Advertisement

Don't call me crazy just for seeking the truth about what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001

July 01, 2006|by L. Simons

To the editor:

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the phrase "conspiracy theorist" used to describe people who seek the truth about Sept. 11, 2001. It is an obvious attempt to make those who believe in government complicity in the attacks appear to be deranged lunatics.

People know the term "conspiracy" has nutty connotations. Therefore, it is used on purpose because it is the goal of the opposition to label us "crazy" before a debate even begins, when they know they will lose the war on facts.

When Charlie Sheen went public about his belief in a cover-up, people immediately attacked his character and brought up his past behavior rather than address his claims.

Advertisement

Attacking one's character is the obvious sign that one cannot engage in an intelligent debate of the facts. When our character is attacked, no credence is given to our views. This is the tactic politicians use. They attack each other's character and attempt to discredit when they have been beaten by facts.

My life has been threatened. I've been yelled at and ridiculed for my views, yet I have not returned this behavior. Where do threats and anger come from? If you possess the truth, why the anger?

What astonishes me is that they call us "conspiracy theorists" as if we believe in this far-fetched, impossible theory we've concocted from our own imaginations.

The word "conspiracy" means "two or more persons in agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act." The official account of the attacks is that 19 terrorists with boxcutters hijacked four planes and crashed them into targets. Isn't this a conspiracy theory, too? It only takes two for a conspiracy, and 19 conspired to commit an unlawful act on 9/11, but only we are called conspiracy theorists. Why? Because people know the word "conspiracy" is associated with those who have completely lost their minds and who think there is always an alternative explanation to an official story.

Of what to believe about 9/11, the choice is not between a wacky conspiracy theory and an official account, but between two conspiracy theories. The question is: Which one is more plausible? I tend to side with the one that has more consistency and fewer holes.

Since there are three different versions of the official account (from the military, NORAD and the 9/11 Commission) and since the 9/11 Commission did everything in its power to distort the truth and exclude hard evidence and questions, my choice is government complicity.

L. Simons
Hagerstown

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|