Letters for February 22, 2007
Thank you for writing on the weighty matter of 9/11. I have been meeting with the local 9/11 Truth group and learned a lot more than I ever expected, which is good. I would rather have more of the truth than not enough or none at all.
One adviser said, however, to avoid focusing on only one such matter, because we are likely to miss something much bigger.
… balanced …
Mr. Tuchinsky claims that his two 9/11 editorials were written with the greatest care and thought. Why, then, is there no mention of opposing viewpoints, such as the numerous 9/11 conspiracy-debunking Web sites? (911myths.com and debunking911.com are two of the best. There is also an excellent article on the myths of 9/11 from Popular Mechanics, which can be found with a Google search of “Popular Mechanics 9/11".)
I have been studying 9/11 conspiracy theories since 2002, and so far I have not found a single claim that stands up to scrutiny.
Alternative viewpoints are OK, as long as they are looked at in a rational and skeptical manner. Rules of logic, such as Occam’s Razor, apply. Which is more likely: a) 19 hijackers from al-Qaeda attacked the U.S., or b) a humongous conspiracy involving thousands in the U.S. government, and elsewhere, committed mass murder, and every single one of them has remained silent to this day?
For the former, we have literally volumes of evidence; for the latter, all we have is idle speculation, half-truths, and misinformation.
The conspiracy theorists, in the five years since 9/11, have been unable to make a case that would stand in any court. I urge Mr. Tuchinsky to look at the debunkers’ viewpoints before making up his mind.
9/11 was an extremely important event in U.S. history, and we owe it to ourselves to take a balanced look at it.
… and incisive
Your experience with your friends is very typical. People just do not want to believe our government would harm its own citizens, even though it has done so many times in the past: early nuclear testing, Agent Orange and now depleted uranium in Iraq, to name just a few.
If you’re serious about your statement, “I’m interested enough to look,” Google “WTC 7” and watch the collapse of that 54-story building that was not hit by planes and collapsed straight down in about seven seconds! That’s what initially perked my interest. Then read The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. He does an excellent job of presenting all the possible scenarios and lets you decide which you believe.
‘Revisionist History 101’
Re: “Who let God in?” (Guest Comment, by Ishmael Raymon, CN&R, Feb. 15):
It is one thing for you to write about a 9/11 conspiracy, which is amusing and lacks any proof, but quite another to allow the Guest Comment space to be wasted with such a poor attempt at Revisionist History 101.
To say that this country was not founded on Christian principles is like saying that there was no Holocaust. To say that the most prolific early Christian writer, Paul, was merely a Roman Jew is like saying that Bill Clinton was only a poor boy from Arkansas.
Mr. Raymon is correct when he says that the Constitution does not mention God and that our founding fathers were intelligent thinkers. That is why they were wise enough not to create a theocracy but a republic founded on the principals of the unalienable rights given to us by our creator (their words in the Declaration of Independence).
He says that the Bible is not the “word of God,” and yet George Washington (and all subsequent presidents) chose to place his hand on it while taking the oath of office.
The question is not “who let God in,” but why are some people so intent on trying to kick God out? It is one thing to look at the diversity of beliefs in this country today and quite another to say that it has always been this way.
I am not certain of Mr. Raymon’s motive in his writing, but he is wrong!
Another cheatin’ sign
Re: “Suspicious minds” (Cover story sidebar, by Jaime O’Neill, CN&R, Feb. 15):
In your list of recognizing a cheater, you might add that someone who constantly promotes oneself as one who never cheats (and would never do so) is most likely to be exactly what they continually claim they are not.
As the Bard said, “The lady doth protest too much.”
Setting us straight
Re: Quinceañera DVD review (In the Mix, by Jaime O’Neill, CN&R, Feb. 15):
First, thanks to the CN&R for all the kudos given over the years to the Pageant Theatre, but I must correct Jaime O’Neill. He stated in his (right-on) DVD review of Quinceañera that the film “never screened in Chico.” Au contraire, as we say in the foreign-film business. Quinceañera played for two weeks at the Pageant in September 2006.
Editor’s note: We apologize for the oversight.
Re: “Unsentimental journey” (Letters, by Lytle Williams, CN&R. Feb. 8):
Lytle Williams asked, “Will Chico be a new ‘urbanist’ paradise, or will Chico be a new ‘urbanist’ developer’s paradise?”
It’s already one developer’s paradise.
The city has allowed Tom DiGiovanni to rewrite building code to fit his New Urban style. His subdivisions used to depend on extensive variances, or exceptions, to existing building code—exceptions to everything from lot coverage to street width. Now he doesn’t need to apply for variances; he can just shoot his “city within a city” right through the Planning Department.
Meanwhile, any developer who wants to build “old school” is funneled through a system that demands more houses per acre, more square footage per lot and bigger prices to uphold the RDA tax structure.
The City Council told us development would lower the cost of housing; instead prices have gone through the roof. It’s not about “providing housing"—it’s a feeding frenzy, and one pig is quickly getting control of the trough.
Welcome to Hog Heaven.
Editor’s note: The Doe Mill subdivision received the code variations to which Ms. Sumner refers. The Planning Department says that, per general plan policy and City Council direction, city staff is preparing a Traditional Neighborhood Development code to accommodate projects premised on New Urbanist principles, such as Meriam Park. The proposed TND code would provide development standards parallel to the existing conventional development standards, and would be an option available to any developer.
Re: “Faulting letter-writer’s logic” (Letters, by Alys DiMercurio, CN&R, Feb. 1):
Alys DiMercurio says that she’s “by no means a feminist"; Michael Peters clearly is not much of a feminist either, but I find myself perplexed by the both of them.
Feminism is simply the idea that women should be afforded the same basic rights and social freedoms as men. Given that, I find it quite sad that in this day and age there is anyone in America (particularly any woman) who says they’re not a feminist.
Adam L. Brinklow