I've been reading this forum for a while, but this is my first post. I know there has been a lot of infighting on this forum recently and I wanted to post a few observations:

1.) It seems to me that the fighting that has been going on is due to frustration on every side. I myself believe that 911 was an inside job, but have come to no definite conclusions on exactly how it was carried out. I think it's ignorant to believe that any ONE theory can explain it all...and that's where the frustration comes in...and because of that...

2.) I think it's a waste of time to argue about the details. For those of us that agree that 911 was an inside job, we should not argue over the details of exactly how it was carried out. I don't mean we shouldn't debate. We most certainly should, but I see a lot of people who have already made up their mind about certain theories and refuse to look at the evidence with an open mind. I keep my mind open. Of course if the claim has no evidence that's something to point out, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue, and if any of it sounds like a possibility it should remain in the back of your mind until further detail comes out.

3.) The current hottest infighting seems to be centered around the "no plane" theory. Now I certainly understand the argument that it is hard enough to get people to believe that 911 was an inside job and that if you bring up "no planes" you are really going to lose them... and I think there is a great deal of merit in that argument. I personally don't know where I stand on the "no plane theory." Before I ever saw it publicly I thought the images of the planes going into the buildings were strange, but I have no idea at this point why that is. I also believe though that it is unwise to dismiss this out of hand because it sounds so wild...

4.) I guess the bottom line is, when you're talking about the details of the 911 inside job, the big answer to how it was all done is still to a large degree..."WHO KNOWS?!!" (I do acknowledge that some theories have more evidence than others.) Of course we should be cautious of those trying to sidetrack the truth movement, but if we begin to shut others out because of their beliefs than how are we any better than a government that censors us?

I do not believe it is a waste of time to argue the details of 9/11 at all.
Its better than not talking about it, at least its being communicated.
Talking about it in any manner is a plus. Facts can be found in any kind of conversation or debate.
And I also believe that no matter how silly the evidence may seem it needs to be discused among everyone.
And there is nothing wrong with rehashing old material, lets go over again and again until all clues have been found. Ill bet there are still facts in old material that people think is a closed case. This case is not closed.

I agree. Although some of the arguments may seem silly. If the topics are not debated, then no one in the future will learn from it.
I understand your point though, it is just the nature of the ATS community to allow all types of conversations to happen.

I say enjoy it.

I agree with you both..Infact, I think I might have been a little misunderstood. As I said, I think it's important to talk about these things, and debate. What I meant when I said that we shouldn't fight over the details was simply that even if we disagree on the specifics, as a movement, we should still work together to spread the truth of 911. I've seen recently groups of "truthers" being torn apart over a detail like what substance was used to bring down the towers. I do think we should debate it, and argue it silly if we have to, but I don't think it should cause people to split into different groups. It's counterproductive. That's all I meant....