|Letters to the Simon
Our Readers Respond: Thinking Trends
By Our Readers
Oct 22, 2007
There are a lot of questionable fashion trends. They tend to appear when all other options have been exhausted and it’s too soon to bring them back. Along with the pregnant tops, here’s a few items to add to the list of fashion items that should be forever banned:
2) platform shoes (never again!).
3) Large eyeglasses or sunglasses (maybe Jackie O. could pull them off but the rest of you look dorky, like Elton John wannabes).
4) Vests for men.
5) Bow ties.
6) Spot coats with elbow pads.
7) Baby doll Ts (they look good if you’re 12 and / or petite but what about the other 75% of the population?).
8) low cut jeans (see Baby doll T comment).
9) leg warmers.
10) Big 80’s / New Jersey hair.
11) Shoulder pads.
In re: your article, Funny Radio Personalities, a very small quibble. You define "shtetl" as a "Jewish ghetto." You'll please recall that the "Ghetto" -- arsenal -- district of Florence was the only district of legal Jewish residence; at best, this makes this makes "shtetl" Yiddish for "Ghetto" -- but they were both full of Jews.
I am from Southern California and am a longtime Angel fan. There are three reasons why I admire the Yankees. 1) Joe Torre - He has exuded Yankee pride and prestige without ever appearing to be a crude ass. As the author stated, he has shown uncommon character. 2) Derek Jeter - Simply put, he is arguably the best shortstop and all around player in the league. He has brought his A game year in and year out. Other than dating Mariah Carrey, he has kept his nose clean. 3) Jorge Posada - Always solid and relatively low key. Again, we have heard no dirt about this guy. All three of these guys have helped to erase the negativity that people like Steinbrenner bring and even Reggie Jackson, one of the original “style oriented” players. Fuck him. Fuck them. Fuck the posers, the showmen and all the hip hop like icons we have in pro sports today. To me they are one of many distractions that actually take away from the game itself. Sure they sell tickets. But in the long run, I think they do more damage than good.
Enjoyed this article. It's important that people begin making the connection between the food they eat and the rapidly dissolving world we now live in.When writers as diverse as Michael Pollan and Barbara Kingsolver beginringing the same bell, I have hope that we are reaching some kind ofcritical mass regarding our relationship to the environment that supportsus. Good for McMains for connecting these two writers as they explore theglobal implications of the family meal.
Baby Naming Trends
I respectfully disagree with the position taken by this piece on this subject.
Somehow, however, reports also claim that despite the huge level of evident burning of bodies which left no identifiable markers, nonetheless, DNA materials remained which were sufficient to positively identify each passenger.
This is a serious contradiction in itself, for how could bodies be so badly destroyed by burning as to rule out all forensic identification, and yet have fragile DNA survive such temperatures for so long, and for all the passengers?
If you want to prove all sheep are not white, how many other-than-white sheep must you find? One is sufficient.
The NIST report stated that the aluminum body of the plans which hit the WTC towers, disintergrated on impact but the engines tore through the support colunms, riped off insulation and contributed greatly to their collapse. As there were two engines on each plane, this lead to a large area of distruction.
O. K. So why was there only one hole in the wall of the pentigon, and it was inline with the center of the planes flight path? I am not speaking in support of any theory, conspiracy or otherwise; I just keep finding interesting questions and very few answers that seem to maintain a clear line of beleivability.
I really would like to have this question addressed.
NOT TRUE . THE PLANE MADE MANEUVERS THAT WERE IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MADE BY SUCH A PLANE. THERE WOULD BE MARKS AND EMBEDDING INTO THE PENTAGON. YOUR MILITARY FIGHTER JET EXAMPLE MUST BE BOGUS OR DIFFERENT IN ITS SPEED AND MATERIALS USED REF THE PLANE AND CONCRETE STRUCTURE. THE VIDEO RELEASED BY THE PENTAGON SHOWS A LOW FLYING SEEMINGLY VERY FAST OBJECT. IF IT IS REAL FOOTAGE IT'S NOT AMERICAN AIRLINES.IF IT'S NOT REAL FOOTAGE , THEN WHAT ARE THEY HIDING. WHATEVER HIT THE PENTAGON WAS PROBABLY FASTER ; AND SMALLER THAN THE AMERICAN AIRLINES PLANE. NO WAY IN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DID AN AMERICAN AIRLINES PLANE MAKE THE HOLE IN THE PENTAGON THROUGH THOSE RINGS. FOR AN OBJECT TO MAKE A PUNCTUAL CIRCULAR HOLE THROUGH THAT PENTAGON MATERIAL IT HAS TO BE MADE OF A HARDER MATERIAL,NOT THE MATERIAL OF A JUMBO JET.
You’re full of s***. Are you going to tell me that the huge outboard engines, mostly made of steel and titanium, and weighing around nine tons each, are just going to vaporize into nothing? Where would you get that kind of energy? From a plane crash? Again, you’re full of s***.
1) Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot, was documented as being incapable of flying a single engine cesna. How did he know to crash into the only section of the building that had been recently re-enforced for a major hit. The final approach, a 270 degree spiral from several thousand feet up is something that experienced fighter pilots have said they could not do.
Thanks for the thoughtful article on Flight 77.
I notice that no attempt was made to explain the problem of the NTSB's official flight path varying from the flight path of whatever hit thePentagon.
It turns out, the broken light poles were not in the path of Flight 77. This is a key piece of the puzzle which must be addressed by anyone claiming that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
The writer of this article debunks himself by explaining how the lightweight and flexable aircraft blew apart on impact. Now that he's confirmed the obvious about lighweight flexable aircraft, would he care to explain the holes through three rings of the pentagon?
Any evidence the writer has on how flight 77 created these holes would be greatly welcomeed by the growing list of architects, engineers, academics and citizens questioning the official story of 9/11.
1. Where is the rest of the video. That video is inconclusive, it doesn't show what happened after the aircraft came to rest and what was left of the aircraft and the wall.
If this were the only event of the day,you might have a chance with your version. As I notice the 16' hole in the pentagon a few things don't add up. There has to be more than 3 pics of all this(by the way, no airline is seen in them). The air force knew the plane was headed towards DC for almost an hour. Did nothing. Video clearly shows computers ands books undesturbed by fire or lack thereof. No landing gear. No engines(except for 3' dia. fan blade. Jet engine more like 9'.) The truth is out there for those who seek it. You've either been deceived or you're on the other team . Good luck.
I assume the author is not familiar with research that has been done by Rob Balsamo and Pilots for 911 Truth.
They got ahold of flight 77's Flight Data Recorder files via a Freedom of Information Act request, and received not only the csv file but also the raw data file from the NTSB (which apparently they were not supposed to get). The various files all confirm that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. It was too high too have done so, also it could not have struck the light poles. There are other anomolies with regard to differences between the raw data and csv files that highly suggest that someone tried to alter the data - they messed up though when they forgot to reset the altimeter to the local air- pressure and temperature at the Pentagon when the alleged plane descended past 20,000 feet.
When the altimeter is set correctly, the plane never descends to less than several hundred feet above the Pentagon and the sensor data from the plane's simple radar (which bounces a signal to the earth and back) confirms this.
OK, let me see if I can follow your logic: an F-4 disintegrates on impact with a concrete wall, which explains the disappearance of a commercial airliner which hit the newly-reinforced Pentagon wall, because wall wins, and don't bother looking for parts (except for a few unscorched photo-op aluminum fragments and a piece of an engine that didn't belong to the plane).
At the same time, plane wins, and not only penetrates reinforced wall, but several more, burrowing deep into the Pentagon. So the plane hits the wall, disintegrates, and yet continues through further reinforced walls. Yeah, like uh, todully, like yeah....Dude, that must be some good shit - can I have a hit?
Did a plane do this, probably, But, how did a rookie pilot fly such difficult maneuvers? That remains a mystery. How come it even got to thePentagon? Another mystery. This whole thing about plane or no plane keeps those questions at bay.
We 9-11 Truthers who believe that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon are fully aware that a 757 would not leave a cookie-cutter outline in the building. We are not that stupid. We are simply saying that if a 757 did in fact hit the Pentagon, the wings (and tail) would have shorn off and been left lying on the front lawn of the building. It is painfully obvious from the photographs that they were not. There is virtually nothing on the front lawn that doesn't look like it came from the Pentagon itself. Those pieces that look like metal could obviously be air-conditioning ducts or filing cabinets. The Pentagon is full of them.
Also, in the article you blatantly contradict the official story of what happened according to the government and the 9-11 Commission itself. They have claimed that the jet entered the building in its entirety and shattered into a million pieces before being consumed completely by its own fuel. But you seem to be saying that the plane completely disintegrated outside the building. Which is it? Inside or out?
I could go on and on but I think I will leave it here. I just think you should do a lot more research on what happened at the Pentagon before you come to any final conclusions. At least I'm glad that you know that 9-11 was an inside job.That's the important thing.
I'll let Naval Commander Ralph Kolstad explain why your assumption as to what transpired at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 is merely that, an assumption.
September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. “It just didn’t make any sense to me,” he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.”Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navy’s ‘Top Gun’ air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, “Top Gun” reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a ‘Top Gun’ adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.
Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”Commander Kolstad adds, “I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!” He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, “Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?”
“How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn’t the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767? The evidence just doesn’t add up."
"Why did the second building collapse before the first one, which had been burning for 20 minutes longer after a direct hit, especially when the second one hit was just a glancing blow? If the fire was so hot, then why were people looking out the windows and in the destroyed areas? Why have so many members of the New York Fire Department reported seeing or hearing many ‘explosions’ before the buildings collapsed?”
Commander Kolstad summarized his frustration with the investigation and disbelief of the official account of 9/11, “If one were to act as an accident investigator, one would look at the evidence, and then construct a plausible scenario as to what led to the accident. In this case, we were told the story and then the evidence was built to support the story. What happened to any intelligent investigation? Every question leads to another question that has not been answered by anyone in authority. This is just the beginning as to why I don’t believe the official ‘story’ and why I want the truth to be told.”
I know you are telling the truth because I saw proof of the plane hitting the pentagon on TV. You should mention this so that everyone will be convinced once and for all.
I was born in 1959. In 1978, I was a senior in high school. In today’s popular culture, you’d think all that came from that era was disco. That 70’s Show, though not my favorite, at least shows life from a slightly more rock and roll point of view. Personally, I was a “death before disco” back in the day. To this day, I cringe when I hear Barry Gibb’s annoying falsetto as Saturday Night Fever has continued to gain popularity. But I guess I am in the minority. I cringe when I see Levis bringing back bell bottoms. Those were a bad idea the “first” time around. Ditto platform shoes and mustaches. About the only good that came out of the disco era was Thursday’s Disco / Ladies night and the local club. The incredibly tacky outfits and incognito ladies made the drinking more interesting.
Damn, Simon. I love you guys, but each and every piece of actual evidence in relation to 9/11 demonstrates the theory of controlled demolitions is complete and utter bullshit. Please don’t write stuff like this. It just makes it easier for the morons. Thanks!
With each and every article like this one, the clarity of what happened gets more and more convoluted. Murky to the point that the truth will most likely never be known. To you and me, the little guys, it can be quite frustrating. But then that’s probably the point. Isn’t it? We, as a country, have perfected the information spin. We have developed techniques to tap into the human psyche and to push whatever buttons need to be pushed. Lots of funds have been devoted to this research and development. Sometimes our methods are subtle or even subliminal. Other times they’re as obvious as an ad selling burgers featuring a beautiful woman riding a bull to the Foghat tune Slowride. Just the thought makes me horn…er hungry. Why such devotion? Simply put, it’s to sell something. A product. A candidate. An idea. We the largely unwitting crowd, lap it up. Ah yes, to be a pawn in the game of life. Anyway, we can’t help but react in a Pavlovian way and somebody knows that. I’m not a huge conspiracy theorist but I do believe much of our actions are controlled by media outlets and large corporations. Maybe it is the Lizard people. The Illuminati or whatever those alien life forms are called. Maybe they put someone like George Dubya in to give things a more human, and therefore believable, appearance. Maybe it’s just good old fashioned psychology to keep us buying things and distracted from the seedier working of world economics and politics. This much I know. With every story, book and study, another layer gets piled on and for each potential answer we end up with even more questions. In short, we are farther from the truth than ever which is just as well since we probably can’t handle it anyway.
Thank you so much covering the WTC7 demolition. It is THE smoking gun of 9/11. Now you should look into Sibel Edmonds, she is the key.
Let's get some facts straight. 6 ton engines are not "light weight". They will make an imprint in a building. In your world, if the aluminum body of the plain makes an imprint and the 6 ton engines do not, then you are in need of thorazine immediately. End of discussion. Comparing a fighter jet and a commercial airliner is laughable, but hey, you guys make it clear who you take your marching orders from. Cowards.
Any serious researcher knows that the "plane didn't hit the Pentagon" and some of the other "theories" around 911 are either urban legends or conscious disinformation campaigns. Forget outlandish "theories." Explain the facts. When the mainstream media can do that, "conspiracy theorists" like myself will go away. Since they can't, we won't.
Copyright © 1998-2006 TheSimon.com
View this story online and more at: http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/letters_to_the_simon/01477_our_readers_respond_thinking_trends.html