I was reading some of the chatter that followed the washingtonpost blog and I saw this one that I copied. Hopefully the contributer doesn't mind, but I thought his response was very well put and really resonated with me. Here it is:

Dear Mr. Arkin,

I am appalled by your recent judgment regarding the 911Truth Movement. Am I right to understand that a journalist's task is to be objective, examine evidence, and reach conclusions that best fit the evidence? I admit the conclusions reached by the 9/11Truth Movement seem unbelievable when considered without examining what we know happened. I know many will question why I took the time to write to someone who wrote such an insensitive and hateful article. I have no idea if you will quickly dismiss this message because you disapprove of the messenger.

I believe the best chance of being heard is to honestly share with you the reasons for my involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement. I want you to understand why I am calling for a new independent investigation and why every effort must be made to select impartial commission members who care nothing about political affiliations. Rather, this new commission's objective should be the examination of every ounce of evidence so the truth of what happened on 9/11 can be understood. It is how one would want their lawyer to act on their behalf if their children had been murdered.

To begin, let's assume that the "official" account of 9/11 is, for the most part, true. Nineteen radical Islamic fundamentalist with the assistance of Al Qaeda were solely responsible for the attacks on our country. Given this, the evidence can be examined on how our government responded to pre-9/11 threats and how it failed to protect our country on 9/11. This information is readily available from legitimate news sources. Given the internet's capability of distributing unlimited information to the public, anyone can easily determine the accuracy of this information.

First, our government was forewarned from eleven foreign countries in the months before 9/11 of pending terrorist attacks on US soil against significant American interests and landmarks. As of today, the American people do not know any government response to these warnings. "Wanted" terrorist moved freely about our country in the months prior to 9/11. There is no record of any terrorist ever being detained despite two terrorists who lived with an FBI informant in San Diego. Many "wanted" terrorists, who took no steps to hide their identity, received flying lessons in the United States in the year prior to 9/11. They accomplished this task despite an Arizona FBI Agent's repeated effort to alert his superiors of suspicious activity which only fell on deaf ears. Does it concern you that "wanted" terrorists were able to do this in our country?

Then there is the day of 9/11. On this day, our defense system failed to stop three hijacked airplanes from hitting their targets which resulted in thousands of deaths. As a military analyst, you must know firsthand that our military has a system in place to quickly intercept planes which stray off-course. In most instances, interception can occur within ten minutes and this would be particularly true for the airspace of Washington DC and New York. The following is a timeline taken from Paul Thompson's well-researched timeline for the morning of 9/11 (The following information can easily be verified from mainstream news reports):

• FLT 11 failed to respond to FAA at 8:13AM. At 8:20, FLT 11 stopped transmitting its IFF beacon which confirmed a hijacking. So, the clock begins at 8:20AM when FAA knows a hijack has occurred. At this time, do you agree that NORAD would be contacted and fighter jets would be ordered to intercept the hijacked planes? (For some reason, NORAD was not contacted until another 18 minutes at 8:43AM.)

• At 8:46AM, FLT 11 hits the World Trade Center. At this moment, our government knows without a doubt that a plane has struck the WTC and a second is hijacked. At this point, scramble order are issued at Otis AFB despite there being closer bases such as Atlantic City. Twenty-six minutes have now past. As a military analyst, do you find this acceptable? What if local emergency services took twenty-six minutes to call an ambulance to respond to your desperate call that your child was bleeding to death?

• At 8:52 AM, Otis Air National Guard pilots take off, 12 minutes after receiving notification to respond.

• At 8:54 AM, FL 77 goes off course over Ohio and heads east indicating a target in Washington, DC. At this point, our government knows the North WTC tower has been hit; another plane is hijacked in the skies of New York; and a third plane is heading toward our Capitol. At the same moment, President Bush's motorcade arrives at the school knowing a plane has struck the WTC. Our President chose to enter the classroom instead of responding to the crisis. Do you agree with his decision to continue to with his planned schedule?

• At 8:46AM, NMCC officials at the Pentagon are talking to law enforcement officials about possible responses. This is forty-five minutes before the Pentagon is hit. Do you think it is reasonable to believe our military is capable of responding to this crisis within 45 minutes, particularly given the resources available around our nation's Capitol?

• At 9:03AM, FLT 175 hits the South Tower, WTC. The F-15s from Otis AFB are still 71 miles away. Simple math shows an average speed of less than 700MPH based on when the planes departed and the number of miles traveled. As a military analyst, I assume you know that F-15s are capable of speeds up to 1875 mph with a supersonic cruise of 1600 mph.

• Between 9:03AM and 9:06AM, Chief of Staff Andrew Card informs President Bush of the second impact in the WTC South Tower. President Bush remains in his seat for another 13 minutes and does not leave the school for another 26 minutes. At the same time, secret service agents are quickly escorting the Vice-President to an emergency bunker in the White House. Does it seem reasonable to expect that the President of the United States would receive the same treatment from the secret service as the Vice-President? Instead, our President remained in a known location, with children, for another 26 minutes while our nation was under attack?

These facts, and many others, clearly indicate that our government failed miserably to respond to the crisis of 9/11. As a military analyst, do you find it odd that our military inexplicably failed in its inability to intercept three hijacked planes despite having 78 minutes to do so? We know our military is capable of responding in 26 minutes which would have stopped the first plane from hitting the North WTC. Our military had another 17 minutes to stop the second plane. Imagine the lives that could have been saved had our military performed to its abilities on this day. What is more confusing is that our military was well-practiced in performing flight interceptions. A total of 67 flight interceptions in the year prior to 9/11. Most of us remember how quickly our military responded to intercept Payne Stewart's fatal flight ten minutes after the plane erred off course.

As a military analyst, how you do rate the government's performance in responding to 9/11? The American people are unaware of a single person who has been reprimanded for their actions regarding 9/11. In some instances, key government personnel related to 9/11 have been promoted.

As of yet, I have not discussed any evidence that suggest government complicity and I have only assumed incompetence versus complicity. Is it correct to assume that your acceptance of the "official" account of 9/11 indicates that you also accept the gross incompetence of our government? Have you forgiven those who failures to protect thousands of American lives? Are you giving our government a break because, hell, who could of knew something of this magnitude would happen (even though they did know it was coming)? Even though you know that the United States military was more than equipped to respond to this crisis? I would be surprised if an accomplished journalist and military analyst would be so forgiving.

I, for one, am not ready to forgive and move on. I ask, for a moment, that you imagine what it might be like to be part of the 42% of Americans who question the government's role in 9/11. You have reviewed the evidence and found convincing support that the World Trade Center Towers and WTC7 fell in a controlled demolition (Are you part of the 52% of Americans who are unaware that World Trade Center-7, a 47 story steel-framed building, fell into itself, in the exact manner of a controlled demolition on 9/11? This happened despite WTC7 not being hit by a plane and the fact that no known steel-framed building has ever collapsed, let alone at free-fall speed). You learn that there was highly unusual number of "put" options placed on American and United Airlines in the week prior to 9/11. You see pictures of the hole in Pentagon before the roof collapsed and reason that a 757 could never create such little damage. You learn that much of evidence at Ground Zero was shipped immediately away to China without an appropriate investigation. You learn that a mere 3 million dollars was first appropriated to investigate 9/11 (another 11 million dollars would be added) compared to the 50 million to investigate President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

After reviewing the evidence, you are aware that there is high likelihood that the "official" account is much more than mistakes and miscommunications, but rather, a series of calculated deceptions and lies. You realize a faction within your own government may have acted with the intent to kill thousands of American lives. You are left with the knowledge that an evil presence still exists in your government and continues to influence US policy.

If there were even the slightest possibility that people existed within our own government who would purposefully kill thousands of American lives to further their own agenda, wouldn't you want to know? Would you not want America to use everything in its power to ensure that all of our intelligence and technology were implemented to rule out this possibility? (Hell, wouldn't you demand this type of investigation given the scope and implications of this event, regardless of whether the government was complicit or not?) Yet like our government on 9/11, the 9/11 Commission failed to do their job.

As a distinguished journalist whose has devoted his career to protecting of our nation, I am at a lost to understand how you overlook this evidence and accept the status quo. I am outraged at your insults directed at the people of the 9/11Truth Movement. How dare you judge their actions and make malicious claims that their intentions are to exploit the families of 9/11? I can speak for myself and say that I hope the 9/11 families' inconsolable losses are somewhat redeemed by America doing everything in its power to reveal the truth and hold those who committed these unspeakable crimes accountable. Ultimately, I hope for a peaceful future where world leaders resolve conflict without sacrificing our children's lives.

I assume that your willingness to write the article indicates a certain amount of interest in this matter. Since you have thrown your cheap two-cents into the pot, I ask that you to take the time to carefully examine the available evidence. Read everything you can and then reach your own conclusions. That is the what journalist do, is it not? The irony of your scathing commentary of the 9/11 Truth Movement is that this movement would not exist if you, the press, had done their job. For many of us who have looked at the evidence, we feel more than justified to raise our voices and demand justice. Regardless of your disturbing and uninformed comments, I am steadfastly committed to using my rights as an American citizen to hold our government accountable and to protect our threatened democracy.

Jake O'Neill
Portland, Oregon