So…. I read this column by Cynthia Janak last week.  It was a column asking "questions" about the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC.  It seems that Ms. Janak has come under the spell of the 9/11 deniers — people who insist that there was something screwy about the attacks that day (with the implication that our government — and not Al Queda — was behind the attacks).

For reasons passing even my own comprehension, I sent her a polite email attempting to answer some of her questions.  We had a pleasant exchange. Here, for example, is one of the emails I received from Ms. Janak:

Ken,

Thank you for the information.  I did a brief scan of the website and I will so an in-depth read of it later.  I did check out some pictures of the plane with its landing gear down.  I put both photos next to each other and the exaggeration of the landing gear looks like a stretch but I could be wrong.  Give me your opinion.

The comparison photos are in the attachment.

The windows being blast proof makes a lot of sense.  I am not an engineer and I do not know about blast-proof glass.  That is why I asked the question.

Question:  Please help me understand how a solid mass can go from being solid to almost liquid?  From what I remember from science class this is not possible.  Help me understand.

Once again thank you for your email.  I appreciate the insight that you have given me.

Cynthia Janak

And this is how she recounted our exchange in a subsequent column:

One person was very nice and explained or tried to explain the differences. The one that made the most sense to me was the Pentagon windows. He stated that they were made to withstand an explosion. The only thing that I thought was rather humorous about our email exchange was that the more he tried to explain my pictures the more questions he raised for me.

That’s true, and it was humorous — but only because it became clear after a few email exchanges with her that she had — well, how to put it nicely? — a screw slightly loose.  She keep on emailing with "questions" and eventually she struck me as unneccessarily paranoid.  Sincere, kind, but just a little paranoid when it came to this 9/11 thing.

So it’s not a huge surprise to read, again in her latest column, that she’s gone around the bend.  You see, right after writing her column about 9/11, Ms. Janak started having computer problems:

Periodically, my computer acted as if someone else was working my mouse or my mouse would function abnormally. My tech friends had a hard time figuring out what the problem was. The only way to make it go back to normal was to shut down my computer and start over.

And that’s not all:

My phone clicks and makes strange noises.

Her conclusion?

Some entity of power is trying to disrupt my reporting of the truth. Why, it depends on who the entity or entities are.

All I can say is that I hit a nerve with my 9/11 article and I must be getting too close to the truth.

Yeah, that’s it, Ms. Janak.  They’re after you.