In reply to “9/11: Our Truth, and Theirs,” by Justin Raimondo, 09/11/09:

Mr. Raimondo,

I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for you. … to call Professor Steven Jones a “crackpot” is way below you and reveals something about your level of research on the subject.

Have you even spent any time reviewing his arguments? They are not the arguments of a “crackpot.” The idea that the THREE WTC buildings were brought down by demolition is much more supported by the facts and videos than the pancake theory. Spend some time on it — look at the evidence found on [Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth]. At least 836 engineers and architects disagree with you. Professor Jones may eventually turn out to be wrong — but to call him a “crackpot” — you should apologize for that. If I am wrong (and I truthfully hope I am), please direct me to the best supporting evidence you have.

Benjamin R. Horton

—–

Congratulations for having the courage to speak the truth about the 9/11 coverup. Even the hand-picked 9/11 commission said the government was lying, so why is there no new investigation taking place? Based on how much money was spent and lives lost as a result of the wars that were (we are told) spawned by 9/11, wouldnt it make sense to have a proper investigation?

Ulrich P. Krach

—–

I object to your characterization of Steven Jones as a crackpot. I don’t really know him. He lived in the same area as me and I have met him and shook his hand. I have read his papers. He does not appear to be crazy.

But the point about science is that, in theory, it is not about people and whether or not they are crazy or crackpots, it is about experiments and lines of reasoning.

Steven Jones writes one paper and asserts that the buildings fell in some number of seconds and that this amount of time is equivalent to freefall speed and this implies no friction impeding the fall. If one disagrees, the correct approach is to dispute some aspect of the argument. Perhaps he is wrong in counting the seconds. Maybe the math is wrong. There is perhaps some other flaw in the reasoning, something overlooked. The man is only crazy when good evidence is presented and he persists in error.

Steven Jones writes in another paper that states that flakes of an energetically flammable substance are found in dust samples. He gives the provenance of the samples. He considers alternate explanations of the nature of these flakes and rejects them based on evidence. He gives evidence regarding the conclusion that the flakes are some kind of thermatic material. He freely admits that the conclusions of this are disturbing to world view of the reader.

Could the whole thing be wrong? Certainly! But I have carefully looked and see no other papers of a scientific nature that dispute his work or his conclusions. It seems that it would be trivial to prove him wrong.

Steven Snelgrove

In reply to “Killing America’s Kids,” by Fred Reed, 09/08/09:

Brilliant and well written. Would it not be great if this article were splashed across every newspaper in the United States and on every television channel? I guarantee you one thing, if it were, the war would lose popularity quickly.

David Zimmerman

In reply to “Churchill Spurred the Decline of the West,” by Patrick J. Buchanan, 09/13/09:

The only problem I have with Patrick Buchanan’s thesis is that he exonerates the United States. That is understandable since he is an American and a member of the Washington establishment to boot.

He says at the end of the War “And the Americans were going home.” What? The American never went home. They are still there over 60 years after the War ended. And the Americans have never disarmed at any time since 1776. The United States is the biggest war mongering empire in the history of the world. The characters General Jack D. Ripper and Wing Commander Mandrake in the movie Dr. Strangelove illustrate exactly the relationship between the United States and Great Britain since about 1900 as the British Empire was subsumed by the U.S. Empire.

Morley Evans

—–

Russian lies about Poland never end. … Russian cover-up of the shameful Ribbentrop-Mołotov Pact still goes on. Now after repeated world-wide condemnation of the Stalin-Hitler Pact the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) have again “declassified the documents telling about secrets of the Polish politics” in 1935-1945, including negotiations “of high-ranking Foreign Ministry officials,” members of the Defence Ministry and secret services of Poland, according to the news agency RIA Novosti reports, and referring to the chief of the SVR public relations and mass media bureau Sergei Ivanov, who tries to put Poland, the true victim of WWII, in a worst possible light.

Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski

—–