posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:18 AM
This message is for the OP and others who may wish to challenge the conspiracy theorits.
I hold the "conventional" belief of what happened on 9-11. I am of the belief that the WTC towers were hit by two planes and they were destroyed as
a result of the planes hitting the builiding and not some other factor like bombs being planted in or around the builing. I am of the belief the WTC
was destroyed by Al Qaida, and not some other entity like the CIA or Israel.
There are many people on this board who do not share my "conventional" beliefs about what happened on 9-11. While using "conventional" arguments
might be persuavive to the overwhelming majority of people out there, people who do not share the "conventional" belief about what happened on 9-11
will never be persuaded by these conventional arguments. Using "conventional" arguments to persuade to 9-11 conspiracy theorists is like using the
Bible to pesuade an atheist.
Just as an atheist feels the Bible is a man-made work of fiction, as opposed a divinely inspired truth, the conspiracy theorist feels mainstream media
reports of 9-11 are fabrications rather than reliable sources of information. It is almost impossible for someone with the "conventional" view to
bolster their arguments with facts when arguing with a conspiracy theorist because the facts the "conventional" view person has will come from
mainstream media which the conspiracy theorist will find untruthful. Similarly people who hold the "conventional" point of view are skeptical of
the facts and authorities cited by the conspiracy theorists.
So in short, if you hold the "conventional" point of view, you have to learn to argue using unconventional facts and sources. You should bolster
your argument not with what you read in The Economist or the Wall Street Journal, but what you have read in conspiracy literature.