Then maybe it would be more constructive and less confrontational to ask not, Do you believe the Official Story? but rather something like, Do you believe there remain unanswered questions?
I've seen what happens on DU and elsewhere whenever the question is phrased that way. All the LAREDS and Nomos come rushing in, saying:
"Duh! Well, OF COURSE there are still unanswered questions! Why were the FBI and the CIA not communicating properly with each other? How come our elected leaders were asleep at the wheel? What have we learned from our mistakes on that day? ..."
Etcetera. You see what happens: the actual meat of the matter (avoided for fear of confrontation) is left entirely unaddressed, so the LAREDS and Nomos happily re-frame the issue to suit their purposes. Which leaves us exactly where we started. That's not constructive, that's a chronic waste of time.
9/11 activists used to talk about questions. Today, too often, they sound as though they have all the answers.
Sure, some of 'em. But so what? When tens of millions of people disbelieve their government, then some of them are going to talk nonsense, inevitably. That's so obvious as to be barely worth mentioning, but these days you never stop mentioning it.
And it's not the subject of this thread: One guy asking a brief, important and perfectly reasonable question, who was then shut up for it by Democratic Underground. He wasn't claiming to have any answers at all. It was DU that found his question intolerable. In this, America's biggest "left-liberal" message-board strongly resembles the corporate media, which do in fact claim to have all the answers. ("Al Qaeda snuck up on us and dunnit.")
less confrontational
It cannot possibly not be confrontational. (Which is not the same thing as saying it must be gratuitously rude or frothing-at-the-mouth.) We are talking about a crime of mass murder used as a permanent casus belli and as a justification for draconian changes to the laws of the USA. A huge number of people, perhaps even a majority of the US population, still refuses to contemplate any suggestion that their leaders were not wholly surprised by The Day That Changed The World, but in fact profited from it. In this, they resemble cult members.
So how can the topic not be confrontational? I can understand anyone who would prefer to avoid the confrontation, or to terminate it; but it is simply not avoidable or terminable without complete surrender, which is an even more frightening prospect.
And yes, I fully agree that "9/11Truth" can be a real fucking drag, no doubt about it. But it still beats 9/11False by a mile.
PS: Yesterday, 80 months on, Barack "Change" Obama was still waffling on about defending "the American people" from "the threat of Al Qaeda".Still. And he's America's Best Hope for the next four years, allegedly. So what does recent history tell us about the true size and seriousness of that threat? Millions of lives and billions of dollars still depend on a serious and honest answer to that question. We can refuse to confront the issue, or we can be sick to death of it, but it is not going to go away.
, or did you also employ a 14-year-old girl 
as your private tutor 
?
