The main problem with trying to prove an alternate theory to an event is first in the wording of the theory or idea. Most conspiracy theories state that something (usually the official account) did NOT happen. Right away we find that we are trying to do the impossible – proving a negative. It is impossible to prove that something did not take place. First, your theory must be a positive one. Such as: “I believe X happened” and then evidence must be sought to support your claim. Attempting to debunk or finding problems with the official account does not count as any support for an alternate theory. Debunking theory A does not prove theory B to be correct, or C, or even D.

A good example is the Moon Landing conspiracy. The theory goes that “Man did NOT land on the moon”. So conspiracy theorists go and point out apparent problems and defects in the evidence that supports the official account and claims that this supports their so-called ‘theory’. This is not a scientific way of understanding what is true in our universe.

I do find it amusing how all of a sudden regular people are all of a sudden construction engineering experts in relation to the collapse of the towers. As if this sort of thing happens everyday. It is an almost singular and unusual event and yet people proclaim that a 747 could not cause the collapse of such a building! How could you possibly know this?!

In the meantime we lose certain rights, give the current administration the power to do whatever they please, and do not make them accountable for any mistakes.

This has nothing to do with “conspiracy” or any type of coping technique; it has to do with abstract thought and not believing whatever comes from the mouth of the media.

If you were told your dog spontaniously combusted in a bank, this would raise some pretty normal questions. For ex. 1. Why/how did it just explode? 2. Why was it in a bank? 3. Why am I not allowed to see the video tapes that prove your story?

If the official story was that your dog wondered in there because it was following someone eating a sandwhich and ate some alka seltzer, this would seem quite peculiar. Especially, if a bank guard is standing there with a smoking gun?

Simple solution is that banks have a lot of camera’s and it should be our right to view all the feeds from that exact moment to get the truth with our own eyes. If you would not supply that, then most people would take that as an admission of guilt. It is nothing ‘far fetched’, just a common sense reaction.

Couldn’t we say the same about people who accept the official story without question? Wouldn’t it actually make more sense to state that those who DO trust that their gov’t is incapable of malevolence need some sort of coping mechanism. After all, it’s much more comforting to believe in your gov’t as a benevolent protector – right?

If nothing else, look at Enron. I think we can all agree on the fact that here was a large and powerful entity where corruption existed at the top echelon. So if this can happen at Enron, why is it too far out to believe the same behavior could exist in another large and powerful entity?

One other thing. Shermer compares 9/11 truthers to Holocaust deniers. Actually, aren’t the good Germans who denied that the Holocaust was happening, as it was happening, more comparable to the good patriotic American’s who refuse to believe their gov’t could possibly be capable of anything malevolent. Fortunately, many of this Adminstrations lies (i.e. no WMDs in Iraq) have come to light. How many hidden lies still exist?