Would it be possible for you to replace Lemons with somebody who can approach a subject with objectivity and a commitment to journalistic standards?
Robert G. Kahl, Tucson
Consider it covered: New Times' blog and print coverage of the 9/11 Accountability Conference focused on the flaws of the organizers, at the expense of the larger story.
A real understanding of 9/11 has to go back several decades to U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan. The American CIA and military created groups of radical Islamists to bring down the Soviet Union, funding the mujahadeen in the Afghan-Soviet conflict. The American power structure acted through CIA bank BCCI and the Pakistani ISI. The U.S. has had a protective relationship with Pakistan ever since. Mahmood Ahmad was allowed to quietly resign, after the wire transfer scandal, on October 6, 2001. Why did he not stand trial in the U.S. for funding terrorism? This is exactly what responsible journalists should ask. It's too shocking for some, but it looks like the 9/11 attack was generated inside the U.S. intelligence networks.
I was a part of a group of 9/11 researchers who recently supplied the Joint Terrorism Task Force with data on [alleged 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed] Atta's American drinking buddy, Wolfgang Bohringer. When the JTTF seized Bohringer on November 18, the first words out of his mouth were, "You can't arrest me, I'm working for CIA." He was then released.
In August 2001, the Israeli CIA, the Mossad, was kicked out of Florida by the American CIA, when it got too close to Atta and cohort Marwan Al Shehhi. This story was in the big papers in Germany. Why has this not been reported in the U.S.?
Sander Hicks, Flatbush, Brooklyn, New York
Different pages indeed: It seems Steve Lemons is adroit at name-calling and accusations but not much else. For weeks, he has been bleating about Eric Williams' beliefs about the Holocaust [Williams is a Holocaust denier who was an organizer of the 9/11 conference in Chandler] because they are not in keeping with his own. Grow up, Steve, not everybody sees things your way.
Next is the attack on the character of [conference organizer] Kent Knudson. You do not have to agree with the man, but a vitriolic attack only shows you to be the one intolerant of any other viewpoint but your own. By the way, Kent put up some of his own money to guarantee the conference would be a go.
Margo Bald, Tempe