Letters to the Editor
I am a 9/11 survivor and lost my partner of 12 years in the World Trade Center. My father was one of the main contractors on the WTC in the late 1960s and '70s [at] Tishman Construction. Having been all over the entire Trade Center complex which 99.9 percent of people will never see, I find this article a true insult to the memory of those lost ("9/22 Blowup," Cover Story, Sept. 9). No engineer or architect has explained how the explosions happened; all steel internal girders would have to have been cut, which was impossible since the buildings were over 90 percent occupied at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
Conspiracy theories have abounded with the Titanic and the building of the pyramids. But none of the people involved in this organization AE911 were there. So this shows how Metro loves to create controversy and print "yellow journalism." You should be ashamed for even printing such trash, especially with the week of the eighth anniversary. I hope you can sleep at night knowing you have hurt people who didn't deserve it, just like the terrorists—words inflict hurt and yours did!
Frank Cava ("Surely, You Jest," Letters, Sept. 16) needs to take a little more of his own "scientific" medicine. His letter is loaded with logical fallacies and emotional manipulation intended to discourage rational analysis of what really happened on 9/11.
Referring to 9/11 skeptics as "wackos" is an ad hominem fallacy. Comparing 9/11 skepticism to intelligent design is an argument-by-analogy fallacy. Implying that 9/11 skeptics claim that the twin towers were too large to have failed naturally is a straw-man fallacy. His implication that "fanatical terrorists" and "government intervention" cannot both be true is a false dichotomy fallacy. His implication that there is "overwhelming evidence" to support the official story is a bare assertion—where is this "overwhelming evidence"?
To associate skepticism with dishonoring the victims is an appeal-to-emotion fallacy: Why would the 9/11 victims' families want the wrong people to be blamed for their loss? Cava finishes his diatribe with a double appeal to authority and another ad hominem.
Nine logical fallacies in one short letter! Quite impressive for someone who professes to value science.
Thank you for your article in regard to job loss and the effects it will have on our space program ("Space Workforce Down," MetroNews, Sept. 9). Your perspective made me think about the loss of personnel in a new way. It's true, not just any engineer, or Ph.D., can jump in and work in an industry where experience not only counts but is critical to success. I planned our family summer vacation around visiting the Kennedy Space Center in Orlando—it was incredible! We were able to talk to an IBM Engineer who worked 20 years ago on the rockets and also got to meet a Shuttle astronaut. Also went to the Astronaut Hall of Fame. The pride I felt in what these folks and the workers behind them accomplished brought me to tears. I wanted my children to learn about our history so that they can plan a future that includes space exploration and the technology that can be also used in day-to-day living.