Disaster Memorial

"You may be right," my office mate said last Wednesday, "but it would be in poor taste to say it today."

It was the seventh anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. My observation was that as much as I've researched and learned since that time I can't help but to think that the buildings came down in a controlled demolition.

The easiest reference to start your own research would be to Google 'David Ray Griffin'. Be sure to read the government's counter-research for balance.

My own points:

• When the WTC was built I remember a comment made that they were built to withstand the impact of a commercial jetliner. My father was an engineer for a major airline, and that comment caught my attention.
• After the attacks Larry Silverstein, landlord of the WTC, said on a nationally-broadcast interview that a decision was made to 'pull' Building 7 after the attacks (even though it hadn't been damaged by airplanes or falling debris). 'Pull' is industry jargon for the controlled demolition of a building. But it takes weeks or months to plan, prepare, plant explosives, and execute a demolition. No word was given that any previous planning had gone into the demolition (and Silverstein also said that he authorized the NYFD to pull it; the fire department isn't in the demolition business). The demolition of Building 7 was planned and it is admitted that a controlled demolition happened at WTC that day. Silverstein made it sound like a decision made four or five hours before the building came down.
• Government explanations defy physics and common sense. The 9-11 Commission report ignores Building 7. It pretends that airplane fuel can melt steel enough to cause such a catastrophe (if it could melt metal so easily, engines would melt on a plane before it even got to the runway). The report also ignores the interior structure of WTC 1 and 2 that made them strong enough to withstand the airplanes' force.

I understand that it's a horrific thought, that it may have been an inside job. It would put our government on the level with the Nazis. It's like trying to think nuclear weapons all the way through, from the immediate to the long-lasting effects of a blast. Such things aren't supposed to be true of the United States. We're supposed to be superior, good people who lead the world. Our leaders, who would have devised and executed the plan if it was an inside job, were very open about their Christianity, and religious people aren't supposed to be capable of such hypocritical attrocities.

'Conspiracy theory' is what they call my thinking about 9-11. It will remain a theory until researched and proven or disproven. But it has been researched, and all independent research supports the 'conspiracy' so far. Perhaps it's time to apply 'conspiracy' to the official story instead.

Why can't our national leaders be horrific beasts? They've been exposed time after time after time for deceiving the public and secrecy. If they actually planned and carried out the 9-11 attacks what is the harm in holding them accountable? Are we too embarrassed to admit that we supported them, that we believed them? Do we feel guilty about it, like our promoting them to highest office made us in a way responsible for the deaths of our fellow citizens?

God knows the truth. And God knows we've all had the opportunity to search out the truth.

If it is the truth, why is it in poor taste to say it? I would think, for the sake of everyone who suffered loss on that day, that in the interest of justice and closure the truth should be spoken.