Originally Posted by
Universal
This "debunking" of conspiracy theories commits the Straw Man fallacy.
You've taken a lucdicrous, OBVIOUSLY stupid version of a conspiracy, and by pointing out the obvious holes, purport to have "debunked" 9/11 conspiracy theories.
I believe, for my own part, that 9/11 may have been a kind of "conspiracy". But, here is the version I would be inclined to believe:
Elements within the American administration were aware of an impending terrorist attack on the united states.
They were aware that the attack would be prominant and get a lot of publicity.
For a combination of reasons, including the desire to generate a pretext for a future war, elements within the American administration talked down the possibility of attack to those beneath them and prevented adequate "follow-up".
These elements, however, were not aware of the nature or full scale of the attack, though to what extent I am unsure.
Now, I anticipate that this theory will never be proven, and that it is extremely difficult to disprove such theories, because of the nature of a "conspiracy theory" - it entails the idea that the conspiracy will be hidden and attempts made to cover it up.
But, I believe there's a good deal of sense behind the theory. I'm not saying I believe it outright, but just that this would be a much more credible version of a 9/11 conspiracy theory.
[/b]