…I am more of a fence-sitter [re:9/11] at this point,
My own position with regard to 9/11 is that, at this moment in time, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that any of the major explanations - (very loosely), the official version versus it was allowed to happen versus it was an inside job - are definitely true and explain every piece of evidence. Indeed, I'm probably closest to Peter Dale Scott, in his exploration of "Recurring Patterns in America's Deep Events" here (nb it's a 31-page pdf file):
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...,911,andWar.pdf
Therefore, I think it's absolutely right for journalists and everyone else to continue searching for and sifting the evidence.
I certainly don't adopt the position of Alexander Cockburn who seems to have genuine disgust for the 9/11 Truth movement:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3221
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...,911,andWar.pdf
Therefore, I think it's absolutely right for journalists and everyone else to continue searching for and sifting the evidence.
I certainly don't adopt the position of Alexander Cockburn who seems to have genuine disgust for the 9/11 Truth movement:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3221
I don't have an aversion to conspiracy, eg, I believe JFK was assassinated at the behest of the ruling cabal(Politico's Industrialists, JCS etc) Watergate was a trap set to catch Nixon, both MLK, and RFK were murdered by the same people who killed JFK, and for much the same reasons...October surprise, some elements of 911 etc, etc, I just don't happen to think that everything is explainable as a Political conspracy is all.
Jan, Kathy Steve and others ‘on the fence’ concerning 9/11, I am curious as to what points concerning 9/11 you have doubts about. I suggest the following: each of you mention your top (up to five) doubts, hopefully you will look over the existent threads to avoid rehash. The partisans of each side can give you their take.
