But rather at the fact that I don't think people would really take the time to make themselves out to look crazy as you would seem to be implying.
I would say that there motivation is anything
but trying to look crazy.
That's just the end result
From College and High Schoolers playing 'cool' - to the genuinely unbalanced, to those making money of of Conspiracy books, to those who do believe in it with just as much blind bias as some of those who dismiss it.
I would look at it as though thats what you're doing here, but unlike conspiracy, you just discredit everything outright as being too ridiculous to believe in and even more humorously suggest there is nothing in which to believe in.
My philosophy is quite simple: there must be 'truth' - a certain world view that is 'reality'.
If we choose to depart from the world view that the majority of humanity sees as correct, and that I happen (in this case
) to agree with - the debate is no longer about the facts (which will be interpreted differently), but about the lens through which the mutable facts are perceived, the world view, the bias.
Thus, the way I look at the 9/11 conspiracy: If the 'facts' lead to such wildly different conclusions between say, Apophis and I and neither of us are crazy - then it is a matter of Point of view - of how we look at the world.
Clearly then, if I were to accept the 9/11 conspiracy I would have to see things differently - I would have to look back through all the literature I've read, the thousands of books, and come to a conclusion that 2+2 did not equal 4, it equaled 5.
Let me put it this way: The only way I could see myself accepting the 9/11 conspiracy, facts aside, is if I believed it to be of enormous proportions. For only something of such enormous proportions seems logical.
It would need be of such enormous proportions, that David Icke would weep for lost cultists... and I feel, looking at that possibility, that to accept such a massive conspiracy,
would lead to a state in which "there is nothing in which to believe in." because the denial of truth in such a state, has no worse repercussion than embracing it.
We're pretty screwed after all, if our president is Satan on earth - and Saddam Huissien is a martyr defending the oil against greedy America.
Therefore, I reject that world view on the grounds that, even if it is the truth - I am no worse off by denying it.*
Why - if that were the case you wouldn't have formed an entire arguement about it in the first place now would you?
Because, it would have been just as pointless, and useless to not post.
*You must bear with me here, I'm thinking up counter-arguments to it myself... it is one of those things that skips beta testing due to the late hour, the lack of sleep, the cold medicine, etc. etc.
?
