Jim Beeker of Milwaukee, WI wrote:
There is a literal mountain of evidence that casts grave doubts on the truthfulness of the 'official explanation' for 9/11. Why are we not seeing more of this evidence in the media? Some of the things I've seen would clearly warrant the front page of every major newspaper in this country, but they are all strangly quiet.

The thing that frustrates me is that when I even try to talk on this subject with my friends I'm dismissed immediately as a crack-pot conspiracy theorist - which I am not. Many people dismiss the theory of government complicity before they even hear the evidence to support it, simply because it is so incredible.

There are many problems with the official explanation that would clearly show that something was being hidden (the collapse of WTC7, why all 3 buildings fell at free-fall speed, what were the 'explosions' that were visible in the twin towers as they fell, why was the lobby of the first tower demolished by an airplane that hit 90 floors up, and why were no fighter aircraft even launched until the hour long attack was over). The failure of the mainstream media to address these questions is what makes us seem like conspiracy theorists to everyone else. (i.e. 'If what you're saying has any truth in it why isn't it in the newspaper?').

In short, my question is, Why is the press ignoring such obvious inconsistencies in the official explanation of 9/11 and what can I do to help address the situation?