That's where you come in
Feedback from our readers
By Our readers
Not anti-American
I'm part of Peter Holmes' 9/11 group, and I know you've received a number of these e-mails, and that you may be tired of them, but I wanted to add my voice to those thanking you for your fair representation of Peter and those who agree with him ["Editor's Note," June 6]. It is rare that I can read an article about our movement without feeling that we have been unjustly characterized.
As I'm sure you know, we aren't crazy or anti-American. In fact, most of us are more informed on these issues than the average American and are actively doing more and spending more of our time and money trying to help our country than anyone.
I know that writing an article like yours can bring negative repercussions upon yourself, and I hope the letters of support you have received have outnumbered any negative feedback.
Brad Gordon,
Ocean Beach
Got 'em on the run
After reading your article "Truths and conspiracies" ["Editor's Note," June 6], it reminded me of how far the 9/11 truth movement has come, and how far we have yet to go. This was a very good and informative piece that no editor should have any reservations about writing. Yet we are all so excited that you had the courage to give it a shot.
You see, those of us who have looked at and studied the evidence of 9/11 have been frustrated by the lack of interest in this subject, and the many tactics we have to use to get the media to pay attention. But much has been accomplished, and we are optimistic that justice is close at hand. The perpetrators are worried, as they should be, because the truth will prevail.
Tom Frantz,
Bay Park
The CTs' MO
Your June 6 "Editor's Note" titled "Truths and conspiracies" correctly pointed out that the conspiracy theory (CT) movement is "a distraction from what we perceive to be more immediate concerns about the present administration...."
The CTs have clamored for investigation, claimed the 9/11 Report wasn't thorough, etc. I agree, but the CTs' interest in investigation is largely limited to conspiracy-everything else is secondary (the 9/11 Report Part 2, the implementation of the 9/11 Report's recommendations, investigating the intelligence failures that led up to 9/11, maintaining control of Congress and checks and balances, winning the White House in '08, investigation of the DOJ misdeeds, election fraud, Supreme Court picks, undoing the erosion of democracy and the Constitution implemented by the administration, signing statements, executive orders, illegal surveillance, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, etc.).
Even though Bush and the gang are an unscrupulous lot, I think it is unlikely that they could have organized a conspiracy on the scale of 9/11. For one thing, that many pieces would have required setting things in motion before Bush even took office. As with any major event, there are unknowns surrounding the events of 9/11; for an objective person, unknowns mean we don't know; for CTs, unknowns equate to evidence of conspiracy. But what amazes me is how many of the knowns the CTs bypass and jump straight to speculation. The typical MOs used by CTs to justify their theories fall into several categories, including: 1) ignore facts that don't jibe with the theory, 2) compare apples to oranges, 3) provide no evidence of conspiracy but instead demand that you prove it wasn't conspiracy.
While I'm loath to exonerate Bush and the gang, absent any credible evidence, the administration probably ignored reports of possible attacks in order to have their Pearl Harbor moment. They also probably only knew of planned attacks but did not know the nature, severity and location of the attacks. That's not to say that they wouldn't still have sat on their hands waiting to get their Pearl Harbor moment had they known the severity of the planned attacks.
Dan Jacobs,
Mira Mesa
Three cheers for Paris!
I want to thank you for the excellent essay about Paris Hilton ["Editor's Note," June 13]. I would like to add one additional idea. She is a perfect example of the waste that the Republicans have showered on her and all the super-rich. Did such a nonentity deserve having her taxes cut? Do any of the super-rich that have benefited from tax breaks merit them?
In addition, she is a perfect example of why we should not cut inheritance taxes, but instead, we should raise them by a considerable amount. Do we really think people like Paris Hilton should inherit multimillions of dollars while at the same time we are reducing programs that help the poor and middle class?
I am grateful for the foibles Paris Hilton exhibited. She is a poster child for raising taxes on the super-wealthy and raising the taxes on inheritances. Thank you, Paris!
Theodore V. Cook,
Mission Hills
First time for everything
Regarding your commentary on the Paris Hilton circus and her incarceration ["Editor's Note, June 13]. I cannot believe I am saying this but I agree with every word you wrote.
I just checked outside my windows. No other signs of the apocalypse are visible.
Bill Purcell,
Golden Hill
Published: 07/25/2007
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT