IN OBSERVANCE OF SEPTEMBER 11:

An Exchange of Letters between
Eric Larsen and P—N—

P. N. WRITES TO ERIC LARSEN

Date: August 28, 2011
Subject: Re: “AN OPEN LETTER TO PATRIOTSQUESTION911.COM” written by Eric Larsen

Eric,

I saw debris blown hundreds of feet up and out from the twin towers on live tv the morning of 9-11-2001.

I saw hundreds, perhaps thousands of pieces of steel columns and beams, each weighing many tons blown up and out in arching trajectories from the building as the buildings violently exploded floor by floor from near the top all the way down to ground level.

It was immediately obvious, as I told my wife that day, that the towers were blasted to kingdom come, blown up, blown apart, not collapsed or vaporized.

Large sections of the exterior structure weighing hundreds of tons each were embedded in near by buildings.

The buildings were not “DISAPPEARED into dust”, though huge volumes of the concrete in the buildings were pulverized into a pyroclastic cloud as in all controlled demolitions that I have ever seen, and I have seen video of many demolitions starting from the age of about 6 in 1954.

It is simply not accurate to say that the buildings “DISAPPEARED into dust”.

This is obvious to the naked eye.

While I agree that her point of view should not be excluded from any discussion of 9-11, I find no convincing information in her book, which I am reading, that DEW were used.

I notice in your letter that you do not mention one observable fact presented by Dr. Wood that supports the DEW conclusion.

When I finish her book I will let you know if I find any credible support in it for the conclusion that DEW were used to destroy the towers.

Meanwhile, I support your call for inclusion, though I do not find her conclusions probable.

What is undeniable is that nano-thermite was found in the residue/dust of the WTC destruction.

There is no doubt that nano-thermite was used, perhaps along with other means, to bring down WTC 1, 2, and 7 on 9-11-2001.

It is possible that DEW was possibly one of those other means but I see no factual information in your letter that supports that conclusion.

Finally, to denigrate others with whom you disagree by saying that they are not patriots is unbecoming and self defeating.

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels and works against the truth.

You hyperbolic language and your lack of specifics discredit you.

Please reconsider what you have said and pull back to a more reasonable approach.

I do not support banning you or anyone from any discussion on the basis of an opinion and I agree that you and Judy should be allowed to participate in exchanges without restrictions.

Peace,
Jon Paul
ERIC LARSEN RESPONDS TO P.N.

Date: August 31, 2011

Jon Paul,

The evidence isn’t in my letter. The evidence is in Dr. Wood’s book.

How far are you through her book? When you’ve finished it, let me then know what you think.

You say that it “is obvious to the naked eye” that the towers did not disappear into dust. You are wrong. It is no more obvious to the naked eye than is it obvious to the naked eye that the earth moves around the sun instead of vice versa. Yes, some solid material was left at the WTC site by the end, but something like a percent or two of the building’s actual mass. Also, much else and much more than evidence of explosion is “obvious to the naked eye” once that eye has been led to see what’s really there in front of it rather than what it’s accustomed and habitualized to see. I should think you would be acutely aware of this fact if you’ve gotten through even three or four chapters of “Where Did The Towers Go?”  One of the great strengths of Dr. Wood’s research, work, and extraordinary thoroughness and clarity of presentation is the way it draws the reader’s and viewer’s attention to details and aspects of the evidence—evidence of all kinds pertaining to the events of 9/11, with no available evidence omitted—details and aspects that most of us would be likely to overlook and fail to analyze for the full significance they hold if it weren’t for Dr. Wood’s extraordinary eye in, first, seeing them, and for her extraordinary gifts as a writer and guide in, second, clarifying their significance for her readers. As for her omitting no part of all available evidence, she is, as a scientist and thinker, distinguished absolutely from the likes of Richard Gage, who virtually brags about leaving out any evidence (toasted cars, for one example) that doesn’t fit his theory. That’s neither science nor argument. It’s smoke, mirrors, and bunkum. It also qualifies as lies.

On that subject, you write “What is undeniable is that nano-thermite was found in the residue/dust of the WTC destruction.” This matter is a red herring attributable to Neils Harrit and the co-authors (Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen) of a paper that you can read about here and that you can read my own assessment of in my article “Serpent Songs in America.” The Harrit paper is misbegotten and unsound in its science. The same is true of the two co-authors whose work—and whose dissembling—I myself know, Steven E. Jones and Kevin R. Ryan. On related aspects of “the naked eye” being blind to the truth of what happened on 9/11, you should also see my article my article “Delusional America and 9/11.”

You write, “Meanwhile, I support your call for inclusion [of Dr. Wood’s work], though I do not find her conclusions probable.” Allow me to clarify: Never have I called for “inclusion” of Dr. Wood’s work nor will I soon be doing so. I have continued and will continue to call only for acceptance of her work. Dr. Wood’s study is the scientific and forensic study of evidence, and, in its adherence to scientific method, produces results that are not arguable but, rather, irrefutable.

That oxygen and hydrogen comprise water is not something for discussion or debate. It is a fact. Dr. Wood studies all available empirical evidence and reaches only and solely such conclusions as that evidence leads to, nothing more, nothing less. Her conclusions are facts, not theories, not arguments, and not opinions, but facts. Many people, nevertheless, like you yourself in your letter to me, seem to believe, or claim to believe (or delude themselves into believing) that Dr. Wood’s work is part of some kind of debate, argument, or discussion about various “points of view” as to what happened on 9/11. Her work is none of those things. It is scientific research resulting in scientific fact. It is no more “debatable” than Galileo’s observation that the moons of Jupiter orbit around that planet. Debate isn’t in the picture.

As for nano-thermite being “found in the residue/dust of the WTC destruction,” I beg of you not to be misled by the Neils Harrit, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan faction but instead to read pages 124-127 of “Where Did the Towers Go?” From these pages you will learn that “thermite. . .  is a substance made of aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust)” and that “The Twin Towers were steel structures with aluminum cladding.” You will find more than only these two sentences, and I trust you will find those for yourself. Still, let me cite three more of them here. First, “iron [the predominant ingredient of steel] dust in atmospheric conditions will immediately rust.” Second: “So it is natural and to be expected that materials the buildings were made of would be found in the nano-dust of their remains.” Third: “The surprising thing would be if this nano-dust from the buildings did not contain ‘thermitic material.’“

The statement that “There is no doubt that nano-thermite was used. . . .to bring down WTC 1, 2, and 7 on 9-11-2001” is saliently false.

Finally, in part because of your refusal—or your inability—to distinguish between opinion on the one hand and scientific fact on the other, you impugn my own motives, behavior, and manner, going so far as to borrow words from the great Dr. Johnson in order to do so.

You write that “to denigrate others with whom you disagree by saying that they are not patriots is unbecoming and self defeating.” In the first place, again, it is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, but, as I have said but apparently must say repeatedly, it is a matter of fact being rejected for one of two possible reasons, either because, on the one hand, those rejecting it are sufficiently undereducated or ill-informed as not to understand the difference between fact and opinion, or, on the other hand, because—impelled by motives other than the serving of the truth—they are posing as, adopting the role of, non-acceptors of scientific fact, resorting to smear, innuendo, falsehood, and deceit in their efforts to mislead others also into “believing” that scientific fact is not scientific fact but something else entirely.

Those for whom the first case pertains are intellectually too under-equipped to function as fully-thinking adults in the roles they should and must play if a functioning free democratic society is to be preserved and maintained.

Those for whom the second case pertains are liars, and—although it will take me a moment to explain why this is so—also traitors.

Everyone agrees that to take up arms against one’s own land and one’s own countrymen with the intent of bringing harm, injury, pain, destruction, and death thereupon is to commit treason. Any people, therefore, who were at that time citizens of the United States and who aided or abetted those who committed the crimes of and on 9/11, or any people who were at that time citizens of the United States and in any way participated actively in the planning and implementing of those crimes—such people are traitors.

We do not know who those people were, or are. Thanks, however, to the work of Dr. Wood, we know something now that we didn’t know before, and we know it for certain. We don’t know who committed the crimes, but we now know the kind of weapon they used. This is both an immense and an immensely important piece of knowledge. In a case of murder where the murderer is unknown, one of the things of utmost importance in an investigation is learning or knowing the cause of death. If the murderer is unknown and the cause of death is also unknown, the murder, quite obviously, will go forever unsolved. On the other hand, simply knowing the exact and true cause of death might well lead very far in an investigation.

If death was by bullet, the crime could have been committed only by someone who shot that bullet from a gun. If the bullet came from one specific kind, brand, or from, say, a rare type of gun, then the killing must have been done by someone in possession, at least for that moment, of that particular kind of gun, and investigators will go in search of anyone in possession, or once in possession, of such a weapon. And so forth. If death was by slingshot, investigators will search for owners or users of slingshots. If death was by anthrax poisoning, investigators will search for workers in laboratories where anthrax germs are cultivated or handled. If death was by directed free-energy weaponry, investigators will search for groups, laboratories, or corporations where that kind of energy is studied and where that kind of weaponry is developed or manufactured, and it will search for those with access to or close relationships with such groups, laboratories, or corporations.

It should be clear enough by now why I mentioned the word “treason.” In a criminal case, the destruction of evidence, or the suppression of evidence, is a crime that becomes all the more serious if and as it results in the obstruction of justice.

In the case of 9/11, we are dealing with a crime not only of murder, but with a crime that is treasonous—if, that is, any of the people who aided, abetted, planned, or perpetrated that crime were or are United States citizens. Although yet unproven in court, it is widely suspected, on the basis of abundant and often very powerful evidence, that many such people were, and remain, U.S. citizens. If both things are true—first, that these people were indeed involved in 9/11, and, second, that they were and are U.S. citizens—then clearly they should be searched for by investigators and, once found, examined closely on suspicion of treason and, if evidence compels, be brought to trial.

Now, when you write, in regard to my “Open Letter to Patriots.com,” that “to denigrate others with whom [I] disagree by saying that they are not patriots is unbecoming and self defeating,” you misunderstand and misconceive the case. As we’ve seen, it’s one thing—bad enough—if people are incapable of distinguishing between opinion and fact. But it is another matter if people are able to so distinguish and yet set out, as said before, by smear, innuendo, falsehood, and deceit, to confuse rather than clarify, to mislead rather than instruct, and thereby to delay justice rather than speed it, and very possibly to delay justice permanently, which is to say to destroy it. Hiding or obscuring evidence in a murder case is a crime. Hiding or obscuring it in a case of treason is a crime also, but one of treason.

Such matters in regard to evidence are of a very great importance, of an immeasurable importance, when they have to do with nothing less than the destroying rather than the saving of a republic and its people, with the eradication of all the good that may once have resided in that nation’s history and spirit, and with the summoning forth from its newly soul-dead heart of nothing that’s good, but of things only that are despicable, evil, and vile—war, greed, aggression; cold-blooded slaughter; deceit, depravity, thievery, and fraud; the malignant destruction and abuse of other peoples and nations; the rebirth of torture as a policy of state; the emasculation of Constitutional rights, privileges, and guarantees; the starvation of the poor alongside the obscene funneling of the dying republic’s treasury into the hands, pockets, and gullets of the rich; the on-going destruction—through a planetary suffocation propelled by thuggish greed, narcissism, ignorance, and a despicable self-indulgence—of nothing less than planet Earth herself.

These horrors and others like them have been justified and put into motion through the excuse of their being responses to the phony “attacks” of 9/11. All of them, evil and based on a great falsehood, are repugnant to any thinking person or to any genuine patriot. And therefore, with stakes this high, and with monstrosities this enormous in the balance, I find it patently absurd that you should castigate me for the putative offense of calling those “unpatriotic” who don’t “agree” with me. Those who obfuscate, smear, or suppress a scientifically-proven 9/11 truth and who therefore don’t “agree” with me are in both fact and in effect apologists for a corrupt, villainous, evil state. More appropriately than “unpatriotic” I might call them quislings, traitors, opportunists, or demented and ignorant robots in service to our dead, false, evil “leaders.” Our nation has been taken over by all that is malignant and diabolical. If “patriotism” lies anywhere, it lies with those who oppose this hideous manifestation and who also oppose those who have brought it into being.

With stakes this high, and in the face of depravities this obvious and extreme, I find it an absurdity to read a sentence like “I do not support banning you or anyone from any discussion on the basis of an opinion and I agree that you and Judy should be allowed to participate in exchanges without restrictions.”

I trust that I don’t need to explain again the fallacy of the seemingly innocuous but in fact incorrect and calamitously destructive phrase that you use, “on the basis of an opinion.” On the other hand, I do think it’s necessary for me to address the equally calamitous use you make of the word “reasonable” in the sentence that urges me “Please [to] reconsider what [I] have said and pull back to a more reasonable approach.”

Let me ask you which of the following two courses of action you might consider the more “reasonable.”

1) Do you think that when I see, hear, or read the words of figures who, on the one hand—publicly, openly, repeatedly, and much of the time before large audiences—tell untruths while purporting them to be true-truths and who, also, do essentially the same thing but in opposite form by castigating, maligning, smearing, distorting, and lying about true-truths in order to make their audiences dismiss those true-truths as falsehoods; that when I witness such actions and deeds as these, especially when they touch immediately, directly, and profoundly on matters such as the survival of our democratic republic, the well-being if not survival of our entire populace outside of the oligarchic class, the preservation of our Constitutional freedoms, the bringing of an end to continuous, illegal wars of aggression against peoples and nations around the world, not to mention on the matter of taking measures to protect Earth herself from what otherwise will be the certain destruction of this our only planet and an attendant end to all life—that when I witness such demagoguery and chicanery as all this and understand not only the immeasurable importance of it but also the criminality of it under any number of definitions of criminality; that when all of this is the case, do you think that what I should do, in response, is “pull back,” use simple language if I use any language at all, declare myself to be of a different “opinion” than such malefactors and. . . well, and leave the matter at that?

2) Or do you think it more “reasonable” that I explain as precisely and clearly as I possibly can—to any who will listen—exactly what it is of evil that I am seeing around me, exactly what the importance of it is, exactly what the clear and present dangers of it are, and, finally, do all within my power to bring about a willing repudiation of that evil and therefore also a replacement of it with something better?

As you know, my own choice is the second of these, just as it is, also, the choice made by Dr. Wood. I fail, absolutely, to understand why it isn’t the choice of everyone who loves life, their nation, and the world.

I beg of you to consider whether you don’t in fact agree.

Eric