Dear Republic: Regarding “What if 9-11 truth movement is wrong?” by Michael Nenonen, issue 158: When a 47 story-building is demolished using explosives, the entire process takes seven seconds, after which there is nothing left but a neat pile of rubble.

When a building is destroyed by fire, the process can take anywhere from 18 to 26 hours, after which there will always be parts of a building remaining. The upper floors will be gutted, leaving twisted steel and charred concrete. This has been documented time and time again. The only known exceptions are the three buildings that collapsed in New York that day.

All the truth movement is demanding is a proper investigation. This is how any other crime would ordinarily be dealt with. If Bush and the gang are indeed innocent (I struggle to see how), then they should welcome the investigation that would finally exonerate them.

If the truth movement is wrong, then the investigation will tie up all the loose ends and everyone will feel better.

—Michael Hey

Dear Republic:

Why is the government withholding information? Is it damning? Why not reinvestigate with an impartial panel?

I believe most people want another investigation. This time, a real one that will clear up these nagging questions.

If the 9-11 truth movement is right, well then, we have serious problems don't we? Don't you want to know?

—Scott R May

Dear Republic:

There are many proofs that the US government is responsible for this tragedy. Here is just one that will take you 30 seconds:

The presence of molten metal on all three sites after the collapse of the WTC buildings tells us something directly. Namely, it takes a great deal of explosive energy to evaporate and melt steel, especially in the time allotted. You can look at pictures of ground zero and see cranes lifting the dripping, molten metal beams, you can look at satellite thermo-graphic imagery taken weeks after the event that still show hot spots over 2,000 degrees, then you can explain how these things exist in any way without the presence of explosives (or, as in the case of WTC 7, a plane full of jet fuel).

—Peter Zaza, Victoria BC

Dear Republic:

Shame on you! Is Michael Nenonen even a journalist? It is blatantly obvious he is not an investigative journalist! I don't make it a practice to read your publication, but a friend forwarded his article because he knew of my diligent research and collection of evidence on the subject. Having read it, I am compelled to comment.

By Mr Nenonen's own admission he hadn't looked very hard. This kind of twaddle is very damaging to the credibility of your publication. Most of all I am curious what your motivation was to run this as an article by a journalist with such fallacious drivel, instead of as the opinion of a bozo on the editorial page. I can only conclude that, like Mr Nenonen, you have not even investigated one aspect of the events of 9-11. Shame on you! You call your publication news? Yet you appear to be so uninformed.

—Darren Pearson, Vancouver

Dear Republic:

This is a simple editorial “hit piece” of no substance, attacking already discredited “straw man” arguments in an effort to discredit the 9-11 Truth Movement and to diminish the momentum that it is obviously gaining.

We don't have a desire to be right. We wish we were wrong. We would love nothing more than a full, open, independent investigation and let the chips fall where they may. Then we can get on with enjoying our lives in the wonderful, secure police state and send our kids off to fight in the holy oil wars while pretending to seek bin Laden.

But what if we are right? And the evidence indicates over-whelmingly that we are. Would you not want justice to be sought if you or someone you loved had been murdered and the culprits brought to justice?

When I say “we,” I speak of a movement that includes police, firefighters, and first responders who attended the scene and survived, pilots, air-traffic controllers, whistle blowers, former high-level government insiders, engineers, and scholars from many fields. We do not claim to know the full truth of the events of 9-11, but at least we are not afraid to seek it, nor to confront the evil that we find. The question should be, “What if we are right?”

Sorry Mr. Nenonen, but it is you who needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.

—Wayne Prante, Spokesperson, Vancouver 9/11 Truth Society

Dear Republic:

I'm a long-time Republic reader and love your store.

This is why I was compelled to take a second out of my day to let you know that I was extremely disappointed to find Michael Nenonen's "What if 9-11 truth movement is wrong?" published on your website.

I know you have published some great articles on 9-11 in the past, and I am all for balancing out the coverage to represent other opinions, but Nenonen's piece was nothing more than a substandard regurgitation of Monbiot's recent hysterical diatribes. This is something that I would expect to find over at The Tyee, not as part of your quality publication.

I just don't get it. All of my old favourite left-wing publications (The Nation, Alternet, the Progressive, Z Magazine, etc.) which have reported on so many issues with clarity and integrity, resort to emotional ravings, intellectual bullying, and ad hominem attacks when 9-11 is addressed. Even Noam Chomsky is discouraging people from investigating the facts, saying they don't matter. Don't matter? Has everyone on the left lost their fucking minds, or is it just me? Ford Foundation influence maybe?

And now, I see this crap in The Republic.

—Carina Gonzalez, Vancouver

Dear Republic:

I was truly dismayed by Michael Nenonen's article. It is difficult for me to believe that a staff writer at The Republic, an alternative news source that portrays itself as being outside the box, would be so ill-informed. The only explanation that I can think of is that the title was "What if . . . " which indicates that this is a minority view. If this is not the case and Nenonen wrote the article in all seriousness, then I suggest that he research media complicity in the events of 9-11, specifically the video footage shot by BBC, no less, on 9-11 that has a live feed from New York where the reporter is stating that building 7 has collapsed but, surprise, building 7 is clearly visible in the background. Why wasn't this the biggest news story of the month?

—Guy Hawkins, BC

Dear Republic:

How glaring do the lies and anomalies of 9-11 have to be for blind devotees of the official conspiracy theory to connect the dots? For crying out loud, Larry Silverstein not only admitted "pulling" Building 7 but continued, "and then we watched it collapse." Now a red-faced BBC is stumbling to explain its live footage prematurely reporting the collapse of Building 7 with the intact building right behind the reporter! —Natasha Elavia, Vancouver

Dear Republic:

The debate over 9-11 reminds me of another dispute 70 years ago. In what became known as the Moscow Trials, many prominent individuals were accused of conspiring with the enemies of the Soviet Union. Leon Trotsky was one of those accused.

Trotsky, of course, was anxious to clear his name. But he was an isolated individual against the prestige of the Soviet government. So he called for a commission of inquiry to examine the charges. His statement calling for the commission began with a dramatic flourish, “I Stake My Life.” The commission was formed and it became known as the Dewey Commission, after its most well-known member, philosopher John Dewey.

Would the proponents of minority views on 9-11 be willing to put their case before a commission of inquiry? Who would you like to see on such a commission?

—Ken Hiebert, Vancouver

Dear Republic:

You write what I have always thought. My biggest question like yours has always been the problem of setting demolition charges on those three massive pyramids. I remember a modest local tower that was being prepared for demolition. A large crew took a few weeks to set the charges. Each of the three New York towers was 20 times as large, and would require a few thousand men to work for a long time.

To do it without being noticed and for those thousands of men to keep it secret for years is, in my view, not possible.

And the amateur fascist cabal in Washington has not demonstrated competence for such an elaborate exercise.

However, your brief account of what you think is a credible account of the Building 7 collapse and the Pentagon assault does not pass muster either. I've read credible criticism of your explanations. There is a lot that was not explained by official explanations, a lot of contradictory information, for example, about the Pentagon attack.

—Jacob Rempel, Vancouver

Dear Republic:

Early in 2002, Barry Zwicker reported that Andrews Airforce base was a combat-ready base, until they changed their website on September 12, 2001.

I hope Nenonen will find the information enlightening. It illustrates the phenomenon called "left gatekeeping," that the whole premise of the demonization of Muslims, the attack on Afghanistan, and the phony War On Terror is based on a false flag operation is something that must be exposed in order for us to get back to a decent civil society.

—Judy Cross, Vancouver

Dear Republic:

I had never heard of your publication before until Nenonen's recent article on 9-11 was linked to on 911blogger.com. I'm sorry that that had to be my introduction since generally this is the type of site that I would expect to agree with more often than not. The article by Nenonen is so far off the mark with regard to the facts surrounding 9-11 that it is clear to those of us who base our understanding of the issue not just on solid backgrounds in science but on years of research into what happened that day that Nenonen is quite deliberately presenting a misleading picture of the controversy.

You should be aware that the growing movement calling for a new investigation takes great interest in identifying these "hit pieces" for future referral to investigators mandated with getting to the bottom not just of the crimes committed on 9-11 but also any and all deliberate efforts to misinform Americans with regard to the events—the cover-up in other words. When the day comes, it will not be enough to say that one was misled or mistaken into actively supporting this conspiracy to obstruct justice. I hope you will consider publishing subsequent articles covering the issue in a more objective and balanced manner.

—Gustavo Espada, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Republic:

There are many problems in Michael Nenonen’s article. The first problem is Mr Nenonen’s characterization of the 9-11 truth movement’s beliefs. None of us in the movement would use Mr Nenonen’s words, “American covert operation,” to describe 9-11. Rather, we would say that 9-11 was a false flag terror operation, not by, but against, America, carried out by treasonous individuals with American, Israeli, and, possibly, other citizenships, within and outside of the Bush administration.

“False flag terrorism” is an act of terror carried out by a non-state actor for the purpose of falsely blaming another. In the case of 9-11, the scapegoat was a herd: Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Arabs, Muslims, and Saddam Hussein. There is actually a wide range of opinion within the movement about the exact who’s, how’s and why’s of that day. Truth be told, we unanimously share only one opinion: We have not been given the truth. This is why we call ourselves a "truth-seeking movement."

The question posed in the article’s title, “What if the 9-11 truth movement is wrong,” is something every person in the movement has struggled with—with the exception of those whose business it is to confuse. As with many things in life, distinguishing truth from truthiness is not an easy task. This is why, whenever we meet, we have very lively, and sometimes heated, discussions about new information and individual theories. As responsible citizens we try very hard not to be wrong, just as Mr Nenonen does, we hope, as a self-respecting journalist. As for the contention that the 9-11 truth movement might be “the anti-war movement’s Trojan Horse,” or, as Noam Chomsy would say, “The 9-11 truth movement is dividing the left,” we really don’t see how demanding truth about 9-11, which was an act of war against many nations, detracts from the anti-war movement. If anything is to be blamed for dividing peace-seeking citizens, it is the Big Lie of 9-11. We have marched, and will continue to march, against war.

On May 16, Vancouver 9/11 Truth Society (v911truth.org) will be hosting a lecture by a leading figure in the 9-11 Truth movement, Dr David Ray Griffin. The title of the lecture will be: “9/11: Debunking the Debunkers.” We invite Mr Nenonen to attend and hope he will start telling the truth with us soon.

—David McIntosh, Vancouver