Response To 9/11 Truth Protest
Dear Dele Balogun,
Following the tragedy of 9/11, evidence was slowly uncovered explaining the causes and effects of the events that took place. Following this period of scantily documented speculation, the 9/11 Commission published its report. Some time after that event, various theories which contradicted this explanation began to emerge. And, following that, several groups, including the magazine “Popular Mechanics,” began publishing counterarguments to these contradictory claims. Unless I’m mistaken, that is where we stand today. And, if you recall, that was the initial nature of my inquiry. My question stands: “Do you have anything new to add or anything that refutes the scientific evidence that has been used to disprove your theories?” The ball is in your court.
The problem here seems to be one of perspective. From what I can tell, your group seems to be focused only on the pieces of evidence which prove your point, not the entire body of information available. You find a picture of cut steel and completely disregard when it was taken. You take as fact the testimony of those that suit you and disregard the rest as clueless, uninformed, or outright liars. Believe it or not, I have done the research, I’ve watched the documentaries, I’ve listened to the lectures, and I’ve visited almost every site you suggested. In my opinion, the facts are rather plain to see and, unfortunately for you, they don’t seem to be in your favor. You can point people to any website you want; I only need to give you one: www.debunking911.com. When you can refute those claims with something more substantial than “liar, liar, pants on fire,” I’ll look forward to reading your article.
Respectfully yours,
Bret Callentine
Following the tragedy of 9/11, evidence was slowly uncovered explaining the causes and effects of the events that took place. Following this period of scantily documented speculation, the 9/11 Commission published its report. Some time after that event, various theories which contradicted this explanation began to emerge. And, following that, several groups, including the magazine “Popular Mechanics,” began publishing counterarguments to these contradictory claims. Unless I’m mistaken, that is where we stand today. And, if you recall, that was the initial nature of my inquiry. My question stands: “Do you have anything new to add or anything that refutes the scientific evidence that has been used to disprove your theories?” The ball is in your court.
The problem here seems to be one of perspective. From what I can tell, your group seems to be focused only on the pieces of evidence which prove your point, not the entire body of information available. You find a picture of cut steel and completely disregard when it was taken. You take as fact the testimony of those that suit you and disregard the rest as clueless, uninformed, or outright liars. Believe it or not, I have done the research, I’ve watched the documentaries, I’ve listened to the lectures, and I’ve visited almost every site you suggested. In my opinion, the facts are rather plain to see and, unfortunately for you, they don’t seem to be in your favor. You can point people to any website you want; I only need to give you one: www.debunking911.com. When you can refute those claims with something more substantial than “liar, liar, pants on fire,” I’ll look forward to reading your article.
Respectfully yours,
Bret Callentine
Volume 3, Issue 15, Posted 10:32 PM, 07.14.2007
