Hey all, this is my first post and I really like the way the forums are set up. It appears to me that this site can be really educational and helpful to everyone. I just went through the last 9-11 thread and being someone who's done quite a bit of research on the subject, I was disappointed that it was closed. A little background on myself...for about 2 years I believed the govt.'s story about what happened blindly. Mostly because I didn't want to believe that they could be behind such atrocities. Then I remember reading a book called the Sovereign Individual by Dr. Dale Davidson. One line struck me in the book as it talked about Bill Clinton running a drug cartel through Mena, Arkansas. Now I admit that I couldn't stand Clinton, but couldn't believe he could do something like this. So I did some research and it led me to other stuff like Iran-Contra...etc...and ultimately to 9-11. Ironically, it then led me on a pursuit of history. i've always been a fan of ancient history...especially the Roman and Egyptian Empires...but I got caught up in our countries founding. And the more and more I read about our founding fathers, I have gained an unparallelled respect and admiration for those men...if we only had men like that in office today...but enough about myself, I'll get to the issue at hand. It seams to me that in the past thread on 9-11, there seamed to be 3 groups present....those that were labeled "conspiracy theorists" because they question our government...something James Madison said every patriotic American should always do. Then there was the group that blindly believed the governments explanation of 9-11...a group I used to be in....regretably because as I see it, blindly believing the words of another can lead to deception and manipulation of oneself by those perpetuating the lies...i.e. Hitler's Germany And then the third group, which I love, cause they questioned both sides for the facts and were coming to informed decisions on their own accords. I'd like to believe that this is where I stand as it represents an open mind and not to discredit any theory without a fair investigation. Anyways, when I look at a debate, investigation, or anything where two sides argue on any given subject...I look at who gets angry first and starts the name calling...I do this because more often than not, the party doing this is wrong. The feel threatened when being disproven and instead of using rational thought and relevant evidence and information, their emotions get the best of them and by trying to degrade their opposition, they think they are gaining some sort of victory. what I found especially disheartening was the "conspiracy theory" label used to discredit someone. What a joke. It seams nowadays all you gotta say is, "Oh you're a conspiracy theorist, nutjob, extreme right winger, radical liberal, etc"...and that supposedly earns you a victory. Well in all honesty, especially on a scientific board, arent we all conspiracy theorists? I mean isn't a conspiracy theorist someone who goes against the mass appeal of conventional wisdom and pursues a belief in the opposite approach? Was Columbus not a conspiracy theorist cause he believed the world was round and not flat? What about the Wright Brothers, they thought we could fly. And the Jews and Germans never thought Hitler would do what he did in the Holocaust. They refused to believe the conspiracy. Well history has the answer to what happened there. What about those Roman conspiracy theorists that believed Nero burnt Rome or the ones that believed Hitler burnt the Reichstag. Basically, until a task is accomplished that revolutionizes the field in science, math, engineering, warfare, etc...isn't it considered a conspiracy that it could be true? Now I'm not saying that every so-called conspiracy theory is true, or that even a majority are true, but what I am saying in these instances and a plethora of other historical examples that can be used is that even though conventional wisdom and mass appeal believe one thing to be true...quite often it is not the case. Therefore, to use that phrase to try to discredit anyone is absurd and shows an overall lack of knowledge on the one using it in my opinion On that 9-11 thread, I woulda liked to continue on it. I personally didn't see much evidence or debunking coming from the government coincidence explanation. What I saw was people looking for or trying to explain answers and it falling on deaf ears, without any logical and scientific explanation. What I think the moderator eluded to was to pick one point and go from there. I would love to see that. But I know with 9-11 there is so much information about so many different aspects that it is mind boggling to try to just pick a point and not get off tangent. And to one who hasn't done any independent research themselves it can seam confusing and overwhelming. But I think it would be beneficial for all if we could start a thread where everyone agrees on one point and debate that until all the evidence from both sides has been laid on the table, and then move to the next. I know not everyone's gonna agree on everything but maybe it can change ones perspective on a certain aspect, or lay a foundation for someone to do their own research on similar matters or what not. In closing, I really liked a quote in Ivan Seeking's signature..."There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." - J. Robert Oppenheimer That is a very powerful and great quote. But it seams to me to be highly hypocritical to site that quote on ones signature, while closing the thread down thus putting barriers on freedom of inquiry, where questions are not allowed to be asked, the governments explanation is being doubted yet anyone who does so is crazy in your book, people are trying to seek evidence and correct errors, but it seams no attempt is being made. I understand that it might be one of those things you've seen 1,000 times and you didn't like the way it was going. And while that is understandable, is it not understandable to let others who might not have heard about these topics to view, enter, partake, and learn from them? Therefore, I propose a format where a question or point is viewed at a time where everyone on either side can chime in and present there evidence and debunk the others in a friendly manner, with the ultimate goal of the truth at hand. Anyways, this is a proposal that if acceptable, I would enjoy to see happen and thanks for a website where one can go to teach and learn about physics.