Why does Alternet feel such a big need to shut down 9/11 discussion?

personally, i don't get it... it seems to me that there are way too many questions still surrounding 9/11, so why are there some people so heavily invested in discounting some questions but not others...? i think it's a shame to find a supposedly liberal, progressive, dedicated-to-free speech outlet like alternet stooping to questioning someone's right to ask intelligent questions and to demand comprehensive, truthful answers... however, i have noticed it's been a pattern with alternet, both with joshua holland in this article as well as with matt taibbi's screeds (here and here)...

[H]er comments on that day's show represented the worst of the left's conspiratorial tendencies; Rosie ran with the great intellectual fallacy that supports the 9/11 "Truth" movement: Anything not adequately explained by the official investigations into 9/11 are de facto evidence of an inside job...

that was bad enough, but then he has the nerve to define the debate for us...

What might have led to a challenging debate about the close ties between the Bush administration and terrorist financiers, or about the United States' unshakable relationship with the Saudi Royal family or the nature of our energy policy or the toll of American militarism emerged instead as an easily-refuted argument based, at the end of the day, on a talk-show host's knowledge about the melting point of steel.

don't define my debate for me, please... until i see a comprehensive, analytical, forensic report onthe twin towers, WTC-7 and the pentagon, i am going to continue to have some serious questions... what totally astounds me is why we haven't seen one...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet