[Sailor Steve]

For the "official" story to be true, several things have to have happened that some people don't want to believe. That's fine. Some people question all the evidence. That's a good thing.

On the other hand, for the CT version to be true several hundred people have to have acted in concert, planting explosives and evidence, silencing witnesses, hiding the hundred or more passengers who were supposedly on the "real" flight, silencing certain witnesses...basically getting away with a huge deception and hoping that not one single person involved will come forth and admit the deception. This also raises question, that the Truthers are careful to avoid thinking about. Where is the real plane? More importantly, where are all the passengers?

Most important of all, the CT version relies on the concept that while these conspirators are very good at planting evidence and fooling all the sheep, they are also so incompetent, so bad at it that they couldn't even get parts from the right airliner, couldn't get all the witnesses to agree and couldn't get their stories straight.

So if they're so good at it why doesn't the evidence match up (or so the Truthers claim), and if they're so bad at it why isn't there absolute proof?

As for eyewitnesses giving different versions, here's a known real-life incident: On November 1, 1949, an Eastern Airlines DC-4 and a Lockheed P-38 fighter collided over Washington DC, Killing everyone on the airliner. As a boy I read about it in a book called The Probable Cause, an investigation into several airliner crashes, written by aviation expert Robert J. Serling. In the book Serling recounts the testimony given by several eyewitnesses on the ground. I don't have a copy of the book now, so I'm only going on memory, but the eyewitnesses apparently didn't see the same incident. The fighter hit the airliner. The airliner hit the fighter. The fighter shot the airliner down, then crashed. One witness even said the airliner did a full loop and then fell on the fighter.

The point is that "eyewitness testimony" doesn't always add up, and going by what different witnesses said doesn't really prove very much one way or the other. Just ask any detective with crime scene experience.

My other point is that while the Truthers accuse anyone who doesn't believe them of being sheep who only believe what they are told, they themselves only believe what they want to believe, and refuse to accept that sometimes things really are what they seem.