Letter: Easy gateways to 9/11 truths

Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.  

To the editor:

911 Truth holds that 9/11 was an inside job that was not a crime committed by Muslim terrorists.

Though the 911 Truth movement has not been able to identify specific guilty persons nor agencies (there have to have been many), nor their specific roles in the 9/11 crimes, it has been able to assure the official government explanation is total fabrication.

The official government version of 9/11 events holds:

Article Continues After Advertisement

— Aircraft struck World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 and the impacts and fires started by jet fuels caused those towers to "fall down." 911 Truth observes: WTC1 and WTC2 did not fall, they were turned into dust which blanketed lower Manhattan Island up to five inches deep. The dust was exceptionally fine — particles were uncommonly, shockingly small.

That opens up an easy gateway to 911 Truth: You cannot pulverize concrete (let alone steel and glass) mechanically. Pulverization requires chemical (including nuclear) explosives. Explosives must be carefully placed in buildings which takes time, manpower, planning, coordination. Therefore many U.S.-based people had to have been employed; it cannot have been carried out by a handful of pilots in hijacked aircraft.

Article Continues After These Ads

Pulverization of 80 percent of the steel and concrete in the WTC towers would have required at least an order of magnitude (more like two or three) as much energy as the gravitational potential energy of the masses of the twin towers. Therefore there had to have been planted explosives, again, proving an inside job.

Entrepreneur Larry Silverstein bought the WTC buildings a few months before 9/11. On 9/11, he is recorded on video recommending World Trade Center 7 be "pulled," that is, destroyed by controlled demolition. Again, controlled demolition implies preplanted explosives which implies an inside job.

Article Continues After Advertisement

From any columnist, the readership has the right to expect wider knowledge than is possessed by the average reader, due to broader and better sources of information — getting the "inside story" to which the writer has access not possessed by the reader.

It is thus disappointing to read (as in Donald Morrison's piece: "A conspiracy you can believe in," Eagle op-ed, Sept. 5) unthinking acceptance of the official conspiracy theory about 9/11.

Bruce R. Henry,



If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.

Powered by Creative Circle Media Solutions