I heard Robert Fiske talking a bout 9/11 and he of course prefaced his comments with the familiar I am not a conspiracy thoerist. Fiske is one of the few who will actually say that there are questions surrounding 9/11, but he must still distance himself from the CT's. What facinates me is whow the topic turns logic upside down. The question of a persons standing towards 9/11 should be judged on how well they can quote established facts, use rational inferences, and set in the event in the proper historical context. Instead we start by framing them as someone who has done the opposite, as in someone who started with a belief about the ultimate cause of 9/11 and then looked for facts to support such a conclusion. Conclusion are the result of honest investigation, and the CT term seems to allow people to cut of the need for honest discussion with the indictiment.
I wonder if people have heard of this Cam Sundersteen (sp?) fellow in the Obama administration who has written a paper of the dangers of the 9/11 truthers. He even suggests that government infiltraters in the truth groups will be requested to perform terrorist acts as part of an initiation process. This guy tries to do a very logical beakdown of 9/11 an the public dialouge, but one thing is missing. Nowhere does Mr Cam suggest that any kind of panel or other public forum of discussion about 9/11 should happen