anastasia: Thank you for coming to my defense, if not of my position on 9/11, at least against Artful Dodger's admittedly ad hominem style of debate. But don't be too hard on him. He has learned it from those he admires in the media, the Rush Limbaughs & Shaun Hannitys, etc. I certainly don't expect Dan or anyone else to believe my contention about 9/11 (that it was an inside job with terrible ramifications for America and the rest of the world), based on my bare assertion. It is a matter, however, worthy of deep & impartial investigation, which neither has been done officially nor privately by Dan or most people who post here. So how, in such a case, could they rationally agree with me? What I hope to do is stir enough interest that some (never all) will investigate for themselves. If I can't manage this, I have still honorably stood my ground & debated my point.

The discussion of politics DOES take thick skin! And one of the first obstacles one must overcome in debate is the irrational, yet effective (for unthinking people) tactic of Ridicule. This method is normally employed by those whose arguments are otherwise weak or, perhaps, nonexistent. Everyone has an opinion, but we ought to base our opinions on evidence, not so-called authority...if, that is, we are concerned with truth.

So please post your views, Anastasia, including, if necessary, your opinion that Artful Dodger's methods are sometimes less than fair. :o)