You miss my point. Many 'believed' back then, but where was the evidence?  There appear to be many facts which still have to emerge. It is diligence, debate and discovery that have turned an 'absurd and unsubstantiated' conspiracy theory into - well, something we still cannot understand.

Of course the two situations cannot be directly compared. And indeed I do not want to pursue the 911 'conspiracy'. What I am asking are matters of principle in open debate: 1) Who decides what is absurd? and 2) Isn't the process of the search for substantiation something that is done here at ET all the time on various subjects?

And I did not say the 911 was stage managed. I said there were anomalies that have yet to be explained. They may be irrelevant, but it cannot be substantiated yet that they are irrelevant.

A week ago, as Techno pointed out, it would have been an absurd thought that a 40 year old 8 lane bridge carrying 100,000 cars every day would collapse - in a state noted for a culture of maintenance. Or that there are 40 or more other bridges in the US with an even worse rating of structural integrity.

Would it be absurd to contemplate that the entire population of the Nordic region could be made homeless in the course of a few days. It has happened in India and Bangladesh.

I am not sure we know any more what absurd is. Neither do we really know who is to blame for anything, ultimately. Except ourselves. My favourite conspiracy theory is that everyone in the world is on drugs - something I have been trying to substantiate here for quite some time. ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken