anonymous wrote:
Carel -
Perhaps the only thing more disheartening to me than the responses I encountered is the fact that you experienced similar ones from people who should have been more receptive!

I generally don't expect prominent people to reply to unsolicited messages, unless they have a very good reason to answer. So I didn't mind too much that my letters and e-mails essentially vanished (bread on the water!) Instead I concentrated on personal approaches and I spread my efforts over a wide spectrum. As a physician I know a lot of relatively smart conservatives. Yet, whether conservative or liberal, politically aware or oblivious, friend, colleague or acquaintance, the basic result was always the same: a pronounced reluctance to consider the facts. Like you I chose a single entry point, one that I considered so striking and so irrefutable that anyone must see the conflict between conventional wisdom and reality. Mine was the collapse of WTC 7: well documented with numerous clear videotaped images, an event absolutely incompatible with anything other than controlled explosive demolition. In fact, most people, if I didn't prompt them with the identity of the building, assumed that the images were exactly that: some other structure being brought down with explosives. (Think of Dan Rather's comment on the CBS videotape.)

Unsurprisingly most people preferred simply to let the matter drop, if they could. Those whom I pressed for an explanation dipped and dodged with the usual spectrum of evasions one would expect from someone who doesn't wish to be candid: press of other affairs, no interest in 'politics' (forsooth!), no head for 'technical stuff.' A few came up with more plausible excuses, either plucked from the published smoke screen or devised on their own: too many conspirators needed, why would anyone do such a thing, surely someone would have talked, etc. But they stuck with these reasons, even after I'd refuted them (gently or not!) In most cases, it quickly became clear that the real, the underlying reason was unspoken and far more resilient. Only one person, I think, spoke openly and honestly about his motives for rejecting the obvious. A colleague with whom I've worked closely for more than a decade, evaded my probing a few times before confiding that his reasons were purely emotional. To admit that fellow Americans may have taken part in the attacks was so horrific, he told me, and called up such disturbing thoughts, that he literally could not and would not pursue the matter. And it was clear that he was correct: he could not. I would venture to say that, whether they recognize it consciously or not, most people react in just this way.

I understand it! Even as I pore through the facts and analyses, removing the last shreds of doubt, I find myself turning away from certain images, like brave New York firemen standing transfixed somewhere in the towers, as the chained explosions swept down toward them, perhaps understanding what was happening in the instant before they were blown to pieces by the cutting charges. I find myself closing off certain avenues of thought - like what happened to the passengers on Flight 77 between the time their plane disappeared and their body parts began showing up at Dover Airforce Base? At least for the time being I don't need to go there and I don't want to. But I would and I will, if it became necessary to get to the truth. So, even though I sympathize with those who prefer easy explanations, I don't agree with them and I wish I could find some way to reach beyond their inhibitions. If I find one, I'll let you know!