Thank you for agreeing with me. I'm sorry if I did not address your points, because they did not appear to be clear to me. In fact, my first response to you was "censored" to my amazement.

I don't know why certain people were banned at 911blogger, but if the point of the site is to argue about everything, and fight with each other instead of advancing the cause of 9/11 truth and getting answers, I don't really want to have a part in that. Debating just for the sake of debating is not really of value unless constructive points of view are forwarded, and genuine debate (i.e. not entrenchment) is taking place.

I agree that people shouldn't really name call for YOUR beliefs, and you will notice that I did not engage in this behavior at 911blogger. Yes, people strongly disprove of the no-plane at the WTC towers, but I think that they should either

1. Ignore you
2. Be civil in their disagreement to you

Personally, I think no one is going to ever be convinced of the no-plane at WTC theory, so I'm not that concerned about debating it or worried about it becoming a major issue... The Space Beam theory on the other hand, while equally absurd in my opinion... is supported by some pretty clever disinformation that I have seen some people fall for, and not just the people who think that DEW was used. I'd rather not get into those points at the moment, but I think that discussing this issue is partly useful for example in ending misunderstandings about specific things… for ecample: how the building contents were turned into "nano-dust" and other fictional concepts that even some reasonable people believe.

It appears to me that you like to play devils' advocate on a lot of issues Ningen, and that's fine with me. In fact, it is something that we should all do.