San Francisco Bay Guardian
The March 24, 2005 issue of San Francisco Bay Guardian
contained a feature article on 9/11 Skepticism
'We're all paranoid'
which is the subject of the letters on this page.
STATUS: sent to SF Bay Guardian
To the Editor-
As the TV producer quoted in Steven T. Jones'
piece "We're all paranoid" (March 24) I think he
deserves congratulations from your readers for a
comprehensive, informative and thoughtful article that
rises above most of its kind that I've seen.
Articles such as his that seriously question the
official 9/11 story are, regrettably, journalistic
curiosities. Each one stands as a rebuke to most of
the media most of the time. As Jones asks: "...why
haven't the mainstream media raised the possibility of
official complicity, or seriously questioned flaws in
the official story?"
This is not just another official story. It is
the official story of a history-changing event, the
linchpin for the so-called "war on terrorism," itself
the justification for endless hot war, arms
expenditures, sacrifice and fear.
Part of the answer to Jones' question lies,
paradoxically, in the first seven paragraphs of his
article -- stunningly at odds with the subsequent 84
paragraphs. It's almost as if there are two of Steven
T. Jones, the early one and the later one.
The early one immediately trots out the
intellectually bankrupt thought-stopping term
"conspiracy theorists." Normally it's used by those --
unlike the later Jones -- who want to entirely sidestep
facing the facts about 9/11 -- why, for instance, not a
single jet interceptor turned a wheel that day until
it was too late.
The term "conspiracy theorist," like
"anti-American," belongs in the category of
name-calling. It is not fair discourse. Likewise, the
early Jones who writes that my film exhibits "leaps of
logic" doesn't offer any example. The Jones who writes
that "conspiracy theorists" hold to "a worldview in
which there are no tragic accidents or strange
coincidences," himself indulges in a leap of logic. I
don't know a single person who denies there are such
things as coincidence and tragedy.
My point is that if the later Jones feels he
must first ladle out a dollop of put-downs to
inoculate himself against anticipated charges that he
himself is a "conspiracy theorist," how does he expect
other journalists, less knowledgeable and talented, to
even attempt to write on the subject?
As a lifelong journalist myself, my hope is that
more journalists will find the courage to challenge the
term "conspiracy theorists" if they find the courage
to write about this at all. Because these word weapons
are important pillars supporting the status quo of
lies and the suppression of questioning.
Producer "The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News
Special You Never Saw"
published in the SF Bay Guardian
The truth about the truth movement
I was glad to see a lengthy article on 9/11; naturally,
I was sad to note the omissions, and I disagree with
Steven T. Jones on his analysis of the state of the 9/11
truth movement ["We're All Paranoid," 3/23/05].
For the record, I knew that there was a cover-up after
marching with a large delegation of peace and human rights
groups' representatives on Senator Feinstein's office in
January 2002, and meeting with Feinstein and Senator
Boxer's staff to demand a congressional investigation of
9/11. Bush and Cheney immediately asked Daschle to limit
the inquiry, which was later officially headed by the CIA,
Bob Graham, and Porter Goss, heads of the House/Senate
Intelligence Committee, who were having breakfast on 9/11
with Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad (who had ordered $100,000 wired to
Mohammed Atta, whom the FBI identified as the leader of
the attacks). Those most responsible for 9/11 have been
promoted within the administration.
I believe the 9/11 truth movement is growing, as evidenced
by our support from Project Censored, project director
Peter Phillips, and the public. The premieres of The Great
Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw raised more
than $12,000 in direct donations from audiences to get the
DVD to universities and colleges throughout California, and
to support further research by Project Censored on the
unanswered questions of 9/11, and the continued educational
efforts of the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance.
Where people are mentally depends on how much they are
willing to look into the "facts" and where they go for
"reliable information." The failure of the mainstream press
to present the basic facts of 9/11 has driven us to do all
we can to educate the public directly, bypassing the
traditional media. The movement has been plagued by a flood
of disinformation straw men to make us look "crazy."
STATUS: sent to SF Bay Guardian
Thank-you for your article on the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The photograph on page 20 of the North Tower collapse exposes
a fundamental flaw in the official story that the tower collapsed
under its own weight 102 minutes after the jetliner impact.
Contrary to popular belief, one does not have to be an engineer
to understand that the towers were demolished -- only common
intuition is required. Consider the following proof.
Numerous photos and videos show that each tower exploded into an
expanding cloud of dust and rubble that rapidly descended, taking
13-16 seconds to reach the ground. No significant portion of
either tower remained standing above these debris clouds, which
grew to over four times the diameter of each tower by the time
they reached the ground. We know that it would take an object 9.2
seconds to fall from a tower's roof in a vacuum, so air resistance
accounted for a 40-60% slowdown in the rate of descent of rubble
falling through the air. Yet the rubble falling through the
profile of the tower, supposedly crushing 1000 vertical feet of
intact steel structure, fell just as fast.
So the official story requires you to believe that a steel
structure, strong enough to resist large earthquakes and 140 mph
cross winds, provided no more resistance to falling rubble than
published by the SF Bay Guardian
A grave step
Regarding Steven T. Jones's 9/11 piece ["We're All Paranoid," 3/23/05]:
the actual quote from my Sept. 19, 2001, column in the San Francisco
Bay View weekly reads, "I think the best protection we have now, is to
consider and investigate as fully as we can the possibility that at
least one part of the U.S. Government at least allowed the attacks of
While several 9/11-researcher friends have slammed the piece for
neglecting evidence of the WTC buildings' demolition, I think that it
raises many strong questions and provides a big spotlight and that in
general it's a brave step for the writer and the Bay Guardian to make
in the face of a government that is ever more openly by, for, and
about corporations and empire.
published by the SF Bay Guardian
Candid but simplistic
Generally, I appreciate the candor of your article
["We're All Paranoid"]. Three comments:
You describe Carol Brouillet as "gathering every relevant document
she can find, meticulously connecting every dot." Hmmm. That's
precisely what any responsible investigator, research scientist,
or clinician diagnosing a patient would do.
You say she connects the dots "into an elaborate proof." I'd say
she doesn't claim "proofs," but compiles a compelling weight of
evidence -- and asks why it's being ignored.
You say, "It is a worldview in which there are no tragic accidents
or strange coincidences, no pieces that don't fit into the puzzle."
That's grossly simplistic.