They read too much into 4 things:

1. The former military pilot flying the hijacked airplane is not in the least unusual. Most airline pilots are former military pilots.

2. The idea of the airplane being used as a missle has been around since oh... since Oct. 15, 1944. To say nothing of Tom Clancy's novel "Debt of Honor".

3. The World Trade Center in Cross Hairs on the cover of the report.... Of course it was in the crosshairs. It had already been attacked once.

4. Terrorism insurance on the building... Of course it had terrorism insurance. Most skyscrapers in big cities have terrorism insurance and have had for many years. The Trans America Building in SF has enormous insurance costs (it is the most distinctive bldg. in SF) that make it difficult sell.

I might think of other things later.

"More narratives are *always* better. "

Is that something you really belive? Do you see any problems with it?

Generally it is something I believe and try to live by, although I constantly judge others for having different views (even if I only imagine them to have different views).

I believe it especially important when the source of the dominant narrative is untrustworthy - and I classify the American Gov't and most Gov't as such. Gov'ts serve God in keeping miscreants in line (and that not too well) but they do generate spin that needs correction: like when the Christians denied that Caesar was god.

After thoughts:

Some narratives, of course, may be designed as lies, or jokes, or even as complex critiques of other narratives: they are patently untrue.

Such stories still serve to raise questions in the minds of participants in the discussion: questions which can provoke meditation, deeper exploration and uncovering of more truth. Look at the way the so-called Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, currently popular among the same people that brought us the "Darwin Fish", can allow us to evaluate the meta-marrative of "Intelligent Design" - which some on both sides of the debate seem to see as equal to the Biblical story.

More importantly, the FSM causes us to evaluate what others see when they look at us: they don't see the Gospel, they don't see Christ. They think we're all hung up on creation vs evolution and taking over the public schools. In fact, they think that's so important to us, they've decided to make fun of it. We can learn from their humour what we're saying wrong.

yes there's also more discussion, more viewpoints, more information and maybe that's better for the sake of getting closer to the truth. but the way this is getting there is by demonstrating what it is not (even though they will say it is how they are showing it).

and 11.09.2001 was not an inside controlled demolition for the sake of financial exploitation and insurance fraud.

in memoriam 11.09.2001

"was not" or even "was" can't be proven - any more than any other p.o.v. That's the point.

May they rest in peace.

More narratives seems to work pretty well for the men who wrote those books collectively referred to as the bible, as well as the writings of the early fathers, and later ones.