Xanthro, you've been one of the best critical thinkers here, so consider; We can't know. With the data available, it's impossible to determine "what really happened."

For myself, I don't subscribe to any theory, I also consider official explanations largely not credible, for many of the same reasons the "nuts" do.

The facts that are credible are those seen by millions: some kind of airplanes hit the towers, and later they fell. And the Pentagon was damaged on one side, leaving one ring section essentially destroyed. And a airliner crashed ( in Pennsylvania.. IIRC )

There. That's it. That's what I'm certain is true.

Bin Laden, box-cutters, cell phones, demolition charges, 19 Arabs, *all* of this comes to me only from the adminstration via the media or the Internet. Since I know that official lies are not uncommon, and the world is swirling with deception, to me these "facts" are all tenative and conditional.

-------------------------------

Anyhow, Xanthro, why do you spend energy debating people who go out on limbs trying to prove something they can't know? The bulk of society, emotional and uncritical, must have a narrative and they have been given one.

The more critical, but still emotional conspiracy nuts you're debating also need a narrative, so they create their own with whatever skills they have. Their beliefs, while not well backed by hard facts, are no more damaging to society then the commonly accepted beliefs of the majority.

Don't you agree that a rational skeptic should accept his own ignorance, and leave the premature narratives to others?

"I'm with others who wonder about what purpose this article is supposed to serve. "

To bring up the topic, which is plenty.

I'm not impressed with Mr. Manjoo's logic, however in the current environment no credible publication would cover "Loose Change" in a non-skeptical way.

And Salon *is* linking to http://911research.wtc7.net/, a site that readers probably haven't seen. There is discussion about the issue. That's much more then we're getting from the mainstream media.

)

"You Dems are killing us. These letters represent more of an individualistic battle for recognition than they do political unity. That's where the Republicans got you beat hands down."

No doubt! There's real power in unity, and since a core liberal value is diversity of opinion, it would be hard for "liberal" Democrats to get their hands on this power without sacrificing an important virtue, the freedom of individual speech.

While watching a scene in "The Incredibles" where Mr Incredible is in chains. He takes a woman hostage and makes a mock threat to kill her if he isn't released. My son asked if Mr Incredible really was weak because he wouldn't kill her. ( The movie bad guy said as much. )

I said there's a tradeoff between virtue and power, and that the willingness to kill anyone is a power that the bad guy could use but since Mr Incredible couldn't do that, he had to be stronger in other ways lest evil triumph.

What powers have Republicans gained and what virtues have been lost?

Republicans have harnessed the power of deceit, abandoning the virtue of truthfulness.

The power of the Imperial President has diminished the virtue of individual freedom in America.

And most importantly, the Republicans use the power of fear, abandoning the virtue of calm and rational thought.

Too bad the Democratic Party is so weak ! Why can't they do what the Republicans do; lie and scare their way into office?

"This article is hiliarious. Strict father vs. nurturing mother? Neo-Freudian-Progressives? Idea-envy? Repackaging 'vaporware' to speak to the unconscious? Can you imagine a party more nakedly bereft and adrift?"

Glad you're having fun, but Rove knows psychobabble, and he's been using it on red state voters for years.

Just because Rove doesn't talk to *you* about the pyschological tools of the trade doesn't mean he doesn't use them. He does, they work.

Thom Hartmann ( www.thomhartmann.com ) has been reporting on Berlusconi for over a year now, so this is old news to Hartmann fans. ( podcasts and streaming audio available from www.whiterosesociety.org )

But contrary to Mr. Manjoo's spin ( again! sigh... ) Bush is not less dangerous then Berlusconi. Just because Bush doesn't own the media doesn't mean the media isn't owned by Bush.

And America has a much bigger boot on the world then does Italy, geographical appearances aside.

"Israel was just minding it's own business when, for no reason, Arabs attacked."

Once, maybe twice, perhaps. But the "story line" isn't credible anymore. And this "crazy Arab terrorists" spin is intellectually insulting.

I have a feeling, just a guess, that there's a few important facts that the media isn't reporting.

Stories about how fair and honest the settler-invaders were or how callous and duplicitous the natives were should be met with extreme skepticism, especially when told by supporters of the invaders.

And the stories are irrelevant. No matter how nice the Israelis were or are, the Arabs don't want them there. And the Arabs have been there much longer, and there's more of them, and after 700 years of Ottoman oppression, the Arabs are probably prepared to wait to get their way.

But I'm really getting sick and tired of the "anti-Semite!" whining from Israel supporters. I love Jews, I *really* love Jews, but the Holocaust doesn't give Israel the right to do anything it wants or kill anyone it wants.