> The nomenkaltura on this list have demonstrated over and over again over
> the last two years or so that they (you) are not open to questioning the
> official story regardless of the 'straightforwardness' of the questions
> posed. Whether the source is a left-winger or a right-winger - on this
> topic they will be subjected to variations of the same treatment.
> Indeed, as this thread has shown, the tendency is to latch onto or
> create diversionary red herrings in an effort to mutilate the point
> being made. Honest and straighforward debate, with a few exceptions, is
> studiously avoided.
Debate and discussion are avoided because you can't have a rational argument with the religion that are conspiracy theories. There's no point in having a discussion as long as those who disbelieve the official story believe every nutjob's conspiracy theory. It's like UFO cultists. It's either 100% with them or not at all. Every activist that I've run into that is into the 9-11 conspiracy stuff tends to believe all of the conspiracy crap about 9-11, like the crazy theory that a missile exploded into the Pentagon, or, this "controlled demolition" nonsense.
Now if you want to talk about the fact that there wasn't much independent research into the evidence from the attacks then I'm open for discussion. Missiles being fired into the Pentagon will force me to change the channel.
Chuck