See? This is how it should be done. You don't agree and that's perfectly fine because you actually put time into thinking about and naming real possibilities to defend the other side of the argument. That's the only think I want out of it. If you (or anyone else, for that matter) actually managed to change my view, I'd be more than happy to admit that I was wrong. But critical thinking is what is needed and I'm glad I got at least one counter-argument with thought put into it.

Regarding the asbestos, it was indeed irrelevant to the topic. I was just referring to a particular group of firefighters and parademics who were first responders at WTC and are now dead or dying of asbestos caused diseases and decided to join and create a movement to sensibilize (is this a word? "sensibilize"? not a native speaker, I'm not sure...) people about their problem and the fact that - in their view - the events were actually an inside job. Now, at this point I'm not claiming it was, I'm just pointing to a big group of brave people who think it was and that they got the short end of the stick. They just so happen to be dead or dying of lung disease and I mentioned it, but yeah, not really relevant to the topic, though.

As far as humans looking to things that aren't there, yeah, I agree, it happens way too often and I might be doing that do. At this point, I don't think I am, since I feel like I have enough to feel strongly about my point, but still, I accept that it is a real possibility (however small I may think it is) that I'm "crazy" about this particular topic. But, like we both stated by now, it's still better than simply being "lazy" and avoiding thinking by ourselves.

And I'm glad you didn't lash onto me just because I have a different opinion on a subject, however silly or weird it may seem to the majority of people. Thanks for that.