In other news, sometimes I run across conspiracy theories that seem so incredibly easy to debunk and based on such outrageously flimsy "evidence" that I'm inclined to think probably they appeared for the purpose of being easily debunked - to draw attention away from more serious allegations and to contribute to making all conspiracy theorists look silly. The allegation that the Apollo moon landings were hoaxed is one I'm putting in that category. But when it comes to 9/11 I have this cognitive problem that blocks my ability to think it makes sense that a bunch of flight school students who couldn't handle a Cessna competently pulled off expert maneuvers with Boeing airliners, using 2 planes to collapse 3 skyscrapers in New York, (building 7 was the one that Larry Silverstein said the decision was made to "pull" it and this happened after the BBC mistakenly announced that it had already collapsed). Then there were the multiple explosions heard by witnesses, pools of molten metal found in the wreckage even though the fires in the buildings were relatively cool as indicated by the color of the smoke, the claims by politicians that nobody ever imagined such a thing could happen even though there was confusion that day caused by the fact that a drill for the same scenario was going on at the same time. Those are a few of the reasons why people with cognitive powers comparable to mine are more likely to compare this event to the Reichstag Fire than Pearl Harbor, but I can also understand why others would believe what the mainstream media has told us so willingly. Human nature can be pretty good at avoiding conclusions with really unsettling implications regardless of what explanations best match the evidence.