The Missing Facts in United 93

On Roger Ebert's site, some statements people might not like, but a link to Scholars for 9/11 Truth doesn't hurt:

We are the world's foremost military power, with billions spent on fast, stealthy aircraft, yet we can't even protect our own airspace from blatant hijackings, within HOURS of the alert?! This is preposterous. Several years ago that golfer, I forget his name, passed out in his little Cessna aircraft and began to go off of his flight course. Within MINUTES, military jets were scrambled and tailing the tiny aircraft. Yet we're expected to believe that 4 separate, hijacked AIRLINERS didn't evoke the same response from our military?!

The Bush administration has been caught lying when they tried to claim that the notion of hijacked jets used as weapons had never occurred to them -- internal
documents show that this idea had indeed been considered in military simulations in the recent past.

I don't know how much about the 9-11 Truth Movement you've looked into, and if you haven't heard many of its arguments, I know that I might sound like a "nut" or a "kook" to you. Yet I know that you're an intelligent man with an open mind, and that you just might take the time to sift through the facts in search of the truth. (You gave "JFK" a good review, and didn't dismiss it as the work of a crank or loony!).

I believe that Bush's neo-cons ALLOWED 9-11 to occur (at least allowed, perhaps helped or even designed), in order to justify wars aimed at dominating the Middle East and to squelch domestic dissent here at home. The global capital that these power-players stood to acquire must have FAR outweighed the American lives they were willing to sacrifice. The neo-cons' "Project for a New American Century" basically comes out and admits these things.

Thanks to Solar Roller for this submission.

I submitted the

I submitted the following:

Dear Mr Ebert,

there was one error in your excellent article "The Missing Facts in United 93". You consider it suspicious "that the Pentagon was hit on the one side that had received extra structural reinformcement, a 1 out of 5 chance".

That calculation would be correct if the entire west wing wall had been structurally reinforced. However, only a narrow section of that wall had received such treatment. (See, for example, the British book "9/11 Revealed" by Henshall and Morgan.) Therefore, the chances are much lower than 1 out of 5.

Here in Finland, WTC 7 has received a lot of attention, especially because its collapse has still not been officially explained (NIST is still preparing its report) and because the mainstream media seems to do everything to avoid any discussion of its symmetrical freefall collapse into its footprint. Here is my own analysis of this case:

After reading my analysis, can *you* understand why so many people see this third skyscraper as a sure sign that something is terribly wrong with the official explanation?

Best regards,

great letter.... roger ebert

great letter....

roger ebert with his power in the fake msm focusing on wtc7 instead of the pentagon

truly awesome