> > I will debate it, but I doubt that either you or Judy are
> > really interested in dialectic for the sake of finding truth
> > rather than for the sake of beating someone else, which
> > desire is all too evident in the rhetoric.
> >
Judy wrote:
> Please do not attribute to me positions you haven't
> seen me state unambiguously, because you're very
> poor at guessing what I think.
>
> Just to throw a little confusion into your smug
> certainty:
>
> I agree with you that the Popular Mechanics article
> has been largely debunked (don't know if every last
> point has been, but many have; it was a sloppy job,
> to say the least).
>
So, where is the debunking? Alex Jones?
> I don't reject out of hand the possibility that the
> CIA and Mossad assisted bin Laden in the 9/11
> attacks, nor that there was some interference with
> scrambling fighters to intercept the hijacked planes.
>
What, exactly, would lead you to believe that there was
some interference with scrambling fighters?
> I find it plausible--not necessarily probable, but
> plausible--that some within the government and/or
> the intelligence agencies knew about the planned
> attacks and helped facilitate them.
>
> I do reject the "controlled demolition" and "missile
> hit the Pentagon" theories, not out of hand, but
> after having done a lot of reading both pro and con.
>
> And I will say that anybody who would unquestioningly
> swallow the ridiculous notion that the right of black
> people to vote in this country "expires this year" is
> capable of swallowing *anything*.
>
> So stop posturing about "dialectic for the sake of
> finding truth" when you aren't willing to do the most
> minimal research to verify a claim (such as, for
> instance, reading the U.S. Constitution).
>
