Originally Posted by who

I think that those who believe everything the government says have some unnatural desire to 'hate' those who don't believe everything the government says.

What should be an intelligent argument where the opposing sides state their facts, their opinions, and their ideas, is always, always just one side calling the other side names. The government supporters do very little to make convincing arguments, other than calling their opponents 'stupid', insulting them, and making themselves look immature. Take 'scottybuzz' for example - has no idea what he's talking about, couldn't formulate an argument, other than saying people who believe in conspiracies are 'idiots'.

Franck if you want a proper discussion about this kind of large-scale conspiracy theory, you have to keep emotions out of it. And it doesn't help to be supported by people such as 'scottybuzz'.

If you believe the 911 crap was not a conspiracy, but someone else does, help prove to them that they are wrong! Opinions help in arguments, but need to be backed up by facts and evidence. I don't think anyone in here has any evidence one way or another.

Personally, I have looked at what I believe to be the 'facts' surrounding 911, I've looked at the official statements, and all the other stuff floating around, and I just can't accept the official position on it. Whether or not there was a huge-scale plot by the government to kill a bunch of people and destroy the towers - is not the issue. The issue is that many points the government has made are lies, many of the actual events and circumstances have been skipped, glossed over or manipulated. That constitutes a conspiracy. Thinking so does not make someone a 'conspiracy nut'.

I'm sure many facts the government released were true indeed - but even if they covered one minute detail up with false information - that creates a conspiracy.