The 9/11 signs point to a conspiracy

March 04, 2006|By L. Simons

To the editor:

In response to a letter writer's attempted refutation of my Jan. 14 letter, in which I blame the U.S. for 9/11, I say this: I usually don't waste time with people who "refute" my claims when it is obvious they have done no reading or research on the topic. But I must reply to expose the writer's blatant lack of knowledge of the facts I presented.

First of all, The Herald-Mail is infamous for changing the titles of my letters. In this case, they totally misrepresented the content of my letter by changing my title. Nowhere in my letter did I even imply that bin Laden did not have a hand in the attacks, but that didn't stop them from titling my letter "Don't blame Osama, U.S. caused 9/11 attacks." That puts to rest all comments the writer made in reference to thinking that I said Osama is innocent.


Here is my response to the writer's attempted refutation: The three collapsed buildings in New York on 9/11 prove that steel-framed buildings don't collapse due to fire, especially in 57 and 102 minutes. All evidence points to a controlled demolition. Steel buildings in Philadelphia (1991), Venezuela (2004), and Madrid (2005) burned for 19, 17 and 24 hours. None collapsed.

The mention of the quick removal of the steel after the collapses had nothing to do with the desire to restore things to normalcy in New York City. The quick removal of the steel without examination was obviously done because analysis of the steel would have shown controlled demolition was the cause.

Officials on the scene were asked why they removed it so quickly. "To recover people who may have survived" was their answer. Yet the steel from WTC-7 was removed just as quickly, despite there being no victims in that building. Besides, it is a federal offense to remove evidence from a crime scene, yet no one was charged for any crimes.

About the Pentagon: If the videos confiscated by the FBI would show a plane, why can't the public see them? Why the need for confiscation? I really don't care what witnesses say they saw. Photographic evidence overrules eyewitness accounts. If I saw photos of a house that was charred by fire, and witnesses said they saw no fire, yet only fire could cause it to burn, would I really care what witnesses saw? Even the 9/11 commission omitted any mention of the hole being too small to accommodate a plane. Why omit this if evidence that a plane struck is overwhelming?

Craig proves my point by admitting the area of the Pentagon that was hit was strong because of renovation and not many were in that wing of the building. That's exactly why that section was hit. Not as much damage or lives lost as there would have been if any other wing had been chosen.

Craig's other error is when he says that the hijackers didn't know where Bush was on 9/11. Bush's visit to the Sarasota, Fla., school was widely publicized on Sept. 7, and it was even on live TV in Florida. Hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi were in Sarasota on Sept. 7 and stayed at a Holiday Inn close to Colony Beach, where Bush stayed the night.

I suggest that the letter writer do his research before replying to me again.

L. Simons


The Herald-Mail Articles