Letters to the Editor
October 22, 2005
Thank you for covering some of the legitimate, very disturbing questions
about how and by whom the September 11 attacks were committed ("9/11: Cold
Case," September 8). Your article was the longest and most apparently
respectful one I have seen in the mainstream OR Left media.
The media have protected the perpetrators by pretending there is no solid
evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. In fact there is a mountain of such
evidence, documented in books such as David Ray Griffin's second book on
9/11, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions and websites
such as http://911research.wtc7.net.
However, the person you chose to interview, Morgan Reynolds, is a miserable
representative of 9/11 skepticism. He discredits the entire cause by mixing
legitimate criticisms of the official story with ridiculous assertions that
have been repeatedly exposed as either nonsensical or fraudulent (take your
pick). The latter includes the denial that the alleged airliners hit the
World Trade Center and Pentagon. Moreover, Reynolds takes "airliner denial"
to a new level of absurdity by including Flight 93 in it.
Anyone who cares about what really happened on September 11 must be critical
of both the government-approved conspiracy theory and the statements made by
all the self-appointed Columbos and Sherlocks. Only a few websites, books,
and videos investigate the attacks in a scientific, intellectually honest
The largest smoking gun of 9/11 is that the World Trade Center collapses had
all the features of controlled demolition (except that those of the Twin
Towers were even more explosive). The portions of the Towers above the
impact zones did not sag, then collapse slowly and unevenly, toppling over
to one side, as they should have if randomly broken and heat-softened steel
were the culprit. Instead, they fell straight down and explosively,
symmetrically outward, ejecting massive pieces of steel hundreds of feet and
spewing finely pulverized concrete. The rubble reached the ground only about
50% slower than if it had been in free fall.
Uneven damage from airliner impacts and fires and collapses driven only by
gravity cannot possibly account for these features. The 47 steel box columns
of the huge core - which the 9-11 Commission Report lyingly called a "hollow
steel shaft"! - had to have been destroyed evenly, every few floors, for
this to happen. Osama bin Laden and his minions did not have the access to
the building or the technological savvy needed to achieve this.
WTC 7 "collapsed" at exactly free-fall speed at [5:20] the same day, hit by
no airplane, and was barely damaged by fallout from the Towers.
Even severe damage cannot make steel skyscrapers collapse evenly at
free-fall speed. That's what the art and science of controlled demolition is
Good websites for further research include:
(Fair disclosure: I am an editorial associate at these sites and receive a
modest amount in charitable contributions from visitors.)
For a detailed critique of the Reynolds article, please see: