A thought occurred to me last night. I'm sure that this will generate the usual quantity of heat (and little light) on both sides, but I'm struck by something what is a very simple distinction.

It is possible for me to say "I know that what I've been told is wrong" without, at the same time saying "... and I know what happened instead." The counter-argument against disbelievers of the official theory is ridicule - "Oh, so I suppose that you're firmly in support of the theory that the little green men from Mars came down and vaporized the people on those planes and caused all the other damage."

The simplest thing for anyone to say *at any point in this process* is "I don't know."

Using the attack on the pentagon (simply because that's generated the most interest with the release of additional "video"):

Question: "What hit the pentagon?"
Answer: "I don't know. I *do*, however, strongly believe that it wasn't a 757 flown by an unlicensed pilot."

Please note, if you will, the specificity of my answer. I have not said it's impossible for it to have been a 757 flown by a highly skilled pilot. I believe that's highly unlikely, but I haven't ruled that out.

I am willing to approach the question from a more objective (and more skeptical) perspective. I am a private pilot. I've flown small aircraft (from the "left seat") and I have strong doubts, based on personal experience, about how difficult it would be, for an untrained pilot, to: 1) figure out how (navigationally-speaking) to get a plane from the middle of nowhere to the pentagon; 2) perform the descent maneuver that is supposed to have occurred; 3) bring a plane in for a pinpiont impact on a wall without having the plane "float" due to ground-effect underneath the wings.

I also disbelieve that a plane will collapse into the outline of its own fuselage, vaporizing most of the major components of the airframe yet still allowing significant DNA evidence to be found of the passengers.

Do I know, instead, what happened? No. I do know, though, that the official explanation does not fit with the *experience* that, I believe, any licensed pilot has with the difficulty of flying even a light plane.

Please when responding to this, don't assume that I support or endorse *any* particular theory of how things *did* happen. Grant me, without attempting to insult my intelligence nor credulity, the right to have significant doubts and be skeptical.

Rather than going on the attack in support of the official theory, examine your own experiences. Determine whether you, too, have doubts about *any* aspects of the official theory. You don't have to have an answer for what *did* happen. You merely need to agree that what you've been told is what *didn't* happen.

Caveat: I have a position on the story of what happened on 9/11/01. I will try my best to ensure that my position does not interfere with my point.

I've been watching the threads popping up all over about the newly released video / pictures of the impact of something (plane, missile, VW bug hurled from a slingshot, whatever) on the Pentagon.

One thing that strikes me the most is the vehemence with which *BOTH SIDES* hold to their arguments. I don't see any middle ground or even an attempt at rational debate. Both sides ("It happened exactly the way we were told" and "That's definitely not a plane and you should just open your eyes!") hold to their beliefs with a passion that is astonishing to witness.

I would even go so far as to claim that all sides hold to their beliefs with religious intensity. It's the only other time that I've seen such furor over what should be able to be discussed with logic, fact and reason.

Consider, if you will, someone who came up to you (in the generic "you" sense) and suggested that the world was truly flat, not this spherical-ish ball that we've all been led to believe we live on. Would you attack this person? Or would you, at best, laugh at them and then go to show them the evidence that proves that the world is, in fact, round?

Why do we not have the same level of discourse about 9/11? I'd suggest that it's because both sides have invested their beliefs with enough of themselves that, hearing a contrary opinion, they feel that they themselves are under attack, not merely the ideas. As such, any detractor must be, gasp, a heretic...

"Burn the witch! Burn the witch!"

Please, before posting a heartfelt belief on either side, consider why you hold the beliefs you do and remember that you are not your beliefs, nor are you your ideas. Let us, collectively, have the ability to discuss this with more light and less heat.

Edit: to give credit where credit is due, the above was based in part on having, a while ago, read an essay by Paul Graham, What You Can't Say.