The normal procedure with a newspaper is that generally, the public responds in the form of a letter to the editor to items they may have read in the paper, certain local issues or in response to an editorial.
But this past week we received a letter to the editor that is one of the most insightful and poignant contribution to the letters page in light of the fact that another Canadian was killed recently in the conflict in Afghanistan, and I highly recommend you read it.
So in a bit of a reversal from the norm, this week’s editorial is in response to a letter to the editor that appears in today’s edition.
The letter, which was written by Lorna Diggle of Rimbey, is in an open form addressed to Prime Minister Harper and, for lack of better words, is a brief summation on how our troops ended up fighting and dying on foreign soil and how the Prime Minister should show some leadership in bringing our troops home as soon as possible.
In her letter, Ms. Diggle writes: “More and more people are becoming aware that it is physically impossible for the World Trade Center buildings to have collapsed the way the official government ‘conspiracy theory’ says they did.”
It was very revealing to read Ms. Diggle’s comments and not only do I agree entirely with what she wrote, I’ll take the argument several steps further on her behalf and on behalf of all those out there who sincerely believe that terrorists were responsible for the event of Sept. 11, 2001, because based on the facts, there most definitely is a conspiracy involved in the whole mess, but it has very little to do with Islamic extremists.
So here’s the first five of ten highly-credible reasons why the events of that fateful day were most-likely orchestrated by the American government itself in order to justify their attempts at stealing Iraq’s oil.
One Meridian Plaza Hotel fire – Built two years prior to the World Trade Center (WTC) in 1973, the Meridian Plaza Hotel was a 38-story high-rise hotel in downtown Philadelphia that was constructed in the exact same manner as the WTC. On Feb. 23, 1991, fire struck the hotel and by the time firefighters arrived on the scene, the blaze had engulfed eight entire floors from the 21st to the 29th levels. As the situation was so dangerous – three firefighters were killed, they decided to let the fire run its course, and it did. After burning out of control for more than 19 hours, the blaze was finally extinguished, but the building remained standing. So how is it that in the case of both WTC towers, fires that burned for less than one hour and involved only a few floors, brought down both structures, especially after the second plane hit with most of its jet fuel exploding outside the building?
Building 7 – Those who watched the coverage on Sept. 11 will recall that at approximately 4:00 p.m. on that afternoon, WTC Building 7 suddenly collapsed for no apparent reason. It had been struck by flaming debris earlier that morning – most likely the right engine from the second plane, and resulted in a fire deemed “minor” by firefighters nearby and was contained to three or four offices posing very little threat. Yet despite the small size of the fire, the entire 41-floor building collapsed eight or nine hours after the twin towers were hit.
Footprints – We’ve all seen controlled demolitions of tall buildings on television before. Whether it’s replacing old hotels in Las Vegas, an old smokestack or that hospital in Calgary a while back, all controlled demolitions have one thing in common – that being that they always fall into a pile of rubble on what the experts call the building’s “footprint”. That way, it ensures that no other buildings in close proximity are damaged and it makes cleaning up the rubble much easier. But doesn’t it strike you as being a bit odd that in all three cases, the buildings fell exactly into their footprints and exactly like a controlled demolition?
Video evidence – If you’ve checked out the footage of the exact time when the first tower came down (and yes, references and sources will be cited later), you can’t help but notice a series of outward, minor explosions that went off down the entire length of the tower basically micro-seconds before the collapsing floors above. Also, there are many eyewitness accounts of workers hauling reels of wire and other electrical devises by former WTC employees in the weeks prior to Sept. 11 and all were denied access to the buildings after 5 p.m. during that time period.
The Pentagon - Allegedly struck by a jet liner shortly after the towers in New York City were hit, one specific side of the five-sided Pentagon in Washington, D.C. was the victim of a massive explosion that seriously damaged the building and killed 125 people including those on the alleged airliner. And while the explosion ripped a large gash in the side of The Pentagon, there was absolutely no signs whatsoever of marks in the building where the alleged plane’s wings would have, and should have struck. In fact, no evidence of any plane parts was every found at the site leaving many to believe it was hit with a missile, not a plane.
It goes without saying that it would be highly irresponsible for Ms. Diggle or myself to be making such bold statements without some substantial evidence to back it up. Ms. Diggle cited her source in her letter, and I would urge all readers to visit: reopen911.org for a much more in-depth look at the facts provided above.
Originally, that site had a documentary entitled the same thing that could be viewed online. Since then, the site no longer includes the full-length feature that is approximately one hour in length (hmmm, I wonder why?), however it is available on You Tube in 13 segments. Again, simply key in: reopen911 in the search bar at You Tube.
Whether you believe the statements of Ms. Diggle or myself, quite honestly, is irrelevant.
The evidence of American government involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 is out there, now it’s up to you to find out for yourselves and draw your own conclusions.
So now you’ve got a bit of a head start for next week when we’ll take a look at the second five highly credible reasons that shed serious doubt on the allegations that the attacks of that day were entirely and solely the work of Islamic terrorists.