Don't ascribe that sentiment to me, stick to the fact that you said no one has considered what these people have said and when I did I found it didn't support your position at all.
> Ellsberg is very much like most in the 9-11 Truth movement ...
That's where I'd have to disagree. And that's likely the root of this whole thread: you think Ellsberg, and whatever credibility he brings to the table (uncontested by me, he seems like a thoughtful guy), is "very much like most" of the 9/11 Truth movement. If that were true, you wouldn't have even Popular Mechanics devoting ink and paper to debunking the persistent silly claims of that movement:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
> they have doubts and are searching for the truth ...
I guess this is called straw-man? No one here doesn't have "doubts" and certainly there is much more for us to know/learn. No one here is squashing anyone's doubts. No one here doesn't know how manipulated and deceived we all have been in the days, months, years after 9/11. And the side-show with 9/11 is full of interesting angles of "involvement" -- but don't forget the difference between "involved" and "commited" ... in the ham and egg sandwich, the chicken is "involved" but the pig is "commited" ...
> [Ellsberg] thinks that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or
> psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration.
Or frankly any administration, he says. So? Because he believes (quite rightly) that this kind of thing has happened in the past and will no-doubt happen again in the future, you (and certainly his interviewer!) jump to the conclusion that "it must be so!" -- well, I don't see it that way, and I think the people who are frustrated with this thread don't think so either.
Perhaps we're all just misunderstanding your position; so maybe we need a litmus test? I'll take these from the PM article above.
Do you, Joseph, believe:
- That the Pentagon was struck by a missile - That the WTC was razed by demoliltion-style bombs - That Flight 93 was shot down by a white jet - That the planes which struck the WTC were not commercial, but military - That the US Government or agents within it instigated or allowed it to happen in order to advance an otherwise unlikely agenda
And finally:
- That these are repsentative of the 9/11 Truth movement
These are some of the major sticking points by critics of the 9/11 Truth movement, so unless/until you can separate these issues from whatever else you're trying to accomplish (hey, maybe whatever group you're talking about has disavowed these other cranks!), you'll keep running into this. Characterizing these points as accepting uncritically the Official Story just doesn't make any sense.
So let's just leave it there.
/jordan