- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Farhad Manjoo's articles often come across to me as "writing that wants to grow up and be real journalism some day."
Manjoo brings up a very controversial and touchy subject -- conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 -- and then barely does anything with it.
Manjoo's primary example, some crap about the plane shooting missiles before colliding, is hardly representative of most 9/11 conspiracies, which are based on a cumulative set of facts rather than any one outlandish, subjectively interpreted observation.
I don't "believe" any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but they do establish that the question should be left open, rather than just "believing" the official story. 9/11 is one of the most significant national events of the past 50 years, and it doesn't make sense for anybody to pretend we've got it all figured out just a few years later. In fact that is foolhardy and destructive. If people are asking questions and re-examining evidence, that's healthy. They shouldn't go overboard and pretend they've got all the answers, but nor should they be summarily dismissed.
I am a believer in the usefulness of Occam's Razor, which posits that the simplest, most direct explanation is often the correct one. But there are exceptions, and sometimes what seems simplest and most direct is anything but.
As circumstantial evidence, I do think it is important to look at how brazenly and frequently the Bush Administration has lied to the public about many other important matters.
Anyway, this thread looks like it will turn into just another 9/11 debate thread. I guess it's better than the threads about Manjoo's last few columns, which were glorified links to Ashley Dupre/Eliot Spitzer call-girl material.
