Recently I had the pleasure (if you want to call it that) of listening to a number of your radio interviews on the subject of the 9-ll terrorist attacks. I maintain an Internet archive of 9-11-related radio programs and, because of limited server space, it became necessary to delete some of the older shows to make room for newer ones - like that magnificent David Ray Griffin lecture that aired on C-SPAN just last weekend.

To make a long story short, after examining a number of the older interviews in my archive, I decided that it was YOUR radio programs that had to go. Why, you may be wondering? Partly because they made my eyes roll they are so tedious and boring, but also because in ALL these many radio interviews NOT ONCE did you, a purported "expert" on the 9-ll attacks, address the core issue of 9-ll: the manner in which the WTC towers collapsed and how the official explanation could not possibly account for what could only have been a controlled demolition.

Rather than discussing this undeniable PROOF of government involvement, rather than pointing out how a complex and sophisticated operation such as bringing down the towers by controlled demolition could ONLY have been executed under the auspices of government, and rather than facing the cold, hard fact that no Arab "terrorists" had the means to do this, you chose instead to continue speaking about mythical "hijackers." In fact, when given the opportunity in one of the interviews to speak about the WTC collapses, you instead abruptly changed the subject to the failure of the FBI to adequately investigate these supposed "hijackers."

Who is it - other than yourself - who's speaking of "hijackers," as if THEY were responsible for the 9-ll attacks? Isn't this the essence of the BIG LIE we've been told by the government and the media? Why then are YOU, someone who's supposed to be a leader in the 9-ll "truth" movement, repeating the same old lie told by the government and the media - the exact same lie that you should be EXPOSING - by implying that mythical "hijackers" were somehow responsible?

It's totally irrelevant whether hijackers were present or not on the morning of 9-11 - IF it's a proven fact that the towers fell by means OTHER than by hijackers, namely by controlled demolition. And this fact has indeed been proven now beyond any shadow of lingering doubt - conclusively, definitively, and absolutely - by respected and credible researchers in the 9-11 field. This is where we need to focus public attention, instead of obediently and subserviently parroting the official party line.

Even if there WERE actual "hijackers" on 9-11 flying kamikaze planes into buildings (which I don't believe for even one second), an entire AIR FORCE of these supposed "hijacker" pilots couldn't possibly have caused the collapse of even ONE steel building, much less the THREE massive steel-frame edifices that fell on September 11. For crying out loud, one of these buildings wasn't even hit by an airplane! Did Osama bring it down chanting a prayer to Allah? The fact that BOMBS brought those buildings down (explosive charges placed days in advance) is the smoking gun evidence we need to bring forward to expose who was TRULY responsible for this heinous crime against humanity. Any further talk of omnipotent Arab "hijackers" defying the laws of established science and bringing down tall buildings by feats of pure magic is counterproductive, irrelevant, and totally absurd. Any 9-11 activist who continues to speak of this should be laughed off the stage as a total charlatan.

Let's get down to 9-11 basics. Let's dispense with irrelevance and peripheral issues and focus instead on the BOTTOM LINE. The principal traumatizing event on the morning of September 11 was the unexpected catastrophic collapse of the World Trade Center towers, an event indelibly seared into the consciousness of our nation. This is what everyone remembers most vividly about the gruesome attack, and this is what terrified Americans more than anything that morning. The terrifying collapse of the WTC towers is the very ESSENCE of the attack itself, the major cause of the death and destruction, and the salient tragedy of that infamous day. And for a supposed "leader" in the 9-11 "truth" movement to not make a concerted effort to discuss this issue over the course of FOUR separate radio interviews is not only inexplicable, it is unconscionable as well. The collapse is the KEY to exposing 9-11, and exposing 9-11 is key to preserving our freedom. In this we MUST not falter!

The impact of supposedly "hijacked" airplanes and the jet fuel fires that resulted from the impacts could not possibly have brought down the WTC towers. It's physically and scientifically impossible for this to have happened the way the government says it did. This has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt by preeminent researchers in the 9-11 field, researchers whom you choose to ignore because of "inadequate footnotes" or other lame excuses even more preposterous. If the American people aren't yet ready to face the horror of what actually happened on September 11, then what ARE we ready for? More lies and deceit from the 9-11 "truth" movement fashioned after the lies and deceit from the government and media?

Only a controlled demolition can account for what happened on September 11, 2001, and this is a highly technical and complex operation, far too sophisticated for a small group of cave-dwelling Arab "hijackers" to have planned and executed. Only a GOVERNMENT entity would have the necessary resources to carry this out. Our supposed "protectors" and "saviors" in government, those who pretend to be keeping us safe, are themselves the REAL terrorists, who've betrayed and murdered their very own people!

Hence, there were no hijackers who brought down those towers! The REAL hijackers that we need to bring to justice are the debased criminal monsters who have hijacked our NATION and who are the TRUE evil terrorists behind this attack. The REAL hijackers we need to safeguard against are those cowardly individuals like you, Kyle Hence, who have hijacked the 9-11 truth movement and who are AFRAID to speak this truth to power. We must all find the courage to gallantly face this truth of government complicity in the mass murder of our people - no matter how horrible it might appear to be - and then we must shout it boldly from the rooftops for all to hear! They're not just incompetent! They didn't just idly stand by and opportunistically LET it happen! They MADE it happen! They DID IT themselves! They KILLED our own people! Where is the appropriate outrage and righteous indignation? What are we actually going to DO about September 11? The time for timidly asking irrelevant questions and flitting around on the periphery of 9-11 issues has long since past, and now it's time to provide real answers. We need answers, not questions, and action, not rhetoric!

It's time for others to arise and assume the mantle of leadership in this 9-11 truth movement, and that's what we, the common, everyday people of this country, intend to do: those of us who are NOT afraid of speaking this truth to power and those who know that the American people ARE indeed ready to receive this truth.

Sincerely,

Michael Langston

ADDENDUM

Here's some of what Kyle Hence said in his response to my open letter that I sent him:

He claims to have at least raised questions on a few occasions about the collapse of the towers, though he hasn't drawn any conclusions since he's yet to see a single structural engineer or architect come forward to explain how the official story could not account for the collapse. He seems to think the public won't be swayed unless a few brave people with the appropriate expertise and credentials come forward to corroborate the idea of a controlled demolition.

In my view, his talking about the collapse on a FEW occasions (it should be the core issue discussed on ALL occasions) and his only raising QUESTIONS (when enough data exists that we should now have clear ANSWERS) and his not drawing any CONCLUSIONS (when such conclusions are now obvious) is a major failing on his part as a prominent spokesperson in this 9-11 movement.

Do we really need advanced structural engineers and architects to explain the basic, common-sense reasons leading inevitably to the conclusion that the collapse was a controlled demolition? I think not. And can we really expect any such people with the appropriate expertise and credentials to come forward and risk being ostracized by their peers and being fired from their positions? Again I think not. Look what happened to Kevin Ryan for speaking out on this issue. Was he not fired? So how can we expect others like him to speak out, and why should we be dependent on such credentialed experts speaking out before drawing our own conclusions? Here are just a few simple facts off the top of my head that lead inevitably to the conclusion of a controlled demolition. These are ideas that any layman can understand:

1) No steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to fire. Look at the Madrid building for example.

2) The jet fuel burned off in a very short time. Even if burning jet fuel IS capable of significantly weakening structural steel (and the previous point indicates that such fires are not), it didn't burn LONG ENOUGH to create these high temperatures.

3) The fires were small compared to such fires as the Madrid building fire (which didn't cause a collapse), they were oxygen-starved, as indicated by the thick black smoke, and in the case of the South Tower, they were quite small indeed.

4) These fires were not spreading. If they were hot enough to weaken steel, don't you think they'd also be intense enough to ignite carpeting and office furnishings and thus spread like wildfire throughout the entire building?

5) In the South Tower right before its collapse, firemen had reached where the plane had impacted, there WERE survivors on the floors with the most INTENSE fires, and the firemen were confident they could control the fires. So if these fires were hot enough to weaken thick steel, how on earth could these frail HUMANS survive them?

6) A woman was photographed standing in the impact hole made by one of the planes (in the North Tower I think). How could SHE survive when the steel could not?

7) And even if it's true that these relatively SMALL fires WERE intense enough to weaken the steel (which they were not), why didn't the upper sections of these two buildings simply break off intact and fall in one big piece? The supposed "weakening" of the steel would only have occurred in the AREA OF THE FIRE, and the fires were confined to ONLY A FEW FLOORS. The majority of the floors were UNEXPOSED to fire and thus were as strong as the day they were built.

8) The towers fell at near free-fall speed. No resistance was offered from the lower sections of the two massive buildings, indicating that explosives were used to demolish these sections before falling debris had time to hit them. (This is proof positive in itself that the official "pancake" version is a lie.)

9) There were numerous reports of bombs and explosions.

10) When the buildings collapsed, steel beams and dust clouds flew out from the buildings in a HORIZONTAL direction, indicating explosions.

11) There were seismic spikes at the BEGINNING of the collapses, indicating large underground explosions to take out the central columns. If the towers collapsed according to the official explanation, why wasn't the greatest level of seismic activity recorded when the DEBRIS HIT THE GROUND?

12) Pools of molten steel were found seven stories below ground level. Burning jet fuel or the energy released from falling debris cannot possibly account for such extreme temperatures. (This is proof in itself that the official version is a lie.)

13) There was more heat energy contained in the rubble pile than could possibly be produced by simple fires or falling debris, indicating ANOTHER energy source, most likely explosives. There were temperatures of over a thousand degrees observed in this rubble pile many days after the collapses.

14) In the words of one fireman, the buildings essentially collapsed to dust. This type of total pulverization of the concrete and the contents of the building cannot be explained by the official story of how the buildings collapsed. This would require a much greater amount of energy than could possibly be liberated merely from the fall of the buildings and the hydrocarbon fires. Where did this excess energy come from? Explosives is the most likely answer.

15) The guilty bastards couldn't WAIT to destroy the physical evidence at the crime scene so they set about carting off the incriminating steel beams and rubble as quickly as possible, precluding a thorough scientific and criminal investigation.

He said he's raised questions about WTC 7 and incorporated them into the complaint with Spitzer's office, and he's also called into question the scenario with the hijackers by pointing out that several are apparently still alive.

You'd think that if these reports of surviving "hijackers" are indeed true (as they certainly appear to be), that this would provide a clear-cut answer that the hijacker scenario is a complete farce and the time for asking these kinds of "questions" has long since past.

He then essentially asks if I'm suggesting that the hijacker issues are irrelevant, and states that surely I would not be making such a suggestion.

I'm not suggesting that the hijacker issues are irrelevant in the sense that they shouldn't be discussed and debated. I'm only suggesting that hijackers are irrelevant in one specific sense: to the collapse of the towers, the salient event of 9-11. Whether there were hijackers flying those planes or whether they were flown into the towers by remote control, it makes no difference. Plane impacts and jet fuel fires never brought those towers down. Something else had to have done it. We have enough evidence already to prove this conclusively. Here is where we should focus our attention.

He then states that what he has done in speaking out about 9-11 in front of many thousands of people has indeed taken courage and that I shouldn't have called him "cowardly." He says that he admires anyone who has spoken out on this issue, in whatever way they have chosen to do so, and that surely we should agree that there is more than one way to cast doubt on the official story and move toward the actual truth.

I really don't know what to say in response to this. To be honest, it pains me somewhat to call someone in this movement "cowardly." I want to treat everyone as fairly as possible. But I will say this: It would take a whole lot more courage on his part if he were not so hesitant to speak out forcefully on 9-11 core issues, in the manner that David Ray Griffin does. David Ray Griffin isn't afraid to talk about the collapse being a controlled demolition and the compelling evidence that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. Interestingly, these very issues that Kyle Hence seems to avoid are the very same issues that provide evidence for what David Ray Griffin calls the "fourth view" of 9-11, that rogue elements in or associated with our own government actually planned and carried out this unthinkable attack.

Indeed, there IS more than one way to move toward the truth: there is the way that never gets anywhere, exemplified, I think, by Kyle Hence, and the way that does, exemplified more closely, I think, by David Ray Griffin.

He then complains that I haven't told him where my letter is posted publicly and that he has no opportunity to respond to my mean-spirited and ill-informed attack, as if he couldn't simply post it on any of his three websites and respond there to his heart's content. Surely, he says, what I have done is neither just nor courageous (not telling him where the article was posted), and suggests that perhaps it was an oversight on my part.

So I sent him an email informing him that the letter was posted at WING TV. He then sent me an immediate reply (he obviously was still up, though it was getting quite late) informing me that even though his response was private, he wouldn't be surprised if I went ahead and posted it and the folks at WING TV tried to take words out of context. He told me he wouldn't even have replied had he known my letter was posted at WING TV. Apparently he doesn't like those folks because he didn't want what he said to them about the American people not being ready to hear the truth about 9-11 repeated to anyone.

I then sent him the following email, after receiving another quick email from him stating that he's never claimed to be an expert about anything, that my letter was full of distortions, and that I serve little or nothing. It seems that since I called him a "purported expert" on 9-11 in my original letter, and since he's never claimed to be such an "expert" that I am guilty of distorting the facts.

Here's the email I then sent him:

Dear Mr. Hence,

Neither I nor anyone else have any intention whatsoever of posting the private email you sent me. My only purpose in replying to you was to tell you where MY original letter was posted. Rest assured your private email will NOT be posted.

Sincerely,
Michael Langston

This is the reason I'm having to painstakingly paraphrase all this, instead of merely posting his emails. That would certainly have been a whole lot quicker.

Anyway, he ended his original email by stating that he continues to have serious doubts about the collapse of the towers, that he hopes we'll see credible challenges to the NIST findings, and perhaps then we can begin to have substantive debates. Lastly, he promised to educate himself about this area of inquiry so he could speak about it in an informed manner in future interviews.

And that's just the first of his emails. There's more yet to follow.

I was a bit perturbed when he said that I serve little or nothing (whatever that enigmatic phrase means). So I sent him the following email in reply:

Dear Mr. Hence,

Though you may regard my service to the 9-11 truth movement as "little or nothing," for what it's worth, here's a bit of my "little or nothing" advice:

Listen to this lecture given by David Ray Griffin. Note how (1) he DOESN'T avoid discussing the clear-cut evidence of a controlled demolition of the WTC towers, (2) how he convincingly lays out the compelling evidence that something other than a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, and (3) how all of these facts (which you seem to be avoiding or even denying) lead to the inescapable conclusion of the very strong likelihood of government complicity in the September 11 attacks. I think it's clear from listening to this lecture that this is what David Ray Griffin seems to believe.

David Ray Griffin Interview

Whatever you may think of me and "Thorn and Company," you should follow the example set by David Ray Griffin, who does NOT avoid confronting these hard issues. I don't think you can say that HE counts for nothing. If you would only follow HIS example, I wouldn't have any grounds for criticizing you whatsoever.

Sincerely,
Michael Langston
US Citizen [since he had signed his email: Kyle Hence, 9/11 CitizensWatch]

He then responded to this latest email as follows (I received his response the following morning):

First off, he said in this latest email that he knows David Ray Griffin (he called him by his first name), and that they frequently correspond.

Then he launches immediately into telling me that, in his view, there is no "inescapable conclusion" that no 757 hit the Pentagon (quoting my words). If you will take time to examine my previous email carefully, you will see that this is not at all what I said. Here he is guilty himself of "distorting" what I had said to him - the very same thing that he had accused ME of doing previously.

Continuing on this subject of the Pentagon strike, he cites what he calls countervailing evidence that would cause one to question the "No Boeing " view and would support the view that it was indeed Flight 77 that struck (or at least some type of large commercial airliner). Specifically he mentions the number of light posts knocked down and the distances between them, which he says tend to indicate that it was a large plane. He also mentions that there was eyewitness testimony.

Interestingly, these are the only specifics he cites. He fails to even mention the mountain of evidence suggesting that something other than a 757 hit, which I won't try to discuss in detail here. He only alludes to a tremendous amount of shoddy research and wild speculation in this area of inquiry that has tainted the whole 9-11 movement.

I wonder what specifically he's referring to here. The Dave vonKleist film 911 in Plane Site? Or perhaps the Eric Hufschmid DVD Painful Deceptions or his book Painful Questions? If these are what he's referring to as shoddy and wild, I would certainly disagree with that appraisal.

He ends the section of his email wherein the Pentagon evidence is discussed with the statement that although there is evidence that raises doubts in his mind, in his opinion it is not a cut and dry situation and he prefers to remain more reserved and agnostic than David Ray Griffin presents himself to be.

Rather than enumerating a long list of bullet points supporting the idea that no commercial aircraft struck the Pentagon, I thought I'd just mention a couple of brief ones.

One of the most important supposedly "unanswered" questions about 9-11 is which of David Ray Griffin's four alternative "views" of 9-11 - delineated in his recent Madison lecture - is the correct one. I think we can all safely dismiss the first and the second ones - the idea that foreign Islamic "terrorists" planned and executed the attacks without prior knowledge or complicity of the government.

But that still leaves the third and the fourth views open to debate, with the critical distinction between them being who actually planned and executed the attacks: foreign terrorists (the third view) or an elitist criminal cabal within or closely associated with our own government (the fourth view).

Clearly, whether the incoming object that struck the Pentagon was a commercial airliner, military drone, cruise missile, or whatever, it was intentionally ALLOWED to strike its target. That much is certain.

BUT was it a "hijacked" commercial airliner piloted by fanatical, kamikaze Arab "terrorists," whose plot our government had prior knowledge of and was simply allowing (the third view), or was this object something else entirely, something under the direct control of this evil government cabal (the fourth view), and something that could be much more precisely controlled by them?

Would they allow an airplane piloted by suicidal Arab "terrorists" (the third view) to just come right on in and fly freely into the Pentagon and strike the structure in a totally unpredictable manner and in an unknown location within the building - with Rumsfeld and other top officials lined up there like sitting ducks in their offices? The answer to this is a resounding NO! There's no way they would have just calmly sat there in that building with an actual hijacked plane barreling in there right straight at them!

The object that hit the unoccupied West Wing of the Pentagon had to be something that could be precisely CONTROLLED, and this required that it be under the DIRECT control of those who were complicit in the attack.

So, with the first, second, and now the third view of 9-11 eliminated as viable possibilities, that leaves only the fourth view to consider as a likely option. All the evidence (and this is only one little piece of it) leads to the inescapable conclusion that a rogue element within our own government - or elitist entities closely associated with our government - actually planned, orchestrated, and carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The people who carried out this attack were wearing suits and military uniforms, NOT turbans. Many of them were living in mansions and penthouses, and were not hiding out in CAVES in faraway Afghanistan. It's time to get away from this absurd notion of relatively powerless Arab "hijackers" being responsible for this attack, in any way, manner, shape, or form whatsoever!

There's one other point about the Pentagon strike that I'd like to bring up before getting back to what Kyle Hence said in his email. This involves the very low trajectory of the object that struck (how it was very near ground level). Why would the perpetrators plan the attack this way? I would suggest that part of the reason the object was traveling so low to the ground was simply to make it more difficult for people to see and to photograph. A fast moving object traveling very low to the ground would only present itself to a ground level observer for a very brief moment. In an instant it would be gone, leaving no time to carefully observe it, videotape it, or photograph it.

Now, following this brief digression, I'll get back once again to what Kyle Hence said in his email.

According to Hence, there is no clear-cut evidence of a controlled demolition of the WTC towers (and I assume he also means Building 7 as well, though I could be wrong). This is in spite of the fact that I myself believe that there is and that David Ray Griffin (judging from what he has said in the past) seems to believe it also. He commends David Ray Griffin for speaking his mind and for making the case for a new investigation, calling his efforts very sober and balanced.

However, this is not how he would characterize my open letter to him, or the writings of Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani. He says this is unfortunate, and that this is why my letter means little or nothing.

1) He says my letter draws conclusions without having looked at all the evidence (the many other radio interviews that he's done that I haven't heard).

Is he trying to say that in some of his other interviews that I haven't heard, he HAS forcefully made the point that the official story regarding the collapse could not possibly be true? He stated right off the bat in his first email he sent me that he was still waiting for some structural engineer or architect to come forward with this view before he himself was ready to jump on the bandwagon. So, I don't think I missed him saying much of anything, not having listened to all of his interviews. And I don't think my conclusion would have been any different had I listened to every single one of them.

2) He says my letter distorts the facts since I refer to him as an "expert" (on 9-11) and he has never been introduced as an expert or said he's an expert.

Is this the best example he can come up with of me distorting facts? Simply because I call him a 9-11 expert? If he has no expertise on these issues, what is he doing on all those radio shows? Perhaps I should have called him a "prominent spokesperson" or something. But what real difference does any of THIS make?

3) He says my letter attacks him for not having courage simply because he doesn't adopt my own views.

I was simply wondering why he failed to even MENTION the collapse of the towers over the course of FOUR separate radio interviews. Why is a prominent spokesperson (I better not say "expert") in the 9-11 truth movement so seemingly wary of tackling this issue? If it's not lack of courage, then pray tell what is it? I don't think it's stupidity or lack of cognitive skills.

4) He says my letter was a hack job and that if there was a 9-11 Gestapo, I'd be one of the first to be recruited, along with Victor Thorn, Lisa Guliani, and Mark Rabinowitz (I better Google THAT one!).

Gestapo? I think I might look snazzy in an SS uniform as well! Give me a break!

He then once again alludes to how supposedly reprehensible and unscrupulous it was of Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani to reveal what he said to them in a private conversation (about how, in his opinion, the American people weren't yet ready to hear the whole truth about 9-11). It didn't surprise him that my hateful and twisted letter, as he calls it, would be made public on THEIR website.

He next makes the point that even if the World Trade Center collapses WERE controlled demolitions, this provides no clear and convincing evidence that the government did it, and that such an inference is a fault in logic. Other entities, which he enumerates in his email, could have had the means, motive, and the opportunity to have orchestrated this event.

He makes a great point here (for once!). Other criminal entities such as foreign intelligence agencies and corrupt business interests may have ALSO been involved in the orchestration of the controlled demolitions. But the operative word here, I think, is the word "also." How could this have taken place without at least the INVOLVEMENT of the government? Clearly they were involved. How else do you explain all the other aspects of this attack when you step back and take a took at the bigger picture? Look at the standdown and the cover-up for example, and then tell me with a straight face that it wasn't our government.

He goes on to say that he thinks David Ray Griffin is correct, and that we as a movement should focus our efforts on dissembling the 9-11 Commission Report as a way to discredit the official story and make the case for some kind of real investigation. He thinks David Ray Griffin's approach is a sound one. But, according to his view, there is a way of getting at the official story more effectively that doesn't involve focusing on the Pentagon question or on the collapse of the buildings (I totally disagree with this). He thinks we should first earn credibility on other issues (peripheral ones?) by building a case with the strongest (???) of evidence, and then the ground might possibly be fertile enough to raise the other (core) issues. He says people are disagreeing about what the strongest evidence is.

He says he doesn't attack publicly folks such as myself or Victor Thorn because of our differing methodology, and it's unfortunate that we have chosen to do so. He says it's not an effective strategy for achieving our overall and shared goals, and I'd do well to withdraw my open letter and cease and desist. He says such internecine warfare is a waste of our time and we should unite in our efforts on dissembling the official report. We shouldn't be focusing on what appears to him as the most murky and difficult of investigative trails.

In response to my suggestion that he should follow the example of David Ray Griffin to avoid receiving criticism, he said that this is what he is now doing, insofar as dissembling the official report is concerned, but he has problems with some of the issues I previously mentioned and thus can't follow David Ray Griffin's example on those (core) issues, though he supports him raising those issues as he sees fit.

On the issue of the WTC collapses, Kyle Hence, by his own admission, has chosen to stay quiet. Given the mountain of rock-solid evidence that exists on this issue, it's hard to understand why anyone would do so. Whatever his motivation for failing to assist in disseminating this vital information, it is most unfortunate, and it contributes little or nothing to either the 9-11 truth movement or the general well being of our nation as a whole.