SMC, its heartening to hear that you accept the 9/11 conspiracy theory for what it is.
You have given the defnition for a conspiracy theory but haven`t quite explained how you discriminate between a CT and the "truth"? What is, in your eyes, "credible evidence" that would change your mind on 9/11?? (going back in time doesn`t count)
I am actually quite intrigued by how many people (in fact probably the majority) have used the phrase "the truth" over the years.
When I look at the phrase "the truth", a very key important word of the phrase is
the. The phrase
THE truth suggests that's THE truth, the one and only truth. The ultimate truth - it's how the event happened.
However, hen most people use the phrase "the truth", what they actually mean is
their version of the truth. For instance, many people call Pakistan's support of Taliban "THE truth". Well it's not THE truth, it's
their version of the truth. It's what they believe the truth is. So in essence, everyone has their own version of the truth.
Now, more specifically to you point, what should the general population refer to as the truth? Well obviously as of now, some refer to 9/11 conspiracy theory as THE truth. That's wrong, because that's their version of the truth, not THE truth.
Now as far as the truth is concerned, there are a few categories of claims. Some claims are very trivial. We all accept that the truth is that 1 + 1 = 2. If someone is generally accepted true and is trivial to see, then you don't need any evidence.
What we're talking about here, though, are accusations, not trivial things. Now as far as the accusations are concerned, you have to prove someone guilty. Can't just say I believe that that person is guilty. What constitutes good evidence? Well that would depend on what law and psychologists consider good evidence. There are very specific rules set to prove someone guilty for certain crimes.
What would show me that 9/11 was not a false flag? Well legally speaking, I have to prove to you that 9/11 was false flag, not other way around. But if you ask just for curiosity, well the problem with this particular one is that we have coincidence and incompetence after coincidence after incompetence. There has never been a full investigation. I would like not to go into the details as it would divert the topic.