as derogatory and provocative a term as one can get, from someone supposedly a journalist on the lookout for cool-headed truth. At least you didn't call them deniers, a seemingly deliberately planted term which some people now understand as meaning that such individuals claim the whole 9-11 episode never happened at all. Comment number 28. And Mr. Rudin, We Are Change NY, does not speak for the entire "truth" community. Please don't conflate their opinions with those of everyone else who question the official conspiracy theory as to what happened on 9/11. Comment number 29. Delminster provides the usual mocking, Peter talks about the Kennedy killing. Glasgow gooner pitches in with more derision, Silk seems to think the environmental debate has something to add to the issues involved. Others rattle on about Bush being an idiot as all the proof they need. All very interesting but none of it anything to do with 9/11. Silk even tells us he saw the 2nd plane hit, so he must know who was behind it. Don't quite follow his logic unless he could see attwa and co through the cockpit window. Poor old sdemetri writes a massive amount on the technicalities of the nist collapse theories, best ignored by those who don't believe. Call him an alien or tell him you once built a sandcastle and it fell over. But whatever you do never actually argue about the facts or treat the subject with anything approaching logic. Bring on the mockery, I feel