"
Letter Published in Newsday, Nov. 9, 2005:
OFFICIAL WORD ON 9/11 IS MISLEADING
I found your article on 9/11 "conspiracy theory" believers insulting and uninformative. ["The truth is out there - maybe," Nov. 6]. As one who experienced the 9/11 attacks in lower Manhattan that day, I was initially inclined to believe the official story of 19 al-Qaida hijackers.
But, upon reading David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor," I have had cause to reconsider. Your article fails to note that the official explanation of what happened on 9/11 is a fairly elaborate "conspiracy theory," with many unanswered questions. Your article would have been much more beneficial to your readers if it had examined the specific reasons that many ordinary, respectable people have questions about the cause and motives behind the tragedy.
It is hardly comforting to think that your own government might have allowed such a thing to happen in order to achieve long-planned geopolitical goals. It would be much more "comforting" to believe the official story, that we weere caught off guard by evil terrorists.
Ellis Baumel
Bayside
Letter Published in Newsday, Nov. 9, 2005:
WHICH 9/11 THEORY TO BELIEVE?
"The truth is out there - maybe" [News, Nov. 6] was of keen interest to me, as one who was present in the World Trade Center that morning and also as an attendee at the "two-day conference" mentioned in the article.
It seems to me that we really haven't a choice in believing or disbelieving "9/11 conspiracy theories" in general, but rather which conspiracy theory to believe, including the "official" conspiracy promulgated by the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission. Indeed, there was a conspiracy. I've yet to meet anyone who proposes that all fuor planes hijacked themselves that morning.
I'm sorry to say that the official version is presented to us by a most dubious source, with a serious track record for disseminating disinformation about nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" and impossible links between the religious fanatic Osama bin Laden and the staunch secularist Saddam Hussein.
Of course, there are plenty of other theories, some worthy of further examination, others quite dismissable. I myself am not yet ready to subscribe to any one to the exclusion of others.
Dave Mc Laughlin
Woodside
-----
--
www.total411.info
www.total911.info www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
