Some years ago I developed a thyroid deficiency. The condition went undiagnosed for several years, during which time I acquired many of the symptoms of paranoia. I can testify that I never at any time felt that the problem might be with me: I could always find 'reasons' why my bizarre beliefs were justified.

The speed and completeness with which I recovered, when the condition was diagnosed and treatment provided, came as a revelation to me about the extent to which we are all victims of our own biochemistry. And if I were Minister for Health I would recommend a biannual blood test for everyone -- especially those embracing what are generally regarded as conspiracy theories.

This is a depressing example of what passes for journalism in Australia. The author is either credulous, too lazy to actually examine the evidence, or just another media hack content to espouse the virtues of the official conspiracy theory but unable or unwilling to actually think about the topic he so willingly debunks.

Those of us who have actually researched the events of 11 September 2001, including reading the scientific literature and several excellent books on the topic are frankly sick and tired of the ignorant half truths that are trotted out to debunk those who question the official story.

What is equally galling is that outlets like OLO are no better the the mainstream media. They publish rubbish like this article but never, ever, will publish an article that actually sets out the argument as to why the official story is so wildly improbable.

Only the terminally naive believe that the US government (or other governments for that matter) is incapable of killing innocent people to advance a geopolitical agenda. 350 words is not enough to list the documented examples on this point alone.

The title to the article is about the only unqualifiedly correct aspect of it, but not for the reasons the author imagines.

I can't help but see that as a cop-out, James O'Neill.

>>350 words is not enough to list the documented examples on this point alone<<

You should take your lead from Arjay, and at least give it a shot - he manages to cram in a great deal of nonsense into each 350-word opportunity, as I am sure you could, if you tried.

Just a word, though, about those "documented examples". If you do make the attempt to expose the incidence of governments murdering civilians in the pursuit of their "geopolitical agenda", it might be a good idea to check your facts a little more rigorously than Arjay does - in fact, even a cursory glance towards reality would be a distinct improvement. It is far too easy to see through the cut'n'paste process, which relies upon repetition, rather than fact, to make its way into our consciousness.

Yeah, I know, I'm wasting my breath. But think of it this way - I have only your best interests at heart when I explain these things to you. Most people ignore you because you are silly. I pay attention to you because I care.

What is silly about the whole 11/9 thing and the towers as an excuse
to invade is that the US could have got all the oil they wanted by
bidding $1 more than the market price.
Hell of a lot cheaper than going to war.

ps why I say 11/9 is because I refuse to comply with US date format !

>>Only the terminally naive believe that the US government (or other governments for that matter) is incapable of killing innocent people to advance a geopolitical agenda.<<

Of course the US government is capable of killing innocent people to advance a geopolitical agenda. That's not what's in issue when it comes to the 9/11 conspiracies: what's in issue is whether it was the US government or a bunch of Saudi terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

My money is on the terrorists: it seems a lot more probable than the Bush administration being able to plan, execute and then conceal such an intricate operation without fcuking it up. Now there's a wildly improbable theory if I ever heard one.

Cheers,

Tony

@Pericles: your solicitousness brings a tear to my eye. Like the author of the article you persist in ignoring the facts and purport to know whether "most people" think my arguments are silly or not. Done a survey have you? I prefer to address the issues.

Since you say you "care" may I suggest you start by learning about Operation Northwoods, to many a template for "9/11". Read Robert Stennis' book "Day of Deceit". Reflect on Madeleine Albright's admission that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children who died as a result of the US led sanctions between 1991-2003 was "worth it". Then think about the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to the present in wars justified by the false story of 9/11. All of this is well documented even if you prefer to sneer rather than learn the facts.

@Tony: To ask whether it was the Saudi terrorists or the US government that carried out the attacks is to pose a false dichotomy. The issue is vastly more complicated. Read Peter Dale Scott's American War Machine and David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor Revisited for a careful review of the evidence. Blowing away the official fairy tale is not the same as claiming to know all of what happened. Most serious researchers want a proper investigation which we know is unlikely to happen.

Then I suggest you read the peer reviewed scientific literature on the destruction of the 3 WTC towers. Clever chaps these Muslims: able to defy the laws of physics!