Maybe I wasn't talking about you, Ron, but just about the human race in general. You have chosen to take it personally. I have noticed that people are set in their ways, okay?, and that includes their basic beliefs. You, however, may be an exception. Not for me to say.

What I am saying is that most people have an absolutely tremendous resistance to new ideas (if those new ideas aren't presented to them by Big Brother on every mainstream news outlet), and every pioneering scientist and radical new thinker in history has been well aware of that. Galileo, for instance...

It works this way: Someone comes up with a radical new idea that is in conflict with the ideas embraced by the ruling establishment of the day. First people great it with skepticism, laughter, and ridicule. Next....if the person with the new idea will not give up and go away, and specially if he begins to change a few people's minds...the laughter and ridicule then turn to insults and threats. Finally, if the society is a primitive enough one, the guy with the new idea is tortured into recanting or he is publicly executed, and everything goes back to "normal" for awhile, and most people are quite happy that that dangerous thinker has been dealt with and shut up.

Do you disagree that this is what has happened to a lot of radical thinkers in history who came out with an unconventional idea?

Now...some of them were wrong...but a good many of them were right, as we now know.

If a German citizen had said openly to other Germans, in 1939, that the Nazis were responsible for the war, that they were planning to murder Jews and other people wholesale and that they had already murdered quite a few people, and that they were betraying the very country they imagined they were serving.....what do you think most Germans would have said about that person? Would they have believed him? Certainly not.

I am saying that elements in the USA administration were probably deeply involved in planning 911 in some way, that they arranged it or helped to arrange it, possibly in concert with genuine Islamic terrorists attackers who may not have even realized they were being used as pawns by the neocons...and that they did it in order to:

1. Have a "Peal Harbor" type incident that would make Americans willing to go to war pre-emptively against countries which had NOT attacked the USA.

2. Invade Afghanistan, which they very much wanted to do anyway, in order to build oil pipelines through there from the Caspian region.

3. Next invade Iraq.

4. Nest invade Iran.

5. Next invade Syria.

6. Plus get rid of 2 white elephant buildings which were losing money and cash in on insurance claims.

7. Plus make a bloody fortune for their best buddies short selling airline stock before the disaster.

None of that pre-emptive war stuff could be done without first providing a massive and very visual provocation that would absolutely infuriate the American public and make them turn a blind eye to their government committing the most blatant large power aggression against small countries since Hitler attacked Poland and Norway and the Low Countries in 1939 and 1940. The provocation was provided.

I don't believe it was done just by a bunch of Muslim terrorists, and I don't believe that the airplanes alone brought those buildings down, and I most of all don't believe that building # 7 came down due to collateral damage. I think it was taken out by demolition charges, as were the others. Look at the way the fell, for God's sake. Have any other modern buildings fallen that way, right into their own footprint, which were NOT brought down by carefully placed demolition charges?

I have plenty of good reason to think so, just like you have plenty of good reason to think not. It's just a question of which aspects of the evidence you want to apply your powers of logic too...and it works this way: People who want a given conclusion sift through evidence, but they do it with an emotional bias...that emotional bias accepts certain evidence as "important" and discounts other evidence as "inconsequential". It interprets according to its bias.

Everyone does that. You do it. I do it. The thing is, though, I initially believed the official version of 911. Why? Well, it was all I had to go on. Naturally I believed it. Why wouldn't I when it was the only info generally available? I later found out a lot of other stuff, and I started not to believe it anymore.

Lack of respect for others' viewpoints goes both ways on this one, Ron.

The government's version of 911 IS a conspiracy theory...and one that I am not too impressed with, to say the least. I think they did it themselves...with a little help from the outside on the part of some Muslim fanatics? Yeah, probably, but they still did it themselves anyway, and for their own gain. Osama Bin Laden was just what the Neocon doctors ordered. He was perfect for their plans. Same deal for Saddam and the Taliban. Now they are joyfully grooming Ahmadinejad for the next official "maniacal bad guy", and praying that he will say something nasty that they can quote again and again on CNN and Fox, and rubbing their hands with glee whenever he does. Now a lot more than 3,000 people have died, and a lot more are on the way. And what for? The neocon agenda. Control the Mideast and Caspian oil. Terrorize any opposition through massive military power. Control the world.