Letters to the Simon
Our Readers Respond: Thinking Trends
By Our Readers
Oct 22, 2007

A Farewell to Canon Fodder


First Life as a Loser and now this?

Just wanted to let you guys know that I loved Matt's column. I've been reading it for a while now.

Wish him the best of luck from his faithful readers.


What Does It Take to Find a Cute Top Around Here?

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:
1)      Bell bottoms (didn’t look good in the Navy, in the disco in the 70’s or with the disco re-birth).

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.
I’m sure there’s more so feel free to add to the list. 
Kevin in CA

Funny Radio Personalities

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.



Joe Torre: Character vs. Character

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.   
I used to hate the Yankees and their payroll as overblown as the collective egos of Gotham City.  I got extra pleasure when they failed but in the last dozen years or so (Coincidence?  I think not), I have begun to admire them because of their classy leadership, excluding the owner.  I even cheered for them on occasion.  But with Torre gone and the aforementioned players not getting any younger, I may revert back to my old ways.
Hey Joe.  From a long time LA fan, I salute you.  You have done tons for the game and will be missed.  As for George…Maybe he can charter a flight with The Donald and disappear in the Bermuda Triangle.  That itself may go a long way in reducing global warming.

Corn is Murder: The Work of Michael Pollan and Barbara Kingsolver 

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 see names in three basic categories each with its own limitations.  
1)      Pretentious -  much like the author pointed out…these names shout out “look at me” much like the personalized license plates reading “baby doll”.  They bring in the yuppified.  Cody.  Beckett.  Madison.  They bring in the celebrity insanity.  Apple.  Moon Unit.  Science.  They reek of desperation in wanting to be special.  Warner.  Garth.  They suggest the exotic (as in dancing).  Star.  Jasmine.  Crystal.  They are the most deplorable to me as if these strangers want me to know but not realizing I couldn’t care less.  They fit the “I’m always on my cell phone and I am important” set.  It seems like these names up the ante as far as becoming a brat goes.
2)       Historical -  More excusable than pretentious but still fraught with challenges.  Be it biblical.  What pressure a child might feel when they’re named after Jesus’ right hand man. I was raised Catholic.  All five of the boys are named after a saint. Then there’s granddad and grand mom and great aunt Edna. Beatrice.  Theodore.  Gertrude.  The intention may be good and the thought touching but you’re old right out of the gate.
3)       Ordinary -  Jack.  Jill. Bob.  Jim.  Cindy.  Common and easy but so ordinary it seems you’re flirting with mediocrity or you just have no imagination at all.  A relative few have a sense of irony or at least tongue-in-cheekiness.  Most are just uninspired.  These are the least offensive but then again, the least.
I have one daughter, two years old.  I had two definitive criteria when naming her.  Avoid pretentious and have some meaning.  We named her Keira (long before we watched Keira Knightly’s rapid ascent into the public eye).  The Germanic root is Kayra (keye rah) for the feminine of Kaiser (queen).  We figured it was a power name but not the spoiled and entitled princess.  We did get one egocentric bonus.  By combining our middle names (we realize this has pretension potential) of Christopher and Lynn we ended up with Chrislyn and she now shares my initials.  Clever to us?  Yes.  To others?  Probably not.


Flight 77 Struck the Pentagon 

I respectfully disagree with the position taken by this piece on this subject.

According to reports, no passenger remains were sufficient to provide identifiable information (which is to say, among other markers, no jawbones and teeth were intact to allow identification from dental records for even one of the alleged passengers).

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?

However, an additional problem remains. A Freedom of Information lawsuit obtained the alleged DNA identifications of the passengers, and that list does not include any hijackers whatsoever, nor does it specify 'unknown' DNA for the purported number of the hijackers aboard. So, evidently uniquely among the passengers, only the hijackers had their DNA cooked beyond identification?

That is suspicious, to the point of incredibility, in my view.

Beyond these questions, modern airliners have thousands of parts which are stamped with identifying numbers that are registered to the airplane. None of these parts have been put into the public domain as evidence that the airplane in question did indeed impact the Pentagon, although this would be a routine procedure in any normal airline crash investigation. Were all these tough metallic alloy parts melted by the fires, supposedly, while the DNA of all the passengers survived the same conditions?

The story simply doesn't add up to a credible account.





I wonder, if it did crumple, like an "empty aluminum can", as indicated in your article--- why did the same cookie-cutter-like hole get punched through several additional structural walls of the pentagon, including the C-Ring wall?





If you want to prove all sheep are not white, how many other-than-white sheep must you find?  One is sufficient.
Rather than flight 77, why not focus on an aspect of 9/11 less confused by arguable details – the collapse of WTC7.  Only a simpleton could watch the implosion of a 47 story building into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds and believe it was due to fires burning in the building (none of which could be compared to a raging inferno). 
Such demolition is an art, requiring the precise placement of cutter charges to cause the SIMULTANEOUS collapse of every massive steel support column.
Are you stupid, or part of the conspiracy?
I would like to point out one thing more.   Every day non-believers (that 911 was an inside job) are being converted by the facts.  I don’t know of an instance where the reverse is true.  Therefore it is just a matter of time until the real perps of 9/11 are cornered. 


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. 






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***.
If an explosion happened right at the wall that had sufficient energy to completely vaporize a 200-ton aircraft, with over sixty tons of metal in it, a section of the front wall at least 100 feet long would have been blown into oblivion. Instead, you have intact window panes at the point of impact, a small hole, no damage to the lawn, no jet fuel cleaned up from anywhere, etc.
And all of the passengers, their luggage, etc., is going to just disappear? Not one corpse of any of the alleged passengers recovered from the site? The Village Idiot could figure out that there were no people on that plane, and it was not the plane that both the feds and the airline claim that it was. Have you ever heard of either airline filing loss claims with their insurance companies over the loss of these “jumbo jets,” or any payouts for the claims? Ever wonder why?
While you’re involved in helping to cover up for the murdering thugs that pulled off this hoax, you’d better pray for all you’re worth that Hell doesn’t exist.
By the way: where is your proof that any one of the 19 “Arabs” got on any of the planes? Why is it that in six years, neither the feds nor the airlines has ever been able to produce one frame of boarding videos for any one of those flights?



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.
2)  The plane (?) hit at an angle so that a significant amount of energy would have been deflect off the building and not into it.  Your famous fighter-into-the-wall test is dead-on at 90 degrees - no duh it vaporized.  If they wanted to test crash a plane, why didn't they use a plane similar to FL 77 and crash it at the same angle, same speed.  No useful conclusions from an apples to oranges comparison.
3)  Why were the alleged Arab hijackers not listed on the flight manifest?  Why were no foreign body parts found?  How is it that a crash/fire able to vaporize an airplane left any body parts at all?
4)  Why did Dick Cheney allow the plane to even get anywhere near a protected airspace, much less actually crash into the top command post of the world's supposedly most sophisticated military.
5) "Where is it now" is the most bogus excuse for not not being able to account for the plane or the people.  It could easily have been flown over the Atlantic and shot down.  Our government has a demonstrated lack of concern with collateral damage.  Or, somewhere along it's route, FL 77 could have dropped down for a landing at one of numerous US air bases in the area, just as a drone took off right next to it with no loss of image on the radar.
It's called a limited hangout and anyone who is not outraged that a more thorough, independent investigation is not immediately conducted is well, part of the conspiracy.  As Michael Ruppert points out in Crossing the Rubicon, you only need to lok at means, motive and opportunity........and Dick Cheney had it all.



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?
From day one it was declared very loudly that it was the nose of the aircraft. Donald Rumsfeld stated, "Yeah. And then came in about"between about the first and second floor over here. And it went in through three rings. I'm told the nose is"is still in there, very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away. (ABC News SHOW: Good Morning America 6:00 AM ET - ABC September 13, 2001 Thursday) 

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.

2.  If you look closely at the video you can see the wings slicing through the concrete as the aircraft fuselage destroys itself hitting the wall.

3.  As you mention in you opinion piece, the fuselage is basically an empty tube and not a very strong one at that.  The wings however are much more structurally sound as they have to support the entire airframe, carry the engines and the bulk of the fuel.

4. As a pilot, there is no way these fellows could have maneuvered that B-757 the way it has been described if they couldn't even control a Cessna 172. 

5.  Flying an aircraft like the B-757 at close to 500 mph in ground effect*, would take someone of well refined technique and skill, not these alleged ne'er do wells.

* ground effect occurs when an aircraft is within one wingspan of the ground.  The wingspan of the B-757 is approximately 150 feet the impact occurred at approximately 20 or 30 feet AGL.  Ground effect causes the airframe to balloon up which would have caused the aircraft to rise above the Pentagon thereby missing the target.  It would have taken a pilot with more than poor rudimentary skills to complete this maneuver successfully.

I firmly believe that  Flight 77 was shot down and a cruise missile was launched at the Pentagon.  Look closely at the F-4 tape and watch the wings also, get the rest of the footage showing what was left of the F-4 and the solid concrete wall, which was not what the B-757 hit.  The Pentagon has windows and is not as thick as that target wall was.

Even though I work for the government I am a firm believer in I. F. Stone's statement when he began his lectures to journalism classes, "Governments lie."  I am not an official spokesman for the U.S. Government or the FAA I am expressing my reasonably well educated opinion.  I feel that the folks that took over flight 77 when they broke into the cockpit found either nothing there and the aircraft was being flown by remote control, like the Predator rpv's.  To keep the lid on everything flt. 77 was shot down and a cruise missile was launched against the Pentagon.

If I were flying Flight 77 and going to crash it into the Pentagon or any other low-rise building I would have dove into in and hit it on the roof from a an angle much like an approach to land I would not have tried to skim the ground going 500 mph and had to wrestle with the aircraft and possible hit the ground well short of the target.

Robert A. Vine
Principal Avionics Inspector
Atlantic Southeast Airlines - CMU


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.

This is all according to the government's own data.   Both the NTSB  and the FBI refuse to comment on this ground breaking work.






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?

Also this quote: The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion." This man gives the impression that the entire jet remained outside the Pentagon (again contrary to what the government says). Yet it is obvious from the photos taken that day that there is virtually nothing outside the building. You people who claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon cannot even get your stories straight.

How do you account for the huge circular hole in the third ring of the Pentagon? If commercial jets are so "soft" and crumble so easily, how did the nose of the jet bore through three solid brick buildings like it was a bunker-buster missile? Maybe because it was a bunker-buster missile. 

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?”

But no major element of the official account of 9/11 is spared from Commander Kolstad’s criticism. Regarding the alleged impact site of United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, PA, he asks, “Where is any of the wreckage? Of all the pictures I have seen, there is only a hole! Where is any piece of a crashed airplane? Why was the area cordoned off, and no inspection allowed by the normal accident personnel? Where is any evidence at all?”
Commander Kolstad also questions many aspects of the attack on the World Trade Center.

“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.”

Commander Kolstad is just one of the many military and commercial pilots who have publicly expressed serious concerns about the official account of 9/11. Statements from more than 30 other pilots are available at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com <http://patriotsquestion911.com/>  .



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.


Enough with the 1980s 

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.
I agree with the author.  What’s next?  A parachute pant revival?  Enough already people.  Please!

Was WTC7 a Controlled Demolition? 

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. 
The list of conspiracies is long.  9/11.  WTC7.  Pearl Harbor.  Roswell. Lincoln. Kennedy.  Hoffa.  Global warming.  All events that have been studied ad nauseum.  Full of intrigue.  Full of disturbingly conflicting “facts”.  Each perhaps as far from reality as they’ve ever been.  This begs some questions from me, a person who has not watched a network news broadcast for nearly 30 years.  Why is there such a desire to know the truth other than it is basic human nature?  Furthermore, what would we do with the answers anyway?  Suppose we find out once and for all that the mafia killed JFK.  Then what?  Do we rid the Jersey streets of all the Guidos running around? What if we allowed 9/11 to happen?  What do we do with that information?  Fire the whole administration?  Apologize to Osama? So aliens exist.  So what?  Do we book the next flight to another galaxy?  How much would first class be on a flight like that and what would we say to them?
After much soul searching, I come up with no answers.  What I do end up with is an appetite that, should I see that burger commercial, will send me out for the nearest fast food joint for a fat and cholesterol laden treat.  I’ll likely follow it with a chocolate shake, fries and a midnight porn download. I’ll then develop heart disease, try to sue McDonalds, and get divorced / raped by my spouse and her attorney.  I’ll be in bad shape but my cardiologist, CPA, lawyer and dentist’s practices will continue to thrive.  Oh what the heck.  Isn’t that what “they” want 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