Editor:
In going over John Gleeson's 9/11 opinion column (Coast Reporter, Sept. 13), I was unable to locate the "speculation and innuendo" that gobsmacked Ryan Klingmann (letters, Sept. 20), as the column consisted almost entirely of easily verifiable facts. That may explain why Mr. Klingmann was reluctant to challenge any of them, despite characterizing them as "unsupported allegations."
Mr. Klingmann must have still been reeling from being gobsmacked when he wrote his letter, as he failed to note the absurdity of his claim that searching for the truth only plays into the hands of those who would lie.
But leaving all that aside, the crux of Gleeson's column was simply that there is good reason for demanding an independent investigation. Why that would make anyone feel sick to his stomach, other than those with something to hide, is not easy to understand. I would be curious to see Klingmann's assessment of the two facts that even he would be unlikely to deny (though I can't, of course, be sure about that):
1) President George Bush attempted to obstruct the congressional investigation, eventually succeeding in having it restricted to very narrow parameters.
2) The U.S. government claimed that the Pentagon, the most heavily guarded building on the planet, had no video of the aircraft crashing into it.
George Kosinski, Gibsons
