9/11 theorists also point out that Building Seven of the World Trade Center, a building mostly undamaged by the collapses of the two main towers in the complex, came down in the same controlled demolition manner as Building One and Building Two of the World Trade Center.

Score one for the bubblehead herders and Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance. "Out of sight, out of mind."

How could the German people have killed 7 million Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and conspiracy nuts during the great war?

"Out of sight, out of mind."

I assume this article was prompted by someone trying to convince you to vote for Ron Paul. The thing is, you don't have to be a libertarian to support him. I'm for all sorts of crazy government intervention, like single-payer healthcare. I just don't think it should be done at the federal level. First of all, the Constitution gives the federal government explicit limited powers, none of which allow the vast majority of the things the federal government does today. The Supreme Court disagrees with me here, but if you look at the intent of the Founders, it's clear that the purpose of the federal government was to provide for a common defense, negotiate foreign policy, and to deal with issues that had direct interstate implications.
Even if we ignore the constitutional arguments for federalism, it's clear that it would be superior in a practical sense for more power to be held at the state level than the federal level. Individuals have more of a say over what happens at the state level than over what happens at the federal level, so more people could get their way if we didn't try to force one policy on the whole nation. The need for one policy to rule them all also results in bad compromises, like the universal healthcare policies being proposed by the Democrats. They suck, and they all know that single-payer is the right way to go, but it's not feasible at the federal level. They should just let the states take care of it, and we'll be able to see how various solutions work out in each state. Also, concentrating so much power at the federal level has led to the corruption and inefficiencies we see in our government today. If corporations had to buy off legislators in 50 states instead of just at the federal level, they would have a harder time perverting our democracy. So much money is wasted by congressmen who want to brag about how much money they brought to their district in federal funding. It needs to stop. Lower federal spending, lower federal taxes, and let individual states decide what they want to spend money on for things that don't have national implications.
The idea of more state power inevitably reminds people of the days when states did have more power and did stupid things with it, like, say, slavery. The good news is that the 14th Amendment prevents any state from doing things like that, and in the event that they do, the federal government has the authority to set them straight.
Pure libertarianism would never work, but any political philosophy that isn't informed by the principles of libertarianism runs the risk of throwing away the liberties that have been fought so hard for. Keeping power as close to the people as possible was the Founders' way of preventing the loss of those liberties, and if we don't return to such a system, all it will take is misguided people taking hold of that centralized power for bad things to happen. Some might say it already has.
Federalism: it just works.

Please forgive my tendency to give advice. Hopefully something here will be of use to you.

First off you should have a little more faith in your own ability to think and rationally analyze people's statements. Don't fall for the "I've got all the facts here" dodge. Statistical data is often used to distort or project a false image of reality. Just because a libertarian can spout off a bunch of statistical "facts" or make rational sounding arguments doesn't mean that they have a better understanding of anything. Most of the libertarians I've met are very well read - but only in libertarian literature. I have personally found them particularly weak in their understanding of history and the basics on how societies work. Thus I have personally found their view to be too limited to present a clear picture of anything. Don't let anyone bully you with rivers of "data". The data may be wrong and unless they give you some way to verify it yourself you should treat whatever they say as suspect.

The best way to understand the world is to read widely, not just one opinion or group, and make up your own mind. Don't rely solely on statistical data and if you do use it make sure it comes from a trustworthy source and represents a broad sampling.

Here's a tip - Anyone who bases their arguments on memorized statistical data, resort to ad hominem attacks on critics, or make emotional appeals, based on anger or "righteous" rage, against their opponents are not to be trusted (this applies to everyone, not just libertarians).

Here's another tip - Just because group A gets xyz correct doesn't mean they're right about everything else. There is an old saying: "A broken clock is right twice a day" The libertarians may be very right about some things and very wrong about others. You don't have to swallow theirs, or anyone else's, whole philosophy. Cherry-pick, be skeptical and follow up all claims with the necessary fact checking and reading. The result of this will be, hopefully, a more mature outlook - you will never become a "true believer" but you will be your own person.