...you have freedom of speech here, just watch what you say.
Labeling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is a convenient way to shut down conversation on uncomfortable and/or unsettling topics, a way to avoid engaging alternative theories about world happenings that don't fit your frame of reference. The public's suspicion of groups like the TLC, Freemasons, and Bilderbergers, etc. is precisely because of the connection between their secrecy and their power their members hold over what happens around us. While some people with mental issues will look at the workings of these groups as almost something supernatural and nefarious, there are also those of us who believe personal inquiry and curiosity are the best ways to decide if something makes sense or not. OKNancy, you seem to be attempting to discourage personal inquiry and curiosity and that ain't good.
I've read as much available literature on the events of 9/11, from many authors (architects, engineers, etc.) who don't believe the official government-sanctioned theory of what happened, and I've read defenses of the official theory from sources who believe everything happened the way the 9/11 Commission explained. In my opinion though, I haven't seen a single defender of the official theory satisfactorily explain all the problems with the official theory. Now, to many people that will earn me the label of "kook" and "crackpot" but I've arrived at my conclusions based on my own interest in it after carefully considering both sides. I assure you I am perfectly sane and able to decide for myself what is believable and what is not.
Yes, Alex Jones and other folks on the far-right question the validity of the government's 9/11 story, but trying to lump them all under the "racist" and "anti-Semitic" umbrella is intellectually lazy and shows no attempt to consider differing viewpoints.
= new reply since forum marked as read