Wolfgang, you seem not to understand that even the official version of events is a "conspiracy theory" (Carol)

A theory involving a conspiracy is something else than a conspiracy theory. Of course, conspiracy theorists (but not only them) have tried since long to change the meaning of that phrase, or rather, to broaden the sense of that phrase in such a way that it loses the original meaning.

I make a distinction and do not call each theory that has some people conspiring to do something a conspiracy theory. If you do not want to make this distinction it is up to you, Carol. But to post that I do not seem to understand just because I use an expression in its original sense, is silly.

Crap, BTW, doesn't become anything else by amassing a higher pile of it. It just becomes more crap.

There may be some gems hidden in all that crap, but they are hard to find. Don (or Ron?) is right: There are not two theories against each other, there would be hundreds more. Saddam could have planted the explosives to get his revenge for the first defeat and might have tried to blame Osama to get away with it. Doomsday Christians might have....

It is in a way the same poor thinking as in the creation against evolution debate. Creationists pick on problems in one of the evolution theories (there are many). They identify a problem and use it as if that was a proof for one completely different theory (their pet theory). Eventually, the problem is solved, then they pick on the next problem. Since these theories of evolution will never be complete, creationists will never be out of ammunition.

There is no way 9/11 conspiracy theorists will ever be satisfied by any answers.

Wolfgang