MB Civic

To The Editor:

Paul Krugman notes that, since 9/11, “we all have a renewed appreciation for the power of the Big Lie: people tend to believe false official claims about big issues, because they can’t picture their leaders being dishonest about such things” (Op-Ed, Apr. 9). Although Mr. Krugman was talking about the “nonexistent threat” in Iraq, among other things, what about 9/11 itself?

Even setting aside the incredible conflicts of interest of many members of the 9/11 Commission (e.g., four of the Commissioners had financial or other interests in the very airline companies – United and American – they were investigating), many critical questions remain unanswered, including: why the twin towers collapsed, since they were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which is heavier than the 767s that struck them; why WTC 7 collapsed (in perfect “free-fall”), when it was not struck by an airplane and suffered only minor damage from the collapse of north tower; and why, despite the entire country realizing we were under attack by 9:02, the U.S. military could not stop a plane from crashing into the Pentagon at 9:37 (and why all the defense systems at the Pentagon – the most heavily fortified building in the entire country – just happened to be turned off that day).

In these and other regards – and especially given what we have learned about the Bush Administration’s predilection for the “Big Lie” – how do we know that the “official claims” re the 9/11 attacks are not the biggest “Big Lie” of them all?

Ian Alterman
New York City