Regarding my previous claim that the 9/11 truthers need to come off as reasonable, not loony, here's an example:

You need to get off the fence paulpsd7. Both stories can't be correct any more than both stories can be incorrect.

Um, I don't know what limited reality you occupy, but in fact both stories can indeed be incorrect. If your worldview on 9/11 is limited solely to either the fact that 19 Muslim terrorists did it, or the Bush Administration did it, with absolutely no overlap between these two, and no possibility of any other options, then that says more about you than it does about 9/11. If, say, in a couple years time, President Obama starts hearing arguments like these to supporpt request to reopen the investigation, he'll look like a fool if he treats them seriously.

As to the Bush Administration's incompetence,while their socio/economic incompetence is beyond dispute, that image largely stems from the imbecile known as Bush. Bush didn't need to carry out the attack or plan it: they have the Pentagon and the CIA for that.

So, are you saying that Bush personally botched FEMA's response at Katrina, or that he personally botched the Iraq invasion? Meaning, he was there on the ground, running the show, and making bad decisions? Either that or you need to concede that it was the Bush Administration at large that was responsible for these fuckups, the exact same people you bestow omnipotence on for what they carried out on 9/11.

Flipping it over, you need to look at what you do believe- that a bunch of Saudi students from Hamburg, who could hardly fly a plane performed feats of military-style flying that only skilled and experienced pilots could possibly have performed.

While that indeed sounds implausible, compared to the notion that the Bush Administration scripted and executed a plan flawlessly, requiring the cooperation of hundreds of people to attack their own country and then remain perfectly silent about it, to me the Arab terrorist story sounds far more likely. Sorry.

NOTHING about 9/11 has actually been investigated since the 9/11 Commission was purely a PR exercise and as such was yet another scandalous waste of taxpayers' money.

On this we agree. However, in order for our government (once it's headed by someone not overwhelmingly malevolent) to reopen this investigation, they need to hear well-founded arguments, not absurd ones. The best thing all the 9/11 truthers can do to further this cause is to get the rhetoric in line with reason. Do not pretend to know things you could not know. Do not jump to radical conclusions. Just take what is currently known, and point to where it doesn't add up. That much is easy. Then, get an investigative panel with subpoena power to do the rest.

I know, none of this is easy. But it's really the only way forward. Otherwise, the 9/11 truthers will be marginalized like the flat earth society. And that would be tragic.

These are not the actions of an innocent victim.

Bill, this last post of yours was on much better footing! There are a bunch of elements to the official story that are unbelievable. Just present those, as you've done, and leave the answers for those with extra investigative resources and the power of subpoena.

In the end, we should simply point to the overall picture, and how a reasonable person would regard that: Are these the actions of innocent victims? The answer, for most people, would be "probably not." Many people pride themselves on their ability to reasonably assess a situation, even republicans. If the 9/11 truth movement were to focus on that approach, it would have a lot more success.

I want the FDA to keep me safe, not to support whatever opinion I have at any given moment. I want the FDA to tell me what I need to know to make rational, healthy choices and God knows I've got serious issues with how poorly the FDA does this (especially when it comes to prescription drugs).

I want all those things too. But I've got some bad news for all of us. The FDA doesn't do that. Instead, they're generally a channel for large agricorporations and other food corps to foist their products on the public, under the guise of providing health certification. There are some exceptions to this, when they take the public's interest to heart. But I believe these are more the exceptions than the rules.

Given that, I feel that it's really up to me to decide what I eat. I take the FDA's approval with a grain of salt, and do my own research. To that end, I would like to know if the food I'm buying contains cloned meat. Rather than have my dietary intake determined by how large the lobbying budget is at some of the cloned meat manufacturers, I would like it to reflect actual health issues and how they impact me. And the only one looking at things from that angle, unfortunately, is me.

Of course, my premise is that there actually is no material difference. If it were subsequently discovered that cloning does cause defects in food, I'd change my tune in a hurry.

Unfortunately, such discoveries turn up when people get sick or die. FDA approval is no guarantee that this will not occur. Not wanting to be one of those, I'd rather eat "the real stuff" until a few decades of cloned food consumption have passed with no ill effects.

Am I overstepping my rights here? Is my preference (which appears to be shared by most people) completely out of line?

When you're a commentator on Fox News, which is where Libby will be within a year.

I don't trust any politician who does not come out and say directly that Bush is a fool, a fraud, and far worse. Those who don't express this are ignoring perhaps the most important issue facing the country and the world, for political purposes.