My print copy of The Nation just arrived, with a cover story on 9/11. In sharp contrast to its skimpy, disdainful coverage of the 9/11 Truth Movement in the past, the oldest, most respected progressive journal in America no longer ridicules or dismisses the movement. The title ("roots of paranoia") implies that skeptics of the government account are deluded, but have at least a reason to be skeptical. The article begins by noting that 1/3 of Americans believe the Federal Administration was complicit in staging 9/11, but then proceeds as if readers of The Nation were all in the other 2/3 (though, in fact, we might expect skeptics of the official account to be substantially over-represented among readership). It concludes by acknowledging that there is something worth investigating, while curiously stopping short of a demand for an investigation.

The article is written by an English professor, and its greatest logical pitfall is a misunderstanding of how science works. Hayes dismisses as "physical minutiae" the scientific demonstration that the official version of events was physically impossible in its broad outline. The central fact is that the way in which the Twin Towers fell - sudden, symmetric, with a rapidity that implies zero structural resistance - is not consistent with airplane impact or localized fires. Most readers of Op-Ed News know that there was a third tower that fell in the same way, looking to all the world like controlled demolition, and for which no official explanation has even been proposed.

Activists in this area will want to seize this crack in The Nation's shameful complicity in cover-up of the 9/11 story, and express their views both to The Nation and to Dr Hayes. Letters to the Nation can be submitted here. Christopher Hayes maintains a blog at http://www.chrishayes.org/. His email is christopherlhayes@gmail.com