My e-mail to Peter Hitchens - Sent last night 27/09/06

[marndin]

Dear Peter

I am dismayed at the fact you appear to have ‘looked the other way’ as far as evidence is concerned on 9/11. If it was just a couple of anomalies I could accept your viewpoint, but the events of that day are literally surrounded by a plethora of unexplained actions and deceitful statements.

For you to not challenge that situation as a ‘Christian’ is despicable and spineless, regardless of your fear of job security.

How could you PRETEND to not have access to a DVD player, and then say that you haven’t the time to look at VHS footage when offered it?

You should be ashamed to call yourself a journalist!

Here’s a quote from Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

However, I’m not sure that you can currently even be classed as a ‘good man’.

Please reconsider your position here, as our future freedoms (yours as well as mine) depend on it.

Martin Noakes

peter.hitchens@mailonsunday.co.uk

[marndin]

Dear Mr Noakes,
You have a strange idea of the best way to influence sceptical minds.
First, you seem to have had access to private correspondence between me and someone else. If David Shayler wants to write to me, he should do so direct. However, since you are obviously in touch with him, feel free to pass this on to him. Second, I will not be browbeaten into credulousness.
The idea that the US government would deliberately slaughter its own citizens is fundamentally absurd. A reasonable person would start from the position that the US authorities are innocent of this crime, and demand - which you have not produced - evidence of it before taking such a claim seriously enough to devote further time to it. . Supposition is not evidence. When you have some, please let me know. I may well be a very bad man. That is between me and my maker. The question is whether I am right or not. The 'nine-eleven' cultists, interestingly, also make much use of that Edmund Burke quotation, in their case to justify silly wars and attacks on liberty. The truth seems quite bad enough to me without this drivel. I do not think Edmund Burke intended his words to be used for such ends, and your use of them does not convince me. My point about the DVD player was a simple technical one, and happens to be a fact. If there is evidence for this claim, a film will no strengthen it.

PH

[Annie]

Thanks for this Martin.

For the record, Dave contacted PH, received a brush-off, and has since written again, but received no answer. So it looks like Mr Hitchens is reneging on his promise, made on live TV, to meet Dave and have a look at the evidence.

Regards

Annie

[Andrew Johnson]

I have mentioned this idea on other threads. When writing to anyone, if you slag them off saying "call yourself this?" or "you should be ashamed of yourself", then they are unlikely to listen to you.

The Daily Mail has done 2 of the best articles on 9/11 truth - mentioning that might have been a good opener. However, any bridge is now likely to have been burned, so it is harder to rebuild it.

If you say "here is the evidence, please look when you have time - I know it's unbelievable. Thanks for reading." - they are more likely to look (but less likely to respond)

I have tried to do this with my MP and she is still listening to me, even if she hasn't "done" anything.

I don't mean to sound didatic or too judgemental (though I know i am!). At least you tried!

[marndin]

Fair comment Andrew

I would generally follow that rule, but his pompous and dismissive attitude towards the subject made my blood boil.

I have now sent him another e-mail stating some of the facts and anomalies.

Don't these people have a conscience?

Martin

[TimmyG]

[andyb]

Good points Andrew, as infuriating as it can be trying to get people to look at the facts, we should try and be as polite as possible and therefore always maintain the moral high ground. As soon as you get abusive with people can convince themselves we're lunatics.

[Rabbie McM]

In my deluded days previously I used to enjoy reading Peter Hitchen's take on New Labour in The Spectator. I still respect him as a writer, but clearly he is in no mood for looking at this issue seriously. I wouldn't waste anymore time on him personally.

I agree though that tact is the best mode of approach, as for many of these journos swallowing the truth is a very difficult matter due to how much they have "bought" into the "official myths" of our society.

As we know, many are very aware of what is going on but choose to either ignore the big picture - or worse - are in on it.

Look at the price Gary Webb had to pay when exposing CIA drug running. IT IS HARD TO STAND UP FOR THE TRUTH.

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2004/12/the_double_deat.html