Keller:

STATUS: published in The Salt Lake Tribune

Editors/The Salt Lake Tribune -
Noting the controversy over David Griffin's book, Christian Faith and the Truth
Behind 9/11: A call to Reflection and Action, I reviewed it, watched him
lecture, and decided to look deeper into 9/11 as suggested.

I was unaware of the near free-fall collapse of World Trade Center Building No.
7, which had almost twice as many stories as any Utah building. Without being
hit by an airplane, it collapsed into its own basement as fast as a bowling
ball dropped from the sky.

From my engineer's perspective, these collapses cannot be explained by simple
pancaking theories based on burning jet-fuel and office furnishings. Momentum
and energy dynamics suggest that any collapses would be considerably slower
than free-fall, and not symmetrically straight down.

My search led to watching Dr. Steven Jones, a Brigham Young University physics
professor, present his paper: "Why did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"
and reading it. He seems sincere and mild-mannered like Griffin. Jones'
analysis backs my reasoning that jet fuel and office fires alone could not
cause the observed collapses.

Many engineers have accepted the official versions of the 9/11 events, so his
unthinkable conclusions concern me.  Griffin's book lead me to review the WTC
collapses, which raises this perplexing dilemma: The observed collapses are
unexplainable without resorting to conclusions that are unthinkable.

For the good of America and public safety, an open, impartial inquiry into 9/11
is needed.

Jack Keller

Logan, Utah


The following letter by Mark Rex was published in the Salt Lake Tribune's public forum:

STATUS: published in The Salt Lake Tribune
Conspiracy theories
Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 03/14/2007 07:49:46 PM MDT

While I share columnist Gwynne Dyer's March 8 assessment
of "Loose Change" as a slick 9/11 film, I take issue with
his characterization of all criticism of the 9/11 official
story as "brain-rotting" lunacy.
     Dyer dismisses key points in air defense failures and
how three skyscrapers collapsed in rapid and anomalous
ways that can plausibly be hypothesized as controlled
demolitions. The official story itself is a wild
conspiracy theory for which the promised proofs have never
been provided. While the 9/11 Commission was charged to
investigate the entire scope of 9/11, it instead assumed
an unproven hypothesis as given truth and refused to
address numerous inconsistencies brought before it.
     Indeed, this commission was the tardiest, most poorly
funded and politicized excuse for an investigation in
history. If Dyer wants to engage in honest criticism he
would do well to actually read and refute, point-by-point,
Jim Hoffman's wtc7.net analysis of 9/11 building
collapses, David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Commission refutations
and Michael Ruppert's conclusions on multiple 9/11 war
games impeding air defense and response. Dyer might also
consider Utahn Steven E. Jones' paper on the demolition

     Mark Rex
     Salt Lake City