Thanks for writing about 9/11.
I'm afraid you have done a disservice to Jim Hoffman by not making it clear
that his purpose in analyzing Loose Change is not simply to attack Avery or
the film, but rather to separate out, rescue and highlight the TRUE parts.
It's more about educating than attacking. You leave the impression that he
- like yourself - doesn't seem to believe that there is anything true in
Loose Change. This badly misrepresents Jim's efforts and will no doubt
arouse unhelpful antagonisms and unnecessary polarization in what is
already an emotionally charged debate.
For an understanding of motive behind 9/11, I would recommend looking to
the serious researchers who study these things. Michel Chossudovsky would
be a good place to start. He is Professor of Economics at the University of
Ottawa and has done many studies looking at the true nature of terrorism
and the political and economic forces that were in play in the global arena
on 9/11. You can find his articles on this site:
NIST's claim that they have explained all the evidence just isn't true.
As a matter of fact, the entire focus and content of the report is only to
bring us up to the so-called "triggering event", after which, all they say
is: "Collapse then ensued". It's apparently supposed to be obvious to
anyone why this would occur. But is it? The real evidence for how the
buildings were destroyed is seen AFTER the destruction begins, but this
time frame is beyond the scope of their investigation so it is ignored.
You should make this known to your readers so they can better assess the
conclusions of the NIST report.
There's something else you should make clear about the NIST report: Its
conclusions are NOT supported by their own test data. Kevin Ryan,
a courageous whistleblower and former site manager for Underwriters
Laboratories, sacrificed his job in order to make sure that at least a few
people would be aware that NIST and UL were NOT able to create floor model
failure in post-9/11 fire testing, and the steel samples recovered from the
WTC fire zones showed NO evidence of temperatures anywhere near those
required by their hypothesis. NIST ignored all of this important
scientific data and turned instead to computer simulations, where they
could manipulate the results by using undisclosed input values.
Did you ever play with blocks when you were little? I used to like to make
big towers, stacking more and more blocks to see how high they could go.
One thing I noticed was that every time when I'd pull out a block at the
bottom to make the whole thing collapse, it would always either topple to
one side or come down in a big heap and I'd be left with a pile of blocks
where my tower used to be. No matter how many times I tried it, I could
never get the tower to fly apart and scatter blocks all over the room.
Take a look at these photos:
If you had never heard of the World Trade Center or 9/11 and somebody
showed you these photos and told you that enormous 110 story skyscrapers
used to stand inside the red outlines and asked your opinion as to what it
looks like has just happened, you would probably notice the smoke, the
darkened discoloration of the area, the shredded pieces of the building
that are covering everything in sight, the damage to the other buildings,
and the absence of a significant heap within each outline and maybe say
something like, "where'd they go?". The old expression "blown to
smithereens" might even come to mind.
Small wonder the 9/11 Commissioners weren't allowed to question Khalid
Shaikh Mohammed. His "statements" were no doubt obtained under torture -
who better to practice their "new rules" on? Do we even know if he is
Thanks for considering these thoughts,