You neglect the issue of trust and competency. Whether adult B should trust the gov or whatever doesn’t really matter to me. What matters to me is why I should trust/believe what Adult B claims.

1. People who are incompetent or ignorant in terms of killing humans, have little credibility when they speak of gun control, gun safety, or preventing crime. They have to get their credibility from somewhere else than merely the claim that they know what they are talking about. The same is true for explosives, terrorism, war, community protection.

2. Organizations that are merely tools for a Leftist Deus Ex Machina Utopian plan, cannot and should not be trusted.

3. Those who are easy to con and fool, should not be telling me or anyone else they know which cons will fool us. Those who say they know the truth because they were once fooled by government cons, are examples of people who are easy to con: tools.

The basic difference is that if people were right, they could use that data to predict with amazing accuracy what Bush would have done. Everything would add up, before or after the fact. The same would be true of Obama.

If Bush or somebody else was doing a false flag operation, they would have found WMDs in Iraq. They did not. This suggests either the false flag wasn’t done by Bush, or the Bush admin could kill 3000 Americans and get away with it, yet can’t plant WMDs in a foreign country they just decapitated.

If the things about Obama were true, Fast and Furious (false flag) would be covered up and things 1000 times worse would still be working in the background.

The point is, people who are incompetent at doing things will never be able to figure out how these strange, alien, government entities do their conspiracies. They have no reality to compare it to.

After having become a “Truther” myself I encounter extremely polarized opinions regularly. Obama is the man he claims to be vs. Obama is a construct, which would necessitate a government conspiracy. Israel is acting out of legitimate concern for its safety vs. Israel is engaged in intentional genocide and quite literally seeks to rule the planet, which would necessitate a government conspiracy. Bohemian Grove is an exclusive gentleman’s club vs. Bohemian Grove is a theater of occult activities, which would necessitate a government conspiracy. JFK was assassinated by Oswald alone vs. JFK was assassinated by persons working for US agencies, which would necessitate a government conspiracy. Do you see where I’m going with this?

So, isn’t it possible that the people who accept the official consensus account of the 9/11 events tend to view any alternative account of historical events as less likely? I haven’t been able to test this theory, but it would fit with my observations. Wouldn’t it be helpful for the groups on both sides of the debate to know each persons opinions of other controversial events?

I suspect that, many of the proponents of the official consensus account are more heavily invested in the belief that government is truthful, beneficial and protective of its citizens. It wouldn’t even enter their minds that none of us in the US are considered citizens in the first place. To then accept more complex scenarios involving elements of government acting in concert to deceive the masses would be inconceivable.

I blame most of this continued disbelief in government conspiracy on the government. For, the government seems unwilling to ever admit its mistakes. Sure, the less conspiratorial crimes are admitted on occasion. But, more disturbing crimes like those that led to water fluoridation (toxic waste disposal) or why the US went off the gold standard (gold bond issuance) will never be admitted to. And why? After all, the actual individuals who committed the crimes are deceased. My guess is that the current power structure sees admissions of this magnitude would have serious repercussions that might diminish their authority.

What say you?

There are thousands of articles debunking 9/11 truthers’ beliefs. Just refer them to some of them, such as, for example, this one and this.

http://methamphetamineabusediscussionforum.yuku.com/topic/15111/911-A-Retrospective?page=1

Remember, everyone: The truther’s goal is not to illuminate and inform. It’s to induce the mere illusion of uncertainty in order to start a debate over nebulous details disconnected from all its context. If he really wanted proof of a part, all he had to do was look:

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2601518&postcount=30

.. But then, if he did that, he couldn’t strike the pose of “just asking questions” to initiate his attempt at creating that illusion of doubt about the events, could he?

His response to this will be illustrative of the standard truther tactics: Jump to yet another talking point. It may be the firefighters quotes (out of context) that supposedly demonstrate explosives in the buildings. It may be the scientist who supposedly found evidence of thermite, thus supposedly proving the towers were intentionally collapsed. Maybe it’ll be the standard appeal to authority for all the “architects and engineers” who signed the petition calling for a reopening of the investigation of 9/11. But whatever it’ll be, it’ll already have been answered and refuted a long time ago (the whole “jet parts question” play has been in existence since 2007). Just go to the 911mytsh.com, the debunking911.com, the “Mark Roberts” collection of links (sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies), or the James Randi Educational Foundation Conspiracy Theories subforum. All of it will be there. In excruciating detail, unfortunately, but it’ll be there. But the bottom line is that:
1. You can bet any of the “questions” asked will have been answered years ago.
2. You can bet that the questions will be distortions of what really happened (for example, the “sounds of explosions”… look it up at one of those links)
3. You can bet they’ll lean on “experts” of questionable validity (for example, the physicist who committed multiple, egregious errors in his materials analysis in concluding he found thermite… when he really found paint).
4. You can be they’ll do their best to subtract any and all of the context they can in order to create that illusion of doubt.

But what you can’t bet on is that answering his question directly will satisfy him. He will simply gallop off to the next truther talking point – whether it be the supposed “stand down” order, or the “pilots couldn’t hit the buildings” claim, or the “cell phones don’t work at altitude” red herring… nothing. He’s simply trying to make it look as though there’s doubt about what “really happened”. So don’t engage him beyond what we’ve done so far. Just point him right back at the sources he’ll attempt to denigrate. And let him flail. If truthers had something truly substantial to give, they wouldn’t be shunned by the rest of the conspiracy addicts community (JFK’ers I’ve read ridicule truthers), let alone most of the political left (journalist Matt Taibbi and talking head Bill Maher – both very liberal figures – despise truthers, and there’s also Bill Clinton’s rejection of them). He’s all sound and fury, signifying nothing. As is the entirety of the so called “Truth” movement.

Reason, logic, evidence, will not help them. It’s not like it is helping the US out of the Left’s Utopian Deus Ex either, of course.

Seriously.