By Jena Ardell
By Jon Campbell
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Tessa Stuart
By Roy Edroso
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
By Zachary D. Roberts
I would like Murphy to comment on the fact that no airplane parts were found in or around the Pentagon site. That is the issue that feeds us conspiracy buffs. We would like you to set our minds at ease that the Bush neocons had nothing to do with this event.
Even if the towers had "sheetrock over steel," it still would have been a physical impossibility for a fire to bring them down. The only fire that can weaken steel beams to that extent is one caused by an oxygen-fueled blast furnace. The only way they could have collapsed was by planted explosives. Do you have the guts to print an accurate story? So far the few that have have been dismissed as lunatics, whereas the real lunatics believe a concrete building can burn down.
Another question is why some Shanksville residents reported hearing, but barely seeing, something flying low and very fast out of the area after Flight 93 crashed. My sincere condolences and respect to those brave Americans who perished in Flight 93. I just know what I heard on local southwestern Pennsylvania television news that day, and never heard again.
Re James Ridgeway's "George Bush, Meet Reality" [November 30, villagevoice.com]:This article has about as much depth as the paper it's written on. Simply pointing a finger and saying "You're a witch" used to be grounds for having the accused hanged or burned at the stake. Ridgeway seems to think it's possible to do the same today by saying that Bush is "devoid of reality" and that "To listen to Bush is to enter a dreamworld." Thanks for the insight, Ridgeway, but I think I'll get my information from someone who can pen an argument based on fact rather than name-calling. If you think a 20-year-long jihadist buildup culminating on 9-11 should be answered with doublespeak diplomacy and powerless U.N. sanctions, I'd suggest your own "reality check."
Wayne Barrett's article "Stripped Bare" [December 713] inaccurately suggested that Clyde Haberman and much of the press corps "circled the wagons" in part because of criticism of the mayoral campaign coverage leveled at a recent New School conference. In fact, Haberman's column on the coverage was prompted solely by a Ferrer interview in El Diario. He was unaware of the New School critique.