Pithy Letter (with humor, too) by Francisco González published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies today

Excellent comments and good-natured humor again enter the Journal of 9/11 Studies with the addition today of a Letter by Francisco González, "Comments on Garcia's Sept. 12, 2007, article in Counterpunch."

Here is a short excerpt to entice you to read this pithy, insightful Letter:

"The last section of his masterpiece has the following title:
"WTC7 Collapse, So What?" and reproduces a letter by a reader, who narrates how she saw a fire raging on one side of the building. Mr. Garcia needs no further proof than a letter from a reader to conclude that a fire on one side of a steel building can cause it to come down in perfect imitation of a perfectly symmetrical demolition at free fall speed. Happens all the time, apparently. Frivolous quibbles on the matter are left for the irrationals to investigate "to their hearts content." He also claims that the fires were fed by fuel tanks in the basements, apparently unaware that most of the fuel was recovered inside intact tanks, as described in the FEMA report. http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm "

The rest of the peer-reviewed Letter can be found here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GonzalezCommentsonGarcia.pdf

Excellent response

An excellent response to Garcia. Thanks for passing this along, Prof. Jones.

Another point which occurred to me since reading Garcia's screed which may be worth bearing in mind if we encounter such bogus debating points again is this: I think it's safe to say that most people who are now in the 9/11 Truth movement started out more or less accepting the official story--if not the official characterization of 'evil Muslim fanatics' then the 'blowback' variant pushed by Garcia and others, as a reaction to U.S. policies. So if we're so 'racist' as to now reject those interpretations, why didn't we reject them from the outset? Garcia would have us believe that all Americans who, in stages, have come on board with the 9/11 Truth movement started out as 'non-racist,' then got progressively more 'racist' the more we learned about the events. How does he account for this phenomenon?--this gradually spreading upsurge in 'racism' among the American public, whereby millions of Americans who once found it acceptable to attribute the 9/11 plot to Middle Eastern Muslims (the allegedly 'non-racist' view) now no longer do, and point to elements in the U.S. establishment instead (the allegedly 'racist' view)? Why the change? And what caused all these Americans to be no longer able to put up with the allegedly more disquieting official story so that they suddenly sought refuge in an allegedly more 'comforting' alternative explanation?

Such basic questions, of course, don't occur to Garcia, because he doesn't give a damn about the truth anyway.