Paul Zarembka wrote, "Concerning Mark's comment 'These folks are right in debunking the 9-11 silliness, which most of us do', I would agree that the official story is silly but I am not unsure he isn't himself supporting that official conspiracy theory of 9-11."
Why would it be one or the other? Must we pick lesser evils among conspiracy theories in order to make our credulity count? Many people say they want to be critical in their thinking, but some follow this statement with a leap of faith to the silliest things. Conspiracies are real and happen all the time, but they rarely have a big impact and, when they seem to, they are actually only factor in a much big picture--or (put another way) the symptom of a larger problem. A coherent explanation requires addressing an entire series of issues, if we remember to ask the impertinent question: "Why?" Remember Ockham's Razor..... Take the Iraq War. There clearly was a conspiracy of a small cluster of people to lie about WMDs, etc. to create a climate for war. There was probably a related conspiracy of some of the companies represented in Bush's inner circle to cash in on a war. However, none of it would have meant anything had not a lot of people in government and media who were not in the conspiracy went along with it. In the end, the corporate yes-men mentality is a much more tangible and descriptive model for these things than a conspiracy. Not asking tough questions, not rocking the boat is equated with "professionalism." Once domesticated in this way, lawyers can collectively embrace injustice, educators can accept the most anti-educational innovations, etc. Indeed, I don't think that many conspiracies would amount to anything without it.... Solidarity! Mark L.
