I don't find these sort of references to "implicit" stuff very productive. But even permitting that, your argument is unfair here, since I made this explicit:
> I
> am not being facetious here. I do not much believe in the alternate
> theories of 9/11. But I am curious about why the simplest (and most
> plausible) explanation has giant holes (at least for me).
And started with:
> I am hoping you will help me figure this out:
That is:
a) I think the most plausible explanation is that Atta and gang with financial support from Al Qaeda and some small amount of training, were able to exploit the disinterest of the Bush administration to fly large planes into buildings, causing [some of] them to collapse.
b) No other theories of 9/11 that I have seen satisfy me as much as the above (a) does.
c) However, I am personally puzzled by a few things, which could stem from my own misunderstanding (Hence my words: What am I missing? Is blah-blah easier than *I think*?).
d) Can you help me understand where my reasoning is failing me?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Smoke it or throw it in the trash.
I try to avoid psycho-analysing individuals, but since I have not been returned that favour ;-), may I suggest that the problem lies in the need to slot me in one or the other [typically binary] grouping? In a larger ideologically mixed crowd, shortcuts such as these are useful, at least to avoid wasting one's time. But within a group, especially a left-leaning group, this attitude does not make sense at all.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/