Sunday, September 12, 2004
Letter to NYTimes >> re: The Public Knowledge of 9/11
The following letter was sent to the editors of the New York Times (letters@nytimes.com) as well as the paper's "reader's representative," the Public Editor (public@nytimes.com), in response to Saturday's editorial. This is an opportunity for all skeptics of the "official" 9/11 story to hold the Times accountable for calling for more disclosure.
Dear NYTimes Editors:
I could not agree more with the editorial you published on the third anniversary of 9/11. Indeed, we must "press hard to learn everything that can be learned" about 9/11 and its myriad unanswered questions. I'll list just a few so your public editor can have an easier job holding you to this task:
You will not offset admitted pre-war failings by calling for investigations that you do not conduct and report yourselves.
0 comments
Dear NYTimes Editors:
I could not agree more with the editorial you published on the third anniversary of 9/11. Indeed, we must "press hard to learn everything that can be learned" about 9/11 and its myriad unanswered questions. I'll list just a few so your public editor can have an easier job holding you to this task:
- Given the "intelligence" and other so-called failures, why where negligent parties protected and promoted (FBI supervisory special agent Michael Maltbie, General Richard Myers, Ralph Eberhart, commander of NORAD on 9/11)?
How could the US government so quickly identify incognito hijackers who supposedly boarded the planes with fake IDs, didn't appear on passenger manifests, and in some cases were reported by both American and British media to be either alive after 9/11 or dead before then?
What can reconcile the pristine lawn of the Pentagon, a hole in the building far too small to fit a Boeing 757, and Mr. Rumsfeld's admission that a missile caused the damage?
You will not offset admitted pre-war failings by calling for investigations that you do not conduct and report yourselves.
0 comments
0 Comments:
