I agree that there is a difference, but how are these 'conspiracies' to be deemed absurd and unsubstantiated if we cannot debate the views of scientists and experts (for example Scholars for 9/11 Truth) who do not agree with the officially published facts?. I believe there are large number of small anomalies in the big picture of 9/11. Whether these anomalies are irrelevant or not is what the discussion should be about.

It is only due to the diligence of large numbers of people that we are now confronting the 'absurd and unsubstantiated' claim that Iraq was not a slam-dunk invasion to destroy terrorism, but another move in the neo-con game plan. Thanks to diligence and debate this view is now being substantiated.

Absurdity is a good description of many of the activities of the so-called military-Industrial complex. Sending your citizens to die to protect the profits of your pals and backers is not the worst example, but a horrific one. And how are facts to be substantiated when the evidence is concealed, destroyed, buried, obfuscated and dismissed?

You can't be me, I'm taken