Comment: Again, it's not a single theory

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: 9/11 is the pet conspiracy of (see in situ)

Again, it's not a single theory

I don't know what Mr. Nystrom thinks about it, beyond that he clearly thinks there's something there that deserves more investigation. Quite a lot of people have that view. Quite a lot take that view without buying into some of the more extreme theories. It's possible to take that view without necessarily buying into any of the theories.

Doggydog's law says: bad arguments drive out good. And that's what you're doing here. You've seen some bad arguments and you're focused on that. One, because you can, and it makes for an easy response. And two, because in general people make the best argument they can make, so if they're giving you weak arguments then you might assume there are no strong ones. But people are fallible. And some people have their own agendas.

So ignore the bad arguments. Is there nothing whatsoever about the 9/11 investigation that would justify calling for a new investigation? Saying that a new investigation seems like a good idea doesn't have to mean anything more than that. You don't have to buy into any theories you think are implausible, and you don't have to start parroting any of the bad arguments that you are parodying here. You can take Ron Paul's views on blowback as a sane starting point, and go no further than he did in saying that WTC 7 is "suspicious." What would stop you from doing that?