Ovation for Newt
Ashes always fly back into the face of the one who blows them. During the Republican presidential debate held in South Carolina on Monday, January 16, Newton Leroy Gingrich (at long, long last) abruptly and pointedly demolished an attempt by a Democrat to use the race card to silence the voice of reason. Using difficult-to-digest facts, Gingrich so effectively took the wind out of the sails of debate moderator Juan Williams, who flashed the overworked race card, that it is unreasonable to believe that Democrats will ever be able to use it the way they have in the past.
The race card has been used for decades by sandlot tyrants as a bullying tool to shake down America on the federal, state and local levels ("Is 'Sorry' Enough?", January 12, 2012).
It was obvious that Juan Williams harbored a preconceived notion of being credited among his peers with stopping Newt's forward momentum by playing the race card. This vision of being seated in a place of honor among his peers caused Williams to grope for the ridiculous. Williams stated that Newt's suggestion that poor kids should seek entry-level, menial jobs was an "insult to black Americans." Newt's retort to Williams' comment—"I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job"—caused Williams to appear as an embarrassed twerp instead of one who was admired by his peers.
In referring to Newt's stunning comments, one respected and well-known political pundit said that it was the first time he had ever seen a political candidate receive a standing ovation during a presidential political debate.
Gingrich's piercing, liberating words resonated throughout the entire political spectrum, from left-leaning Pavlovian liberals to discerning constitutionalists, and set an indelible, historic precedent that will be ignored by the liberal press, yet will continue to ring in the hearts of discerning Americans.
More on 9/11
Please continue your discourse on the conspiracies of the day (see Letters, January 26, 2011).
This morning I read another verse of the same old song about Buildings 1 and 2. Nobody wants to talk about dancing Israelis, who, on Israeli television, claimed they were sent to document the event.
Nobody wants to talk about the various testimonials, some on the Web, of the multiple explosions, below and above where the jets hit, as enumerated by the New York firefighters. They believed the fire was extinguishable until the building blew up around them. The last man out says a wall in the basement blew out while he was down there. One firefighter did an on-scene report: "boom-boom-boom" all the way down.
No one wants to talk about how television reporters claimed Building number 7 had fallen while it was still visible on the skyline behind them in their makeshift studio—and the stunned reporter who watched it fall after his cameraman pointed out that it was still standing even as he was reporting that it had collapsed—but not much longer: seconds later there was an obvious "pulling," according to owner Larry Silverstein.
Nobody wants to talk about how the towers had been condemned for asbestos.
So, yes, there is a conspiracy at high levels. Any of your readers who bother to do the research will come to the same conclusion as architects and engineers, soldiers and firemen, who all say, Investigate. I am not one who tears up opposing views, as rational, thinking minds must study all sides of a story. To deny any credibility to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (just one of many groups) without review of the evidence is the height of ignorance.
I don't doubt the sincere intentions of letter writer Peter Williams, who scoffs at the notion of U.S. insider involvement in 9/11, and he's right on certain points. For instance, the towers may not have been demolished by explosives. However, the case that there was insider involvement in the tragedy hardly rests on that area of inquiry [alone]. The holes in the government's official story of the event are myriad, to put it mildly; one of the best compilations of them is the "coincidence theorist's guide to 9/11," found on Google, which documents all the bizarre things one would have to believe to buy the official government narrative of what happened.
One area of anomaly is the apparent standdown of the U.S. air defense system. A fantastic case indicting the U.S. High Command has been made at the website www.tenc.net. The simple fact is that when planes fly off course in U.S. air space, they are intercepted by fighter jets, which were on ready alert that morning. This standard operating procedure was implemented no fewer than 67 times in the year preceding 9/11. The notion that a band of renegade terrorists could so easily penetrate the most defended air space in the world and slam a plane into the Pentagon over an hour after the attack began completely defies common sense and reasoning.
Furthermore, Hani Hanjour and Mohammed Atta were both in fact trained at U.S. flight schools, flight schools that have been documented by researcher Daniel Hopsicker as having been tied to the CIA.
Some of us have actually researched this topic—both sides— extensively over the past 10 years. If one does so, rather than just reading the Popular Mechanics hit piece and thinking he has a clue, one almost always comes out questioning the official narrative of Al-Qaeda's doing it alone with no insider involvement.
That questioning, though, requires some real political courage, because it opens up a can of worms which reveals that there is a continuity of power in the military-intelligence establishment that solidified its power in the effective coup d'etat assassination of President Kennedy, and it is of an extreme right-wing nature.