Dear John,
You seem like a nice guy. You seem like an intelligent guy. I guess that's why it's so hard for me to understand your refusal to even consider any idea which doesn't fit the conclusion you've already drawn with respect to what happened on 9/11/01. I certainly understand (and even agree with) your objection that it's likely that someone would have talked about their involvement in such a hideous scheme. I don't know how to explain that this hasn't happened . . . except to point out that in a media-biased world, there is much that cannot be said loudly enough for anyone to hear it. At any rate, I don't understand why this point becomes a shield to deflect any other idea concerning what happened on that day.
I can't help but think of an analogy here. If the police were investigating a murder scene, would they begin by deciding that certain people could not have committed the crime? Obviously not. They would begin with the physical evidence and move from there, constructing hypothoses and drawing conclusions supported by the evidence they could discern. They would look for motive, opportunity, and advantage.
If we begin in like manner, perhaps you would at least see that there are anomalies in both the 9/11 event itself as well as in the subsequent investigation which would prompt, at the least, serious inquiry. To dismiss such evidence without consideration is simply not rational.
As a wise young friend pointed out to me, it's obvious that you don't want to risk appearing to be a "dupe" by lending easy credibility to an idea which is outside of the paradigm you've already constructed. Still, one who declares himself to be a skeptic certainly should not be so quick to dismiss, mock, and ignore.
Sincereley,
Brother K.
