Parish
You Need to Do the Research
RECEIVED Fri., June 22, 2007
Dear Editor,
Re: “Page Two” (June 22): Louis, since you have chosen to weigh in (heavily) on the 9/11 debate, I think it would be beneficial if you could let the readers know whether your comments are based on research on the topic or just philosophical observations about the nature of conspiracy theories. For example, Matthew Rothschild's articles at The Progressive based his articles on 9/11 on a read of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Popular Mechanics article. Since you promised a part two on the topic, it seems only fair to request that you let us know what research you have conducted on the issue.
Re: “Page Two” (June 22): Louis, since you have chosen to weigh in (heavily) on the 9/11 debate, I think it would be beneficial if you could let the readers know whether your comments are based on research on the topic or just philosophical observations about the nature of conspiracy theories. For example, Matthew Rothschild's articles at The Progressive based his articles on 9/11 on a read of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Popular Mechanics article. Since you promised a part two on the topic, it seems only fair to request that you let us know what research you have conducted on the issue.
John Young
[Louis Black Responds: Obviously there is a library's worth of materials on 9/11 coming from all different directions and representing an enormous range of views. I tried to make it clear that this was a philosophical rather than analytical piece. Unfortunately, I feel that the dialogue engaged in with conspiracy theorists is pointless. They cite their position. A debunking source is offered. They discount the source. I'm sure they feel the same way about conspiracy debunkers. Joining the argument is entering the maze; my comments were on the maze itself.]
