Freshly squeezed conspiracy theory anyone?

The term conspiracy theory has become a very loaded one. Many people automatically dismiss anything that comes after that has been said, and there are others that seem to fall into the uncritical acceptance of whatever comes after too. Both attitudes are lazy. We can only judge anything after carefully looking at the evidence. Even then we must always be aware that we might not have the full details. Practically we may be required to base future decisions on any information we learn and so we have to take a balance of probabilities. Do the counter arguments to the case you are looking at make sense- are they logical, possible and do they hold together in a congruent story? Do they deal with every part of the issue or avoid detailing some parts? We should also remember that we, as human beings, are very selective in our attitudes. We tend to look for things that support our current positions rather then be open to all evidence. Many people are unaware of this- possibly denying it when it is raised? For us, as ordinary citizens, we may have to accept that we don't have the necessary information to draw a definitive conclusion and so must make do with leaving the question open. Its far better to say that we don't know than to follow the trend of having to have something to say on everything. I guess pubs would be much quieter places if that happened! When you have experts and/or people in positions of power on both sides of a discussion things can get very confusing. We have to contend with the following- potential lying, different interpretations of evidence, the experts' propensity to be selective like everyone else and, sometimes, whether these people are actually experts at all...like humanities graduates writing science columns in the media. All in all, getting to the bottom of a conspiracy theory may not be that simple. I am open to the idea that conspiracy theories are story lines that cultures invent to make sense of events, but that doesn't mean that all of them are false. Making a checklist of all the contentious issues and then looking at the available evidence will help to make it clear which ideas there is strong evidence for, which ideas there is evidence against and which ones have to be left open. I'll leave you with a question relating to the assertion that a plane crashed into the headquarters of the US military. Go back and look at the original footage of the aftermath..prior to the collapse of the weakened section. one side of the argument ascertains that, as there wasn't the expected plane debris on the lawn, then the official story is wrong. A group on the other side, with a simulation, shows the whole plane disappearing into the building structure. If the official side argument is correct, and here is the question, where are the long holes in the structure where the wings went in? No holes where they went in, no debris outside. What's left? Did the wings actually fold right back at ninety degrees and enter the hole tucked up nicely against the fuselage- which nobody has claimed yet I'm pleased. So when you've watched the clip, examined the surroundings on it, let me know what you Think!