# Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041 "2009-05-20T03:24:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/481 "2009-06-08T21:52:29Z")
> [@Tamara+](#): > > I have not gotten around to reading this thread yet, but I believe David Ickes version, minus the reptilian crap. There is no debunking as no way the faa and norad would be that incompetant. Well I admit that I don’t know anything about David Ickes but you seem quite confident regarding how the FAA and NORAD work, so I’ll ask the same question I ask other people who state firm conclusions on technical issues: What is your educational background or work experience in the related areas that backs up your conclusions? For example, have you worked for the FAA or were you a flight controller? Did you work for NORAD? Are you a pilot, commercial or otherwise? Do you have some kind of education in flight operations or a similar topic? The point of this question is not to say that someone who doesn’t have a PhD in “Commercial Flight Operations” or whatever can’t have an opinion on the matter. However if you don’t know a subject thoroughly it’s hard to draw meaningful & accurate conclusions. Someone with working knowledge of the topic at hand may be able to explain something that at first glance appears odd. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/482 "2009-06-09T01:48:35Z")
Well, I used to have a pet chameleon and currently own a couple birds, and I can use that authority to claim that David Ickes is a loon. In addition, as an owner of a watch, I can say I wouldn’t believe him if he told me the time. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/483 "2009-06-09T02:06:22Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Combine that with the historical knowledge of kamikaze pilots, and it sure makes a mockery of the idea that 9/11 was totally unforeseeable, don’t ya think?. If that was the case, shouldn’t every person charged with protecting American soil at that time, have been fired, at the very least? > [@dropzone](#): > > Weeeeell, the pilot episode of “The Lone Gunmen,” but included a hijacked (by remote-control) airliner that was intended to fly into the WTC. This was broadcast in March, '01. Good thing I was the only person who watched that show. 😉 There were also at least two books by popular authors that had similar things happen (Dale Brown and Tom Clancy). Using a plane as a weapon was not impossible to foresee. The exact circumstances of this attack was very difficult to foresee. All the pieces to the puzzle were there but it is not easy to put the pieces together. That is real life. But hold the phone. Boxcar Willie??? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/484 "2009-06-09T03:01:22Z")
Yep, Boxcar Willie. In Ickes’ defense, Willie was more popular across the pond. Over here such an accusation just seems pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/485 "2009-06-09T04:06:14Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The reason we were able to topple the Taliban in a few weeks but are unable to control the country is the same reason that the Soviets were able to march into the country unopposed but were chased out a few years later. Same with the British. > We can march anywhere we like in Afghanistan and drop bombs anywhere we like, but that doesn’t mean we can conquer Afghanistan. And building a pipeline you can’t protect across a country you can’t control doesn’t sound like the kind of idea that hard-headed Masters of the Universe would support. > [@](#): > > ``` > Look, Afghanistan is fucked up. It was fucked up when we got there, and our intervention hasn't made it any less fucked up. It is barely a country. The government controls only the capital city. The rest of the country is controlled by various sorts of organizations--or rather, no organization can be said to control anything except where they have guys with guns > > ``` This point gets to perhaps my biggest unanswered question. So far I haven’t seen an answer. Were the US demands against the Taliban reasonable grounds for war? Here they are again: > [@](#): > > The United States requested the Taliban to shut down all al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, open them to inspection and turn over Osama bin Laden. I’d like someone to demonstrate that the Taliban could even do this. Succeed and you go a long way in undermining theories about other possible motives driving the Afghanistan War on Terror. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/486 "2009-06-09T04:16:05Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I’d like someone to demonstrate that the Taliban could even do this. What form of proof would you accept? Seriously, how would we demonstrate that to you? Regardless, if the Taliban couldn’t do this it then they couldn’t really object to an outside force going in and removing people who had attacked the US. If you can’t control the people within your borders you’ve failed one of the basic tests of nationhood. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/487 "2009-06-09T04:16:05Z")
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive] Were the US demands against the Taliban reasonable grounds for war? [/QUOTE] I’d say I’ve answered this several times now. I suppose it depends on what one thinks are ‘reasonable grounds for war’. By what definition exactly? We were certainly attacked in a vicious way. Several thousand US men, women and children were killed. It was the largest such attack in history. The people who attacked us were clearly using Afghanistan as their base of operations. The ruling government of Afghanistan was clearly aiding and abetting the people who attacked us. The ruling government of Afghanistan was adamantly opposed to to turning those who attacked us over to US (or any other) authorities. So…exactly what DO you think are ‘reasonable grounds for war’, if not that?? > [@](#): > > I’d like someone to demonstrate that the Taliban could even do this. Ok…if I can demonstrate another government who threw AQ out of their country prior to AQ going to Afghanistan will you be convinced? I ask this before I bother with yet another cite as this is getting a bit tedious. So…yes or no? If I can show you a cite that another government threw out AQ (under the threat of AQ and ObL being turned over to the US if they didn’t leave), will you be convinced? (it’s a trick question of course, because if you know your history at all you already know the example I’d be springing on you. And if you DON’T know your history on this, you really shouldn’t be in this discussion, to be honest) > [@](#): > > Succeed and you go a long way in undermining theories about other possible motives driving the Afghanistan War on Terror. No problem…except that you just don’t seem likely to be convinced this time either. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/488 "2009-06-09T05:48:14Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > What form of proof would you accept? Seriously, how would we demonstrate that to you? That’s a good question! Judging from my own cites, I’ve quoted everything from Wiki to Bin Laden himself. Surely there is an entirely separate debate about what would constitute meaningful bases of proof on SDMB. A good start would be a set of decently documented stories that link Bin Laden to the Taliban, and link the Taliban to full knowledge of the camps. Photos of Mullah Omar having Bin Laden try on the Cloak of Muhammad during a Free Afghanistan tea-sippers rally. Or… start with something to link them. > [@](#): > > Regardless, if the Taliban couldn’t do this it then they couldn’t really object to an outside force going in and removing people who had attacked the US. If you can’t control the people within your borders you’ve failed one of the basic tests of nationhood. They weren’t recognized as a nation by the US, and just about everyone else, to begin with. What the ‘outside force’ did was attack the Taliban. Again, the Argumentum ad baculum ``` If x accepts P as true, then Q. Q is a punishment on x. Therefore, P is not true. ``` If you don’t cough up Bin Laden, you are harboring terrorists. Viz the Bush Doctrine: > [@](#): > > “We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” And this, of course, means war. But Q does not imply P, so the issue of war is forced. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/489 "2009-06-09T06:22:07Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’d say I’ve answered this several times now. I suppose it depends on what one thinks are ‘reasonable grounds for war’. By what definition exactly? We were certainly attacked in a vicious way. Several thousand US men, women and children were killed. It was the largest such attack in history. The people who attacked us were clearly using Afghanistan as their base of operations. The ruling government of Afghanistan was clearly aiding and abetting the people who attacked us. The ruling government of Afghanistan was adamantly opposed to to turning those who attacked us over to US (or any other) authorities. I don’t intend to annoy you, really. But, ‘The ruling government of Afghanistan was clearly aiding and abetting the people who attacked us’. Cite? The material excised from the commission report at least suggests it was Saudis aiding and abetting those who attacked us. Plus Bin Laden was acting like a fugitive during this period. I’ve posted the links between the two groups that I could dig up. Feel free to add to them. > [@](#): > > So…exactly what DO you think are ‘reasonable grounds for war’, if not that?? War against who? Destroy the camps and capture/kill Bin Laden? Ok. The whole territory of Afghanistan? For 8 years? What are we doing??? (in reference to the stated reasons) > [@](#): > > Ok…if I can demonstrate another government who threw AQ out of their country prior to AQ going to Afghanistan will you be convinced? I ask this before I bother with yet another cite as this is getting a bit tedious. So…yes or no? If I can show you a cite that another government threw out AQ (under the threat of AQ and ObL being turned over to the US if they didn’t leave), will you be convinced? It’s gotta be either Saudi Arabia or Sudan… Neither is the same thing. For starters, your examples are recognized countries. I want to see that the Taliban could do this. > [@](#): > > No problem…except that you just don’t seem likely to be convinced this time either. I’m not sure you’ve even responded to the last post for which I asked a response. It feels like you’re carrying over your tactics against Dubinsky et al against me, though this situation is quite a bit different. You could convince me. Anyone could. Cough up some key cites. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/490 "2009-06-09T09:40:35Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Hey ivan, you seem to have missed these posts. Just giving you a friendly reminder to please respond to them. Same to EasyPhil. Thanks. > [@](#): > > ivan, every single time you are proven wrong you ignore the posts proving you wrong and either disappear for awhile or back up to this “absolutely anything is possible” defense and wait for people to “forget” how badly you were proven wrong, and then you return with the same junk. Do you really think you’re fooling us, or are you so consumed that you don’t even realize you’re doing this? “Consumed”? Really? How does that work, again? I may have made a few posts on the topic here and there, but for you to try and indicate that I have some sort of obsession with the subject just shows up your blinkered viewpoint for what it is. > [@](#): > > Maybe you should actually tell us what you believe or what you think happened for once instead of prodding at every aspect of 9/11 with CT-inspired questions and then retreating to “anything is possible” when proven wrong. I believe that unless anything can be proven to be unlikely beyond any reasonable doubt, then “anything is possible”. ( And the next person to mention “Flying Spaghetti Monsters” is a prize twat!) ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/491 "2009-06-09T11:41:16Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I believe that unless anything can be proven to be unlikely beyond any reasonable doubt, then “anything is possible”. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, repeatedly, on these very boards, that controlled demolition of the WTC complex was not possible. At this point anyone bringing it up as a possibility is demonstrating willful ignorance of the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/492 "2009-06-09T11:42:50Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > A good start would be a set of decently documented stories that link Bin Laden to the Taliban, and link the Taliban to full knowledge of the camps. Photos of Mullah Omar having Bin Laden try on the Cloak of Muhammad during a Free Afghanistan tea-sippers rally. Or… start with something to link them. Were you really not reading the news during the late 90’s and early 2000’s? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/493 "2009-06-09T14:17:37Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Were you really not reading the news during the late 90’s and early 2000’s? Talk about what I was doing in the late '90s would derail this conversation for sure. I don’t want to go off what I might or might not remember from the blizzard of reports from around that time- a lot of it was bs and part of the reason the wars didn’t make sense to me in the first place. I’m trying to sort it out now. Help me out. Show me how the Taliban are linked to Al Qaeda in such a way that they could grab Bin Laden and turn him over on demand. Is that so unreasonable of me? The question is muddied up by these quotes I found on [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda) > [@](#): > > The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term “al-Qaeda” to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it.[84] Bin Laden’s words on the origin of the name Al Quaeda: > [@](#): > > The name ‘al-Qaeda’ was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia’s terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.[34] And… > [@](#): > > What exactly al-Qaeda is, or was, remains in dispute. In the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, writer and journalist Adam Curtis contends that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organization is primarily an American invention. It is possible that the difficulty in formally linking the Taliban to Al Qaeda (and that link is the cause for war, no? So let’s take a look) arises from misconceptions about what Al Qaeda ‘is’. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/494 "2009-06-09T14:37:00Z")
Have you seen _The Power of Nightmares_? It’s a very good documentary, if it does overstate its case a little. Regardless of whether bin Laden called his loose association by the name “al Qaeda” or not, the loose association still did exist, had set up shop in Afghanistan, and were operating with at least the tacit approval of the Taliban. The Americans in 2001/2002 did overstate what they had. It’s pretty funny (in a regrettable way) to watch in _The Power of Nightmares_, Rumsfeld explaining on the news how AQ had elaborate complexes set up in caves - his diagram looked like NORAD’s facility at Cheyenne Mountain. But I think Rumsfeld was stupid enough to actually believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/495 "2009-06-09T14:51:38Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > “Consumed”? Really? How does that work, again? > > I may have made a few posts on the topic here and there, but for you to try and indicate that I have some sort of obsession with the subject just shows up your blinkered viewpoint for what it is. > > I believe that unless anything can be proven to be unlikely beyond any reasonable doubt, then “anything is possible”. ( And the next person to mention “Flying Spaghetti Monsters” is a prize twat!) You dodged the question about dodging questions. Again: do you think you’re fooling us or do you not even realize you’re doing it? And the question was **What do you believe happened in regards to 9/11/01?** , not just a generic “what do you believe?” ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/496 "2009-06-09T15:36:35Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I’m trying to sort it out now. Help me out. Sorry, I don’t have the time for that now. Maybe others will chime in with the details you seek. > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Show me how the Taliban are linked to Al Qaeda in such a way that they could grab Bin Laden and turn him over on demand. Is that so unreasonable of me? Not really, but even if it were proved that the Taliban couldn’t turn over OBL it doesn’t support any of your other conjectures. Why would that affect whether the US made a push to attack AQ? If the government couldn’t do it then we would - it’s a direct response to the attack of 9/11. I don’t see how the question of whether the Taliban was truly in control of Afghanistan really changes much of anything. In other words, why is this point relevant to your case? ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/497 "2009-06-09T18:29:38Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > So this sites you’re pointing me to indicate that the buidling was soundly constructed and this would happen to any building of similiar height? Right? > [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Like the entire complex being exempt from building and fire codes? > > 7 was constructed on a site that had been prepped for a building with a smaller footprint. Rather than tearing up the existing foundation and redoing it, as much of 7 was placed over it as possible. This left the entire southern side off the existing foundation and no additional foundation was poured. 7’s southern side had no direct contact with the ground and sustained heavy damage from being pummeled by debris from 1 when that collapsed. > > 7 essentially split in two as it fell; a significant portion went to the north and caused irreparable damage to the roof and upper floors of 30 West Broadway–across the street! The rest went to the southwest and caused heavy damage to the lower floors of the Verizon building. RtFT! I will say that it’s refreshing to read Try2B, since she doesn’t appear to impervious to facts and logic. ---
**Author:** ![Honey6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c57346/32.png) [@Honey6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honey6)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/498 "2009-06-10T01:54:53Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Circles. Well, I don’t believe thought processes, of which the above is a manifestation, are only supposed to be linear. This is not to say that I necessarily agree with the content of the above brainstorm; my mind is not made up in any way yet… ---
**Author:** ![Honey6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c57346/32.png) [@Honey6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honey6)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/499 "2009-06-10T02:05:57Z")
> [@Honey6](#): > > Well, I don’t believe thought processes, of which the above is a manifestation, are only supposed to be linear. > > This is not to say that I necessarily agree with the content of the above brainstorm; my mind is not made up in any way yet… “The above” means post #259 by RogueAOV. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/500 "2009-06-10T04:08:10Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I believe that unless anything can be proven to be unlikely beyond any reasonable doubt, then “anything is possible”. This is kind of what I am getting at in my OP when I say I would like to _categorically_ debunk various conspiracy theories. I don’t quite mean the philosophical sense of the word, more a legal sense. What am I talking about? I devised a little list of categories of conspiracy theories surrounding this issue way upthread. For any particular category, it is theoretically possible that the entire category could be debunked, permanently ending discussion of that category. But even in my sense of the word it is a tough standard. How do we categorically debunk something? 1. Prove a case that is mutually exclusive with some other category. For example, if the standard version- radical Muslim hijackers crashed planes into the buildings and brought them down, along with building 7 and so on- were _proved_ to be true, then other categories, like Jews did it, or the demolition theory, cannot also be true, but are in fact necessarily false. See what I mean? 2. Prove that a category is _impossible_. How to do this varies by case, but once it happens, that’s it. If you know of other ways, I’d like to hear them. In regard to this conversation, has the demolition theory been _categorically_ debunked? Well… it _is_ a high standard- our legal system uses the easier standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’- I would say ‘no’. There are still theoretically possible scenarios in which the demolition theory could be the case. For example, it hasn’t actually been disproved that the crashed planes were operated by remote control by some 3rd party and the whole thing blamed on Al Qaeda. BUT- while that case has not been _categorically_ debunked, neither is there, AFAIK, any solid reason to believe that is what happened. How one deals with a lack of _categorical_ debunking is a matter of taste. Some people can argue that, even though there is a ton of evidence supporting a case mutually exclusive with the demolition theory, and also a ton of evidence suggesting that none of the demolition theories jive with the evidence, since it is not debunked beyond all conceivable scenarios, then the case is still open. And you never know- the world is full of unlikely occurrences. Teeming, really. Every millionth thing is one-in-a-million, out of gadzillions of daily occurrences, no? For me, that isn’t the right way to use ‘maximum skepticism’ as I’ve called it. I think that is a tool properly used against some already-existing body of evidence. Take the whole she-bang, and line by line doubt every single thing, keeping track of which parts can stand up to the scrutiny. If there is anything left when you’re done, then you can have that much more confidence that it is actually true. This is more or less the debunking method I’m employing now against ‘the official version’- which itself is in fact a conspiracy theory. Notice- it can piss people off! The other way to use ‘maximum skepticism’ would be to take a case like the Remote Controlled Planes theory, and on the basis that it hasn’t been _categorically_ debunked, become a proponent of the theory and start fishing around for evidence. The difference is that there isn’t a body of evidence to begin with. This can also piss people off, but that part is a coincidence and no reason to confuse it with the first method! So. I hope this helps people understand where I’m coming from, and also why, though I disagree with your position, I haven’t given you a bunch of crap for it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=26)